Total Nightmare @ Disney

[jayandstacey]

Most of the argument over the past 20 or 30 pages has not been about whether it happens often or not. It has actually been about whether Disney should be faulted when it happens or not. That's "faulted" in a vague sense. I'm not for demanding some kind of ridiculous compensation when it happens. But if they can't have some reasonably high success rate at 3 pm (or 4 pm, as the case may be) they should either staff up to improve their success rate, or change the stated check-in time.

David

Actually, I think this is the root of the argument.

I agree with what you've said here except the "staff up" part - as I believe Disney staffs to nearly a 100% success rate.

Yet, it doesn't hit 100%. Why not? Let's say a group from, say, Brazil has a block of 20 rooms. They find out their flights have been pushed back 2 days and simply don't "check out". They are paying for their rooms but suddenly 20 rooms disappeared and are not available to incoming guests. Through upgrades, delayed arrivals, maybe even moving some of the Brazil group they are able to accomodate most - but maybe not all.

I guess what I'm saying is that I suspect the breakdowns often have nothing to do with Disney staff, investment or commitment. (not saying it isn't possible...)

And I think that's been the difference between the two sides of this debate, that one assumes Disney is failing, the other does not. On either side, we're likely sometimes right and sometimes wrong. But that assumption will drive our reaction to the incident.

...And by extension, our position in this debate.

 

[mousermerf]

The number of people employed at WDW has dropped in the last 5 years.

Same number of resorts, parks, attractions (roughly) and yet the number of workers is way down.

That's cost cutting that was unwarrented and now is seriously have an effect on things like room readiness.

15 rooms of brazilians would be relocated to an open resort or shipped off property if the resort was fully booked for the period.

Best Practice: "Never inconvienence one guest to convienence another."

Keeping the Brazilians (or whoever it may be) and creating a situation for an arriving guest is a direct violation of this best practice and any CM doing so is in the wrong per their training.

 

[maxiesmom]

Just to clarify, no room means no room anywhere at the level you booked or above anywhere at a Disney resort.

Disney has a specific list of who-goes-where-and-when in those situations, and even All Star Music rooms on discount rate will start ending up at the true 4 star hotels in Orlando with shuttle service on-demand to Disney - with Disney paying out of pocket for it all (and refunding your base room rate).

The problem being, the resort will desperately try to get you to accept a lesser offer so they don't have to fork out the cash.

As you had to go and mention ASMu, I have another question: Would you take a downgraded room as an acceptable solution to not getting into "your" room right on time? Would you be willing to accept a non-prefered room instead of a prefered one? I ask because even though I thought Disney had a policy to not downgrade a reservation, I ended up in a non-prefered room at ASMu, even though I had reserved a prefered one.

We all know the Disney clause lingo pretty much states you are just guaranteed A room on Disney property, not the one you think you reserved. I wonder if a solution Disney might propose would be to throw you into whatever room was available at 3pm, even if it was a downgrade. A sort of 'It is 3pm here is your room take it or leave it now shut up" kind of thing.

 

[dqpowell]

Disney does in fact let you check in without taking ownership of your room. They offer it as a perk in fact!

All I'll say is that I agree it's a perk when I try to check in at 10 AM but the room isn't ready. It's a really nice perk, I think. But I don't consider it a perk after their stated check-in time. Then it's an inconvenience.

I have had them tell me check in time is approximate.

But if it's approximate, then what does it even mean? Again, see my previous example about 10 am vs. 3:30 pm. One might also say that you can check in any time on day of arrival. Maybe you can get in your room, and maybe you'll have to wait. It's approximate.

Though it has never bothered me the way it appears it bothers some people.

It's the principle of the thing.

I really would like to know what your idea would be for Disney funding additional housekeepers to turn over the rooms fast enough.

WDW makes oodles of money on room rentals alone, ignoring everything else. Consider a resort like Pop Century. 2880 rooms. Let's conservatively estimate that they have at least 50% occupancy even during low-crowd seasons. (I have gone in several low-crowd seasons and never found Pop anything less than packed to the gills with people.)

If they average $75 per occupied room per night gross (likely a conservative estimate), then they're pulling in $108,000 per day at half occupancy. Some of that is profit (I won't pretend to know how much). Some of it covers maintenance and upkeep. Some of it covers operating expenses, including mousekeeping staff.

They've cut staff to increase the profit margin. That means more money is going to profits, but it's not like they weren't making any profit before. If they are missing the check-in time goal, then increasing mousekeeping staff won't make them unprofitable. It will make their profit margin shrink somewhat.

They could pass these expenses on to the guest, if they insist on maintaining that profit margin. Or they could absorb the hit and still make money.

That's the theory, anyway.

David

 

[Suellen]

Would you take a downgraded room as an acceptable solution to not getting into "your" room right on time? Would you be willing to accept a non-prefered room instead of a prefered one?

I would but I would expect the difference in price back.

Again it would be situational depending on how bad I wanted to get in A room.

 

[mousermerf]

As you had to go and mention ASMu, I have another question: Would you take a downgraded room as an acceptable solution to not getting into "your" room right on time? Would you be willing to accept a non-prefered room instead of a prefered one? I ask because even though I thought Disney had a policy to not downgrade a reservation, I ended up in a non-prefered room at ASMu, even though I had reserved a prefered one.

We all know the Disney clause lingo pretty much states you are just guaranteed A room on Disney property, not the one you think you reserved. I wonder if a solution Disney might propose would be to throw you into whatever room was available at 3pm, even if it was a downgrade. A sort of 'It is 3pm here is your room take it or leave it now shut up" kind of thing.

You should have stood your ground - anything the guest is willing to accept is considered acceptable compensation and recovery. Flat out, don't accept a downgrade as the company has the policy and ability to upgrade generously. A downgrade should be offered in cases like AsMu as a first attempt, and is required to include a decrease in room rate and refund and possible other compensation (like the box-o-chocolate and such).

If you had refused, you'd have pushed up the chain to the moderates and if they had no rooms then a deluxe and if that had no rooms anywhere (including the presidential suites) then you'd be off to concierge at some resort in Orlando.

 

[dqpowell]

Just expanding on my previous post a little bit...

Now substitute these pulled-from-the-air calculations into a moderate or deluxe resort. The nightly charges are double or triple what they get at Pop Century, but their operating expenses are almost certainly nowhere near double what they are at Pop.

The profit margins at a resort charging $300 per night are going to be much higher than at Pop. I could almost (not quite, but almost) forgive them if sometimes my room at Pop isn't available until 5 or later. But I'm going to be a lot less forgiving if I try to check in at the Poly or WL and my room isn't ready.

David

 

[mousermerf]

Note: Management at the Contemporary is "known" for having upgraded a guest from a pre-rennovation garden-wing room to the concierge level of the tower with MK-view because the guest disliked the room, but more precisely, called it worse then a Motel 8.

 

[kaytieeldr]

15 rooms of brazilians would be relocated to an open resort or shipped off property if the resort was fully booked for the period.

Best Practice: "Never inconvienence one guest to convienence another."

Keeping the Brazilians (or whoever it may be) and creating a situation for an arriving guest is a direct violation of this best practice and any CM doing so is in the wrong per their training.

I'm not an attorney but I'm relatively certain if the Guest isn't breaking any laws and pays for the room, they can't be relocated. The incoming Guest would be the one (ideally) upgraded to a different room or, if necessary, resort.

But I wasn't aware we were discussing completely unavailable rooms. When did the conversation turn? I thought this controversy was about the occasional room that will be ready that same afternoon but for some reason isn't quite prepared for occupancy at exactly 3:00:00 PM.

 

[jayandstacey]

15 rooms of brazilians would be relocated to an open resort or shipped off property if the resort was fully booked for the period.

Best Practice: "Never inconvienence one guest to convienence another."

Keeping the Brazilians (or whoever it may be) and creating a situation for an arriving guest is a direct violation of this best practice and any CM doing so is in the wrong per their training.

How is that not inconvienencing the Brazilians?

 

[jayandstacey]

All I'll say is that I agree it's a perk when I try to check in at 10 AM but the room isn't ready. It's a really nice perk, I think. But I don't consider it a perk after their stated check-in time. Then it's an inconvenience.

The prior poster was talking about taking ownership, not possesion. As in "you just bought the room." It was facetious.

 

[maxiesmom]

The CM who downgraded me at the Music stated that Disney has a policy of not making existing guests move if they decide to extend their vacation. And that was why my reserved and paid for prefered room was not available.

So Disney will not make the 15 rooms of Brazilian people move. At least that is what I was told was their policy.

 

[mousermerf]

How is that not inconvienencing the Brazilians?

You're solving their problem, just not the way they want it solved neccessarily. They initiated a problem, it is not a good practice to extend the problem based on their personal situation to other guests.

Situation A: Brazilians stay, other guests moved. 2x guest have issues on their trip.

Situations B: Brazilians move, other guests oblivious. 1x the guest have issues on their trip.

 

[mousermerf]

The CM who downgraded me at the Music stated that Disney has a policy of not making existing guests move if they decide to extend their vacation. And that was why my reserved and paid for prefered room was not available.

So Disney will not make the 15 rooms of Brazilian people move. At least that is what I was told was their policy.

They were wrong and you should have been upgraded.

 

[dqpowell]

How is that not inconvienencing the Brazilians?

Another tangent. All this talk about "Brazilians" reminds me of a joke I heard a few years ago.

Donald Rumsfeld is reporting to President Bush and the cabinet in the morning briefing. After talking about some budgetary matters, he moves on to a report of troop deaths in Iraq. "Three Brazilian soldiers were killed today in Iraq."

The President says, "Oh, my God!" and buries his head in his hands. When he lifts his head again his eyes are wet. The entire cabinet is stunned -- he usually shows little or no reaction during these reports.

Finally after a minute of silence, he turns to his top aide and asks, "How many zeroes are in a brazilian?"



Don't be offended if you're a GWB fan. It's one of those equal opportunity jokes for which any president can be substituted. I just heard it first during GWB's run.

David

 

[dqpowell]

And that was why my reserved and paid for prefered room was not available.

That is a situation for which you were far too forgiving. You paid more for a preferred room. If they couldn't provide you a preferred room there, you should have been upgraded to a different room that is better (perhaps at another resort) without charge, not downgraded.

David

 

[KellyNY]

Thank you. It's good to know that despite actual examples from hotels in no way connected to Walt Disney World cannot convince you that "check-in 3 PM" does not necessarily mean your room will be ready AT that time, you refuse to believe that this is an industry-wide policy and instead continue to believe I'm defending Disney.

Three points: first, Harrah's exists in cities other than Las Vegas and in states other than Nevada, so no, it's not that - as you suggested earlier - that maybe Las Vegas standards are lower; second, Harrah's has properties in a wide variety of price ranges, including starting at or above WDW's properties (and their star ratings are actual, not Disneyfied ); and finally, Marriott is worldwide - it's neither Disney-related nor Las Vegas-based.

No offence, but you do realize we are running in circles?
I cannot see what you see on mobile site but since you have results for different hotels in area, do you think there is a possiblity that their check in times are different, some check in 3, check out 11, some 6 and 1, and this is why you get a range. Check any particular hotel individually and see yourself if you ever get a message that hotel, does not guarantee room at check in time.
Bottom line, I am ok with you having a different opinion, you have all the rights to believe what you believe and be as wrong as you wish, but wait, this is already my opinion and I have all the rights to have one.
If all the arguments and examples you were given did not convince you, do not expect that your weak agruments can possibly shake my knowledge. Have a good day.

P.S. Just noticed you quoted me cutting in a middle of the sentance. Please do not do it, do not change meaning of what I said.

 

[KellyNY]

That is a situation for which you were far too forgiving. You paid more for a preferred room. If they couldn't provide you a preferred room there, you should have been upgraded to a different room that is better (perhaps at another resort) without charge, not downgraded.

David

Exactly, even if it means moving to another resort but if person does not open mouth and fights his rights, why to bother.

 

[maxiesmom]

Exactly, even if it means moving to another resort but if person does not open mouth and fights his rights, why to bother.

When you have 2 CMs standing right in front of you telling you what their policy supposedly is, there doesn't seem much to argue about. I had thought Disney had a policy to only upgrade, never downgrade, but yet I had 2 CMs telling me I was wrong. Silly me, I thought a Disney employee would know policy better than a guest.

 

[Sophie's Mom]

wow lots of replies here.. did OP even come back and state what was wrong? I saw OP only had 4 posts and wondered if it could be a troll..... go ahead flame me for doubting that someone is totally truthful....and not stirring up the pot...

Post #55 on page 4