WDW Changes

[DancingBear]

For the Legendary Years, the main 'hall' building is complete (exterior) and 2 of the 10 buildings housing guest rooms are exterior complete. None of the interior walls of rooms, plumbing or electrical is in place in the Guest Room buildings. One of the two guest buildings doesn't even have an elevator building or stairs as of today.

Understood, but it's the structural stuff that would be affected by any post-hurricane building code changes (if, in fact, there were any such changes which affected RCID).

 

[minnie61650]

Posters on the DIS (let alone those who hang on the Resorts board and respond to such surveys) are not representative of the average WDW visitor.

I agree completely.
That is why when I posted the results of the survey I said if they truly represent the current numbers of rooms rented at WDW so many times.

Iwanted to clarify that it was just a random DIS survey.
I have no idea what % of the average WDW visitor chooses the different types of rooms that WDW has for rent.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Understood, but it's the structural stuff that would be affected by any post-hurricane building code changes (if, in fact, there were any such changes which affected RCID).

No.. I agree with you there. I don't think there were any such regulatory changes that would affect the construction of these buildings. And even if it did, scrapping the two buildings and starting over would be an acceptable loss if there were profits to be had at the end of the construction.

They're not finished today because Disney(in years prior), for what ever reason, didn't see them as potentially profitable as of yet.

I think they will be finished by 2010 tho.

Knox

 

[MassJester]

Trading on film success has always been a part of WDW, and at times it's been done well. Afterall, Mickey Mouse appeared in films before he appeared in the parks. I think that it's important to make the translation well--which has been hit or miss in the past. I'm not quite ready to say attractions based on Pixar creative successes don't belong. I'd like to learn more about them first.

The problem I see with the criticism of Disney here is that it is purportedly offered to promote positive change. The assumption being that what is written here will in some small way influence decision makers.

From my point of view (hardly determinitve of reality), the sources of criticsm offer nothing but that. What's wrong is wrong, what's unclear is likely wrong, and what's good may not last long before it becomes wrong.

I get it, this huge company drops the ball. Paying 7 billion for Pixar was a good move, but they never should have lost them in the first place. Letting the parks go into disrepair was a bad decision. I miss the old Immagination pavillion at Epcot, and I'm unsold on the Nemo revision at the Seas. I would also object to the automatic 18% tip just on principle.

But in fairness I see good things too. And I think for criticsm to be taken seriously, it must be offered in context, or it will just become an unpleasant noise to be ignored.

 

[minnie61650]

Understood, but it's the structural stuff that would be affected by any post-hurricane building code changes (if, in fact, there were any such changes which affected RCID).

No argument from me.
I was just quoting the random theories that DIS'ners posted on that thread.
I never said they were all credible. I just was passing on some the thoughts that were posted.

It is kind of like brainstorming.
We put lots of ideas and different opinions about why the 2ed half of POP has not been completed on the table.
Then we can talk about these ideas, add more ideas sort out what makes the most sense.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mouseaholic!!!]

I wasn't jumping in for the larger argument, I've learned that lesson..

And there very well may be 23 resorts available..

And WDW Resorts may or may not be bursting at the seams (your words) -- ....

But I'd like to know where the previous poster is seeing that 23 resorts datapoint.

He said specifically said it was at "Disney's online reservation system" .. I don't see it there. Unless he has access thru a CM portal or something.

If there's another public way - I wanna know. If for no other reason, my own selfish purposes.

Knox

Good Morning!

Disney.go.com

WDW

Tickets & Reservations

Room Only

Entered dates

23 resorts available



Thanks!

Cathy

 

[CanadianGuy]

Wow.. I tried that exact thing yesterday and posted my results earlier in this thread..

I think I see your mistake tho.. ALL 23 resorts come up in that first listing.. that does NOT indicate availability. I could enter the date of December 24th or just New Years Eve and ALL 23 resorts come up in that listing. It doesn't matter what dates you enter, the first listing shows all the choices.

You have to click on one of them .. and THEN see what comes up.

For example: I checked New Years Eve. The first screen after you enter the dates shows 23 resorts. But when you click on ANY of the 23 choices, only The Beach Club and the Boardwalk are showing ANY availability for that date.

Example: New Years Eve Showing 23 Resorts

Example: New Years Eve Actual Availability

In addition, I checked with a friend who has the ability to look at resort availability in the coming weeks and she's indicating overall property-wide 96% occupancy (or higher) for those dates. Many resorts are 100% booked on a bunch of different dates.

IN fact, at least two resorts are currently overbooked at greater than 100% on some date ranges.

So with all those datapoints in hand, I feel very comfortable saying that there are NOT 23 resorts available for the dates where they supposedly were.. The resorts are nearly booked up.

Now.. I'm not saying the larger argument put forth by some in this thread is completely without merit

But I am saying that the posting about 23 resorts showing ready availability for those high traffic dates is simply not accurate.

Knox

 

[DancingBear]

Trading on film success has always been a part of WDW, and at times it's been done well. Afterall, Mickey Mouse appeared in films before he appeared in the parks. I think that it's important to make the translation well--which has been hit or miss in the past. I'm not quite ready to say attractions based on Pixar creative successes don't belong. I'd like to learn more about them first.

I'm not against Pixar attractions per se by any means--I was disappointed that the lines were too long (and no Fastpass!) for us to ride the turtle coaster attraction at the Paris Studios this summer. Rather, it's the nature and tone of Iger's statement.

The problem I see with the criticism of Disney here is that it is purportedly offered to promote positive change. The assumption being that what is written here will in some small way influence decision makers.

From my point of view (hardly determinitve of reality), the sources of criticsm offer nothing but that. What's wrong is wrong, what's unclear is likely wrong, and what's good may not last long before it becomes wrong.

I think you sell the naysayers short. If you look through A-V's rather entertaining hyperbole, there is actually a lot of constructive criticism from the Element. On the other hand, if you do have the assumption that what is written here may influence someone, then all the more reason not to let cheerleading go unchallenged.

I get it, this huge company drops the ball. Paying 7 billion for Pixar was a good move, but they never should have lost them in the first place. Letting the parks go into disrepair was a bad decision. I miss the old Immagination pavillion at Epcot, and I'm unsold on the Nemo revision at the Seas. I would also object to the automatic 18% tip just on principle.

But in fairness I see good things too. And I think for criticsm to be taken seriously, it must be offered in context, or it will just become an unpleasant noise to be ignored.

Of course the Company makes mistakes, that's to be expected. It's the nature of the mistakes that are troubling. Gutting Feature Animation and Imagineering indicates a real lack of understanding of the core businesses of the Company.

Understood that we must do more than just kvetch about things we don't like. Again, I think we actually do.

 

[minnie61650]

.......But I am saying that the posting about 23 resorts showing availability for those high traffic dates is simply not accurate.

Knox

I agree.
I post quite often on the resorts board and am seeing more and more posts about limited resort choices for busy dates.

Here is one that was posted today.

From this thread:

http://disboards.com/showthread.php?p=21789036#post21789036

I'm shocked , this will be our first holiday trip in early December. We booked back in August and now thought of switching to AKL. When I called yesterday, I was told ALL resorts are booked for our week Dec. 6 - 12, except for a 2 bedroom at SSR. Can this be? Should I keep calling or just give up at this point?

Thanks a bunch for any information/suggestions

just my 2 cents.

 

[dismorgh]

Shanomi4 - I just wanted to jump in here and thank you for your question and to appologize for not getting to it yet. It's been a busy day here at the Evil Anti-Disney League of Haters headquarters and my posting time has been limited. I'll get you a response as soon as I'm able.

EADLH. Hmmm. Need a better acronym.

Loving the debate. It is just too much fun. People really need to take "chill pill" sometimes.

 

[dismorgh]

I understand about posting time. here at the Uneducated Misdirected-Disney League of Past Guests headquarters...things have been pretty crazy this time of the year.

OK. You need a different acronym too. We need to come up with something better than UMDLPG. Just doesn't trickle off the tongue.

 

[shanomi4]

OK. You need a different acronym too. We need to come up with something better than UMDLPG. Just doesn't trickle off the tongue.

Misdirected Uneducated Disney League Of Past Obtuse Guests
MUDLOPOG MUD-LOP-OG

 

[bflynn]

Nice to see people keeping a sense of humor about it.

I tend to think that Iger is better than Eisner, but less than Walt. Ultimately, I believe the situation today comes down to the fact that Disney has decided to be a company and not a family business.

If this corporation were in charge 50+ years ago, Disneyland would have never been built...which I think says it all. They've sacrificed the love and joy of the parks for the money it generates. That is to be expected, it is what a business does.

There ought to be room for both.

Brian