Anyone else feel that there's an enormous difference in quality

[snappy]

Yes, day guests can and often do visit the resorts to shop, dine and {{sigh}} catch a nap in the lobbies. Someone even posted the location at the CR which is somewhat secluded and ideal for that afternoon snooze not too long ago. The pools are another story. There are varying degrees of enforcement to the "resort guests only" policy at some pools, SAB's being the most strictly enforced.

IMO, the ability to go back to the room, shower and rest in a real bed trumps snoozing upright in a busy lobby in my sweaty clothes. If those were the only two choices, then staying onsite would be the winner. But a lot of offsite resorts and vacation homes are just as close to the parks (time-wise) as some of the Disney resorts. And no one from housekeeping is going to barge in, interrupting your rest, in order to do a "security" check. So, maybe you and I are both crazy to give our money to Disney when there are options out there that are more affordable and attractive.

I agree. It’s a new potential wrinkle for onsite guests.

I have stayed many times at each of the Bonnet Creek resorts and swandolphin, and taken many late afternoon rests. Very nice after being in the lazy river. I like having a car to pick up multi packs of bottled water and beer too. Money saver.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

I agree. It’s a new potential wrinkle for onsite guests.

I have stayed many times at each of the Bonnet Creek resorts and swandolphin, and taken many late afternoon rests. Very nice after being in the lazy river. I like having a car to pick up multi packs of bottled water and beer too. Money saver.

We stayed 3 times in a row at GF until DH finally said he's had it with the crowds. Every time we went back to the resort the lobby was packed, people hanging out everywhere, lines extending everywhere from the buffet restaurant. He said it was like staying in a train station. He kept asking why are we staying in a hotel we cannot even enjoy? Tried staying at Beach Club, very similar. People at the pools without the handbands, everything super packed, people lying around the lobby and solarium type room with shoes off and feet all over the furniture. Gross. There are some very ritzy places to stay off site where the rooms are actually clean and the lobbies are like paradise. You are actually able to walk into the hotel restaurants and get a table. At Disney, we couldn't even get into our own hotel restaurants because we had not booked months in advance. The only thing fun for us about Disney hotels is the theme.

 

[Luvs Mickey]

The quality is in the eye of the beholder. We’ve always stayed onsite for a few reasons: since I’m the trip planner, I love that I don’t have to rent a car, cook if I don’t feel like it, and have a one and done planning site for the entire experience. Also, love the full immersion to Disney. Sometimes we’ve had the dining plan (discounted with PSD) and that was wonderful because I didn’t have to worry at all about meals (except for reservations, which was all ahead of time). We’ve also stayed in one bedroom villas on property and ordered groceries. We’ve considered staying off property but haven’t because of the whole Disney experience staying onsite offers to us.

But can see the benefits of the staying off property due to cost savings and space those accommodations offer but it’s just not for us.

 

[snappy]

Our Disney trips span all 12 months. Used to be different experience (more laid back and relaxing) during certain months like late January and early February, early May, even September. These days it always feels crowded and hectic. Parks because Disney is more into reducing hours, staff, and ride capacity, resorts due to promotions.

I noticed in early February that Beach club was a zoo when I was there for 3 nights but I thought they were enforcing the guests only policy at stormalong bay. Maybe they have tightened that up with higher occupancy?

 

[glocon]

And no one from housekeeping is going to barge in, interrupting your rest, in order to do a "security" check.

What is this "security check" you speak of?

 

[snappy]

And no one from housekeeping is going to barge in, interrupting your rest, in order to do a "security" check.

What is this "security check" you speak of?

New daily room check policy started around the start of the year at a few resorts, now in force at all disney resorts. It’s apparently executed by both housekeeping staff and security CM’s. Also known as “daily trash removal” for DVC unit stays. There been a few different threads discussing it.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/guest-experiences-with-daily-room-checks.3660888/

And a long one


https://www.disboards.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-disney-about-mandatory-room-checks.3676495/

 

[Sandiz08]

I agree, different strokes for different folks. However, to me , nothing beats staying at a Disney Resort and dining with characters. Its pure magic and part of the entire vacation experience.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Although off site vacationers do not have a resort room to go freshen up or nap.....there isn't anything to keep them from using resort transportation

(I cut off the rest of your comment on purpose)

There is the Walt Disney World Resort property which encompasses everything and then there is the term resort to mean a Disney hotel/resort. Disney's transportation is available to anyone with the exception of MDE is for guests staying onsite. When you say resort transportation I'm assuming you mean to get back to your resort but for Disney that doesn't exist. They simply have transportation such as monorail, buses, boats and minnie vans (if I'm forgetting something someone correct me). So if someone, anyone, wants to use Disney's transportation to get to a resort there is nothing wrong with that. They do not need to be an onsite guest to use Disney's transportation.

I only comment on that because to me at least I wasn't sure if you were saying there was something wrong with offsite guests using Disney's transportation to get to a resort.

 

[OneinThree]

(I cut off the rest of your comment on purpose)

There is the Walt Disney World Resort property which encompasses everything and then there is the term resort to mean a Disney hotel/resort. Disney's transportation is available to anyone with the exception of MDE is for guests staying onsite. When you say resort transportation I'm assuming you mean to get back to your resort but for Disney that doesn't exist. They simply have transportation such as monorail, buses, boats and minnie vans (if I'm forgetting something someone correct me). So if someone, anyone, wants to use Disney's transportation to get to a resort there is nothing wrong with that. They do not need to be an onsite guest to use Disney's transportation.

I only comment on that because to me at least I wasn't sure if you were saying there was something wrong with offsite guests using Disney's transportation to get to a resort.

This is true. However, I recall when this was not at all the case. At one time, you needed a Disney resort ID to board any form of internal transportation, with the exception of TTC to the parks and back. This went a long way toward addressing this sort of thing:

One thing about staying off site... is your lobby isn't full of people who are not actually staying at your hotel! Some times it's not so easy to go back and relax at a hotel full of people hanging out there who did not pay to stay there. Most relaxing vacation at wdw yet was when we stayed off site.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This is true. However, I recall when this was not at all the case. At one time, you needed a Disney resort ID to board any form of internal transportation, with the exception of TTC to the parks and back. This went a long way toward addressing this sort of thing:

It's been long gone at the very least since 2011...I don't know the date when it required ID personally.

The pros and guest friendliness and accommodations far outweigh potential cons.

No sense talking about cons when it's free to use for all guests and for the foreseeable future will be.

 

[OneinThree]

The pros and guest friendliness and accommodations far outweigh potential cons.

That's one take on it.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That's one take on it.

On a personal individual level it will vary. But on the grand sense the pros outweigh the cons. Disney is the one who created a complimentary service. To them the benefits of it far outweigh the cons. And to the thousands of daily guests who would like to partake in restaurants, shop around and look at other resorts it's certaintly a benefit to them. There's no need for other guests to create a caste system feel on this.

 

[OneinThree]

On a personal individual level it will vary. But on the grand sense the pros outweigh the cons. Disney is the one who created a complimentary service. To them the benefits of it far outweigh the cons. And to the thousands of daily guests who would like to partake in restaurants, shop around and look at other resorts it's certaintly a benefit to them.

Obviously, it fits Disney's current business model.

There's no need for other guests to create a caste system feel on this.

Really?!? Has nothing to do with it. I think what it has to do with is exactly what we now are getting at Disney resorts for the significant premium we pay. I don't really care who it is exactly that is making the resort lobby's and grounds a madhouse, just that they are, and to what extent. After a day of melee in the parks, you'd think that what is often upwards of $800-$1000 per night might buy you a bit of a break from the crowds, chaos, and lines.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Really?!? Has nothing to do with it. I think what it has to do with is exactly what we now are getting at Disney resorts for the significant premium we pay. I don't really care who it is exactly that is making the resort lobby's and grounds a madhouse, just that they are, and to what extent. After a day of melee in the parks, you'd think that what is often upwards of $800-$1000 per night might buy you a bit of a break from the crowds, chaos, and lines.

As I said it's been that way since at least 2011..what's the year you stopped needing a resort ID?

We're talking at least 7 years ago and I say that because the 2011 trip is what I have more memories of the trips prior to that are a bit more fuzzy.

Let go of what you're paying now because that doesn't matter. It was less back in the past and it still would have been to some "I'm paying X amount..."

The price simply doesn't matter in the grand sense. Someone staying at a Value certaintly can have the same viewpoint that Disney transportation should be for onsite guests only just the same as someone at a Deluxe. Or conversely someone staying at a Value or Mod or Deluxe, etc can have the same viewpoint that Disney transportation should be for all guests.

I get it you think they should go back to the old way and that's totally ok. Disney currently disagrees with you. My only point in commenting to the other poster was to clarify that a person is not doing anything wrong by taking Disney's transportation with the exception of MDE which is for onsite guests only.

 

[OneinThree]

The price simply doesn't matter in the grand sense.

Price always matters and for many, Disney's strategy is really compromising the value of on-site stays. Plenty of threads illustrating this. If the trend holds, it's just not going to be worth it anymore. That point may come sooner than later or later than sooner, but it will come. Due to the parking fees for example, I'm personally still considering whether to renew our AP's.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Price always matters and for many, Disney's strategy is really compromising the value of on-site stays. Plenty of threads illustrating this. If the trend holds, it's just not going to be worth it anymore. That point may come sooner than later or later than sooner, but it will come. Due to the parking fees for example, I'm personally still considering whether to renew our AP's.

Either you're innocently or deliberately misunderstanding my comments.

Price simply doesn't matter in terms of someone getting access to Disney transportation or not. Offsite people do pay too..and *gasp* they can pay more than onsite . You have no idea what someone pays. If you're of an opinion that only someone who spends $X amount should get access cool beans but you'll have to start asking vacationers what they paid in order to see if they are worthy to use the transportation or not..and that sorta goes the way of my caste comment.

The mere point of being onsite can and appearantly has in the past been the differentiating line in the sand..not cost. You framed your comment that if you're spending $800-$1,000 per night, etc my point was it was less cost per night in the past plus I guess those staying at Disney's resorts who aren't spending that amount shouldn't have that viewpoint that it's only for onsite?

In any case agree to disagree and move on.

 

[robinb]

This is true. However, I recall when this was not at all the case. At one time, you needed a Disney resort ID to board any form of internal transportation, with the exception of TTC to the parks and back. This went a long way toward addressing this sort of thing:

I've been a DVC member since 1997 and I have only been asked for my KTTW or MB twice to take any kind of Disney transportation. I was asked on two separate occasions for either proof of staying at a Disney resort *or* an AP when attempting to take the monorail from Epcot to the MK during Christmas week since the MK was closed to day guests. If Disney used to ask for proof that you are staying at a resort to take Disney transportation on an ongoing basis, it was more than 20 years ago.

 

[OneinThree]

Price simply doesn't matter in terms of someone getting access to Disney transportation or not. Offsite people do pay too..and *gasp* they can pay more than onsite . You have no idea what someone pays.

This really doesn't make a lot of sense. It amounts to assuming that if I pay for one company's services, that I somehow have a claim to the that of an entirely separate company. Disney chooses to allow non-resort guests access, because it suits their business model. In the past, it did not. Part of the shift in business strategy (including this one) has resulted in the diminishing value of on-site stays. It's that simple.

If you're of an opinion that only someone who spends $X amount should get access cool beans but you'll have to start asking vacationers what they paid in order to see if they are worthy to use the transportation or not..and that sorta goes the way of my caste comment.

"Worthy"? What are you even talking about? This is the sale of private goods and services. People are free to buy or leave whatever they want. SMH.

You framed your comment that if you're spending $800-$1,000 per night, etc my point was it was less cost per night in the past plus I guess those staying at Disney's resorts who aren't spending that amount shouldn't have that viewpoint that it's only for onsite?

You're saying it for me, in fact. It was less expensive in the past, and resort guests got more for that price -whatever they paid.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

ETA: nevermind. attempting to move along in discussion.

 

[OneinThree]

Only the DIS could turn a 'hey transportation is available to any guests' statement into a erosion of onsite benefits and costs and this and that discussion.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about the quality of on-site stays versus off site. There will be a diversity of perspectives on this. FYI, I wasn't the first to share this one in particular.