Extra occupancy price increase and Minnie Van = resort parking no longer a perk?

[cdnusagurl]

If this is true then this will be my first and only trip staying on Disney property. Why pay them extra when I can stay off site and virtually pay the same or less for a better room?

 

[rlbates13]

From what I understand, that article was written for a site (streetsblog.org) whose primary (and stated) purpose is to deter people from driving cars and push them toward other means of transportation. So it does have a bit of bias. It is produced by a non-profit organization out of New York. While it addresses parking "subsidies," it does not address the hundreds of millions of dollars in mass transit public subsidies to cities across the country.

Regardless of the obvious bias of the article, the stated goal can be noble and feasible. In New York City. And other large cities. Not at all in many other areas of the country.

I think a lot of the differing views in this discussion comes down to the culture, lifestyle, and transportation structure of the areas where we live. Those who live in big cities expect parking fees. Those who live in other areas expect "free" parking. Disney has to please all kinds of guests. It is very tricky for them, but I doubt that adding parking fees is going to make anyone particularly happy- even those who are used to fees. And if they add parking fees, I doubt they will discount resort prices accordingly to "take away" the previous add-in cost of parking. They will just add the additional fees to their profits.

I also don't think that adding parking fees at Disney would do much to help the environment. Those of us who drive are going to drive to Disney (and by doing that we aren't harming the environment with jet fuel and airport parking spaces and airport utilities and airport shuttles- yay, us!). And those who want to travel within Disney but might be deterred by parking fees now have another option- the Minnie Van. With this new, low capacity SUV, it doesn't look as if Disney is focused on improving its carbon footprint. Disney's priority is not environmental conservation (although they do commendably take some steps to help). Their priority is providing an amazing guest experience. It should be. And parking fees are unlikely to improve anyone's experience in any way.

If I could "like" this again, I would.

 

[mom2rtk]

From what I understand, that article was written for a site (streetsblog.org) whose primary (and stated) purpose is to deter people from driving cars and push them toward other means of transportation. So it does have a bit of bias. It is produced by a non-profit organization out of New York. While it addresses parking "subsidies," it does not address the hundreds of millions of dollars in mass transit public subsidies to cities across the country.

Regardless of the obvious bias of the article, the stated goal can be noble and feasible. In New York City. And other large cities. Not at all in many other areas of the country.

I think a lot of the differing views in this discussion comes down to the culture, lifestyle, and transportation structure of the areas where we live. Those who live in big cities expect parking fees. Those who live in other areas expect "free" parking. Disney has to please all kinds of guests. It is very tricky for them, but I doubt that adding parking fees is going to make anyone particularly happy- even those who are used to fees. And if they add parking fees, I doubt they will discount resort prices accordingly to "take away" the previous add-in cost of parking. They will just add the additional fees to their profits.

I also don't think that adding parking fees at Disney would do much to help the environment. Those of us who drive are going to drive to Disney (and by doing that we aren't harming the environment with jet fuel and airport parking spaces and airport utilities and airport shuttles- yay, us!). And those who want to travel within Disney but might be deterred by parking fees now have another option- the Minnie Van. With this new, low capacity SUV, it doesn't look as if Disney is focused on improving its carbon footprint. Disney's priority is not environmental conservation (although they do commendably take some steps to help). Their priority is providing an amazing guest experience. It should be. And parking fees are unlikely to improve anyone's experience in any way.

I'm guessing the PP lives in an area with lots of public transportation options. There are HUGE areas of this country where that just is not the case.

 

[Killer Fish]

No, not every Hilton, Westin, Marriott, etc charges for parking.

This is all very market and location specific. Decisions are make looking at the competitive set. If the high end hotels around Disney are charging for Parking there is no reason why Disney should not charge for parking.

 

[mom2rtk]

This is all very market and location specific. Decisions are make looking at the competitive set. If the high end hotels around Disney are charging for Parking there is no reason why Disney should not charge for parking.

You mean other than the fact that their resorts are overpriced to begin with and that many people justify the cost because they assume the fees are already built in?

 

[Killer Fish]

Supply and demand....I am not exactly sure what is wrong with increasing revenue. They are a for profit business last I checked.

 

[Alicefan]

I don't think there should be any parking fees at resorts. Once Disney goes down this road and if guests do not push back, there will be more upcharges to follow. At some point there needs to be a tipping point and I fear that Disney will continue to reach for that point until all of a sudden folks are outpriced.

I know that I spend money at the resorts when I visit, and the day I am charged to park in order to dine or shop is the day I stop visiting the resorts. Disney has already begun to stretch my budget more than I like, so if it costs me money to spend my money I will look elsewhere for a vacation destination.

I completely agree. If I have to pay to park at a resort just to eat I'm out. Also, if I have to pay to park at the parks and I'm a resort guest?....nope, all of the sudden this girl is staying for half the price in a much nicer room OFF property. For me, the ONLY perk of staying on property is the free parking because I like to take my own car and not have to rely on the busses. I don't much care for the basic beds in the resorts that I can afford. For $99 I can stay at the Rosen Centre and sleep in a cloud and wake up to a totally quiet, super clean room. The only people they are going to trap are the people who fly....and even some of those people will start renting cars. Disney is great but this is making my ideas of starting to travel to other countries instead a better deal.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Supply and demand....I am not exactly sure what is wrong with increasing revenue. They are a for profit business last I checked.

Respectfully...this is not a freshman economics class.

It is incredibly more complex than that. Supply and demand does not factor consumer confidence. And in Orlando...which is now the prime stock driving, OI generating component for Disney...they have to consider other more complex issues.

It's never been cheap...the general consensus is "it's expensive...but the best" for that type of recreation. But it is recrearion...not necessity. And there is a line that can be passed that sways mass sentiment from "expensive" to "rip off". It that happens...the effects are catastrophic and you may not be able to undo them. "They'll just do a discount..." may not work if the huge market that they must have starts to associate the place with egregious charging.

This would be different if it was an exclusive resort or hotel...then you only have to attract a small market. We are talking needing 50,000,000 visitors now and they're gonna try to move it towards 60, 70 going forward because the portfolio is weak in other areas. It's not a choice. Attendance is already softening and market share bleeding. Keep an eye on that...

You can't extort people's "fun" money forever. They don't have to give it to you. Wdw needs a wide range of economic levels present to succeed - as it has - it will never be a playground of the wealthy.

 

[Killer Fish]

Respectfully I am a Director of Revenue for a major hotel chain.

If the market bears the charge for self parking there is no reason that they should not charge it.

If the Hilton Lake Buena Vista Charges for Parking and the Hyatt Grand Cypress charges for Parking.....(Both did not in the past) why should Disney not choose to charge for it?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Respectfully I am a Director of Revenue for a major hotel chain.

If the market bears the charge for self parking there is no reason that they should not charge it.

Does your chain cater to business travelers who are there out of necessity, recreational, or both?

Does your clientele invite $5,000 - $10,000 bills per week all in due to required ancillary food and entertainment costs?

Is this freshman Econ? Is it not a tad more complex in all cases?

 

[Killer Fish]

Does your chain cater to business travelers who are there out of necessity, recreational, or both?

Both

Does your clientele invite $5,000 - $10,000 bills per week all in due to required ancillary food and entertainment costs?

Ancillary Food as well as Spa....almost a 50% split between rooms revenue and F+B.

Is this freshman Econ? Is it not a tad more complex in all cases?

Every case is absolutely different.....However I am absolutely allowed to keep my opinion that Disney should be able to charge for parking without you coming in and insulting my intelligence on the situation.

edit: that quoted and posted pretty awful

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Every case is absolutely different.....However I am absolutely allowed to keep my opinion that Disney should be able to charge for parking without you coming in and insulting my intelligence on the situation.

edit: that quoted and posted pretty awful

Oh no doubt...I'm not shouting down your opinion. Fees are always fair game. I think disney has already effectively outpriced their rooms and could cause serious problems not too far down the roads. There are signs of weakness...

But the management doesn't have concern for that...kick the can down the road.

 

[Killer Fish]

Oh no doubt...I'm not shouting down your opinion. Fees are always fair game. I think disney has already effectively outpriced their rooms and could cause serious problems not too far down the roads. There are signs of weakness...

But the management doesn't have concern for that...kick the can down the road.

Fair enough....and I do not disagree with that. Actually impressed that they do not have both Resort Fees and Parking already added to the cost of their rooms. In my mind that is restraint.

I would LOVE to see a STR report for Disney and see how they actually break out their properties to see what the consider their true competitive set. I have always been under the assumption that they run high occupancy so the only way the individual properties can gain share in the market is with ADR increases.

 

[wilkeliza]

If (and it is a big if) Disney does start itemizing their resort fees (they are there just marked as "included") and people start fleeing in mass numbers off site there will be 2 approaches. Approach one Disney will make it almost impossible for off site guests to have the same experience as onsite. Gone will be the 180 booking window for ADRs for all guests, gone will be the being able to hop on a Disney bus even if you are off site, etc. Approach two they start offering packages that cover all the fees and it is seen as a "discount" or offer other discounts to get people back on property. Of course this only matters if enough people are going off site that it would affect the budget.

What many don't realize is the season after a lot of people flee on site those off site prices are going to sky rocket. They are only that low now because they are trying to draw your business away from Disney. If they don't need to be so pushy about it because Disney priced you out well then they are just going to up their prices a little as well.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Fair enough....and I do not disagree with that. Actually impressed that they do not have both Resort Fees and Parking already added to the cost of their rooms. In my mind that is restraint.

I would LOVE to see a STR report for Disney and see how they actually break out their properties to see what the consider their true competitive set. I have always been under the assumption that they run high occupancy so the only way the individual properties can gain share in the market is with ADR increases.

They do run incredibly high occupancy...but that is susceptible to accounting tricks. Large scale rehabs take blocks of rooms out of inventory and they redistribute bookings...dvc conversions is a huge one. Wilderness lodge and the poly just lost probably 500 rooms...and wilderness lodge was lagging due to price prior to that.

It's a shell game of sorts.

 

[DaisyJ]

Supply and demand....I am not exactly sure what is wrong with increasing revenue. They are a for profit business last I checked.

Supply and demand don't apply here.

 

[Killer Fish]

Supply and demand don't apply here.

The market supply in the Orlando area is growing less that 2%. Demand remains high.

12 month moving RevPAR growth in Orlando is coming entirely from ADR growth with flat occupancy despite an increase in supply.

 

[DaisyJ]

The market supply in the Orlando area is growing less that 2%. Demand remains high.

12 month moving RevPAR growth in Orlando is coming entirely from ADR growth with flat occupancy despite an increase in supply.

I am referring to paying for resort parking, which is what this conversation is about. There is plenty of supply and zero demand, which makes your statement of supply and demand untrue.

 

[Killer Fish]

If they can charge for parking without losing market share at their hotels (which is where the parking is being charged) than the demand is high enough for them to justify the charge.

There is not a huge amount of supply coming into the market offering free parking to work against this.

I am not arguing whether or not I want them to do this...just stating the business case for it.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

Respectfully I am a Director of Revenue for a major hotel chain.

If the market bears the charge for self parking there is no reason that they should not charge it.

If the Hilton Lake Buena Vista Charges for Parking and the Hyatt Grand Cypress charges for Parking.....(Both did not in the past) why should Disney not choose to charge for it?

Because Disney doesn't want to be like the surrounding hotels. It wants to stand out. It wants to provide the ultimate in guest experience. It does now, in my opinion. When it becomes like the surrounding hotels, there is no reason for me to choose Disney over the surrounding hotels.