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

[disneynutz]

A $300 rack rate for a bare-bones 250 sqft room at CBR is not industry standard. Drive 1 mile from the gate, and that same room is $89 - $120 with breakfast and parking included at no less than 500 hotels in a 25 mile radius. I get what you're saying: if they charge it and consumers are dumb enough to pay it.... capitalism, yada yada. But charging for parking on top of the already asinine resort prices is throwing salt on a freshly amputated appendage. We as consumers need to dig the heels in and push back.

You might think that us as individuals have little control over such things. Notice the recently announced AP discounts for DVC members? They didn't do that out of the kindness of their hearts. The magic bands were telling the bean counters that member visits into the parks was down. Low and behold, a DVC ticket offer comes out. Speak with your wallet - they will listen.

Disney continues to charge pretty much what they want and guests keep coming by the millions. Discounting DVC AP's costs Disney nothing, I don't think that park attendance is down, but more DVC owners will buy the AP's even if they don't need them and many will take an extra vacation because of it. They may even buy more points to go on the extra vacations and don't forget the PR, people think that Disney/DVC is wonderful due to the perceived discount even though they don't allow resale buyers to enjoy the same benefit.

Bill

 

[Andrew015]

Disney continues to charge pretty much what they want and guests keep coming by the millions.... I don't think that park attendance is down...

Never said that park attendance in aggregate was down, but rather, park visitation by DVC members. No hard data to support that, as obviously, Disney keeps that to themselves. Like any other business, no one offers discounts when sales are robust. The promotion is specifically targeted at DVC members, and one can easily conclude that they're not hitting the parks as hard as Disney would like, hence the sale.

Discounting DVC AP's costs Disney nothing

? If sales are strong as you suggest, then they're simply offering a discount for the heck of it which leaves money on the table. In effect, that costs them "something" (lost profit). I don't believe that to be the case: the sale was offered in response to weaker than anticipated demand.

...but more DVC owners will buy the AP's even if they don't need them and many will take an extra vacation because of it. They may even buy more points to go on the extra vacations and don't forget the PR, people think that Disney/DVC is wonderful due to the perceived discount even though they don't allow resale buyers to enjoy the same benefit.

I'm not sure why you would buy an AP if you don't "need one", but I think what you're suggesting is that people are more apt to take advantage of the discount and spend more time in the parks than if no discount was offered, which naturally, I agree with (that's the whole premise of my argument). I did buy through resale and was able to take advantage of the discount, but you are correct in stating that resale members might not have the same discounts as members that buy direct (it depends when you bought via resale - some members are grandfathered in and have no loss in benefits as compared to folks that bought direct).

 

[disneynutz]

Never said that park attendance in aggregate was down, but rather, park visitation by DVC members. No hard data to support that, as obviously, Disney keeps that to themselves. Like any other business, no one offers discounts when sales are robust. The promotion is specifically targeted at DVC members, and one can easily conclude that they're not hitting the parks as hard as Disney would like, hence the sale.




? If sales are strong as you suggest, then they're simply offering a discount for the heck of it which leaves money on the table. In effect, that costs them "something" (lost profit). I don't believe that to be the case: the sale was offered in response to weaker than anticipated demand.



I'm not sure why you would buy an AP if you don't "need one", but I think what you're suggesting is that people are more apt to take advantage of the discount and spend more time in the parks than if no discount was offered, which naturally, I agree with (that's the whole premise of my argument). I did buy through resale and was able to take advantage of the discount, but you are correct in stating that resale members might not have the same discounts as members that buy direct (it depends when you bought via resale - some members are grandfathered in and have no loss in benefits as compared to folks that bought direct).

People buy discounted AP's because they are discounted and they want to take part in the deal just like many buy DVC to be included in a club and to receive "special" perks. Many won't have enough admissions to justify the AP just like many will not go to the water parks but it's inclusion made the "deal" seem even better. Disney doesn't want people in the parks, they want them to buy admission and not use it, that's why the admission media times out or has restrictions, that's also why the non-expiration media was discontinued. People spending money is what they want, riding attractions doesn't make Disney money, buying Disney stuff, food, buying DVC and cash rooms is where the money is. DS is a cash cow, doesn't require admission, attracts food and stuff buyers, and reduces the load at the parks.

Bill

 

[DebbieB]

We haven't really discussed the extra occupancy thing? Is that normal? It's very, very rare I'd have more than 2 people in a room, when I travel with the girls, its usually 4 of us in 2 rooms, every once in a while its a threesome in 1 room.

It is the norm in the travel industry. Disney only charges for age 18 and older, some hotels charge any age.

 

[amberpi]

It is the norm in the travel industry. Disney only charges for age 18 and older, some hotels charge any age.

Weird - thousands of nights in hotels in my lifetime, never really thought about extra occupancy. WDW, I'm assuming would be an outlier on the average number of guests per room, I'm sure.

 

[manning]

I think that negative feedback USED to matter to Disney.
But IMO, the culture is no longer one of
goodwill(an accounting intangible)
but rather it seems that no matter HOW MUCH profits increase,
the Bean Counters are continually required
TO find more ways to EVER increase profits!

SO as awful as it seems,
I do NOT see the extra fees,
higher rates for newly carved out views, etc., stopping.

They are figuring that Resorts will still get
fully booked,
OR throw a discount or 2 to guests that have felt priced out.

Back in the 50s Chrysler was a very good company. I always heard the story the bean counters brought it down.

 

[OKW Lover]

People buy discounted AP's because they are discounted and they want to take part in the deal just like many buy DVC to be included in a club and to receive "special" perks. Many won't have enough admissions to justify the AP just like many will not go to the water parks but it's inclusion made the "deal" seem even better. Disney doesn't want people in the parks, they want them to buy admission and not use it, that's why the admission media times out or has restrictions, that's also why the non-expiration media was discontinued. People spending money is what they want, riding attractions doesn't make Disney money, buying Disney stuff, food, buying DVC and cash rooms is where the money is. DS is a cash cow, doesn't require admission, attracts food and stuff buyers, and reduces the load at the parks.

Bill

Yes, Disney does want people in the parks. In-park spending is a very significant item to Disney.

 

[disneynutz]

Yes, Disney does want people in the parks. In-park spending is a very significant item to Disney.

They want people in the parks only to buy things, not to ride attractions. Attractions cost money, CM's cost money. If they can make the same sales outside of the parks, they are gold. They are working to increase the number of non-park restaurants and shops and offering discounts to get some people out of the parks.

Bill

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

I am always amazed at how willing people are to accept and even (gasp!) expect parking fees. I am from the south and practically never pay to park anywhere. Sure- some of the big cities have parking fees, but I avoid places where I have to pay to park whenever I can. As long as the competition offers free parking, I am choosing the competition. Parking is a basic requirement for me to go places. My car cannot hover above the building/attraction. Parking fees to me are akin to restaurants charging "eating fees" or hotels charging "sleeping fees." I have no problem with places charging for premium parking places, but provide somewhere complimentary for me to put my car so I can visit your establishment. It is a basic element of my visiting your establishment.

I have paid parking fees before, of course, and I have always felt like a sucker every time. Parking fees at Universal really turn me off and leave a bad taste in my mouth. Disney has to be very conscious of the impression they leave with guests. It needs to be positive. Parking fees do not result in any tangible or emotional benefit for the consumer. Better to charge for things that make people happy rather than charging for necessities that should be a basic part of a room fee (yes, I know many people don't drive to Disney. But many people also do not use the second queen bed in the moderate and deluxe resorts. Imagine Disney charging a "2nd bed fee." Many people also do not use the pools. Should they charge a "pool fee"? Some don't use the coffee maker. "Coffee maker day use fee," anyone?).

I would urge people to avoid resorts that charge for parking and to voice their concerns to management- and as others have said, to vote with their wallets. The more upcharges and fees we accept, the more we will see them- benefit to us or not.

And I do see a connection between parking fees and the Minnie Vans. It would be much easier for Disney to charge to pay to park at any non-home resort with the Minnie Vans. When people want to visit restaurants at resorts that are not theirs, they can have someone else take them (i.e., the Minnie Van) and it will cost them the same (or perhaps less than) it would to park at that resort. Voila! Suddenly, people are getting a bargain. I don't like it at all.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

There is a cost to free parking, everywhere. That the US believes building a sea of concrete outside everything as a sunk cost is uniquely and wastefully American.

 

[mom2rtk]

There is a cost to free parking, everywhere. That the US believes building a sea of concrete outside everything as a sunk cost is uniquely and wastefully American.

How does charging for parking decrease the need for concrete in the vast areas without decent mass transportation?

 

[_auroraborealis_]

How does charging for parking decrease the need for concrete in the vast areas without decent mass transportation?

Often, the lots required are larger than what is realistically needed. The web site Strong Towns publishes pictures of parking lots on Black Friday every year. There is a city in Minnesota that was requiring 1.5 parking spot per occupant for a retirement home for nuns based on residential zoning rules.

Often, parking requirements are based on "absolute maximum" than mean/median needs. This leads to a lot of land that doesn't provide drainage and runoff.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

Often, the lots required are larger than what is realistically needed. The web site Strong Towns publishes pictures of parking lots on Black Friday every year. There is a city in Minnesota that was requiring 1.5 parking spot per occupant for a retirement home for nuns based on residential zoning rules.

Often, parking requirements are based on "absolute maximum" than mean/median needs. This leads to a lot of land that doesn't provide drainage and runoff.

But meeting mean/median needs necessarily and mathematically means that sometimes need will exceed space. That leads to illegal and sometimes dangerous parking practices. People parking in areas that block driving vision. People blocking streets and causing accidents. People standing in parking spaces to save them for friends and getting hit (there have been some news articles about this) and people otherwise fighting over parking spaces. Providing a way for customers to safely get to your business is not wasteful. It actually makes good business sense and, in some cases, even prevents violence. I imagine the city's requirement to which you are referring is there specifically for safety purposes because the city had probably experienced problems with businesses not providing enough parking.

I don't see how making it free or making it paid affects the spaces that are needed. Yes, we have a lot of land taken up by parking areas. But we have to have a way to get to businesses. In most non- metro areas, driving our cars is the only way to do that.

Maybe increasing online shopping, car services like Uber, and (hopefully) automated cars will help with the amount of space needed in the future. But the population just keeps growing. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

This article references a study about parking.

• Annualized cost of land, construction, maintenance, and operations per parking space in the U.S. comes out to $600.
  
• There are 4(!) spots per car in the US, minimum.
• Americans only spend about $85 annually on parking per vehicle.
  
• Annualized parking subsidy can thus be estimated at $2300
• If we directly paid for parking instead of having it as a hidden cost, most Americans would drive less
• Less driving = less road maintenance, less carbon emissions

The costs of driving are generally artificially low (including fuel costs). Parking's not the only culprit.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/...-wed-drive-500-billion-fewer-miles-each-year/

 

[adelaster]

This article references a study about parking.

• Annualized cost of land, construction, maintenance, and operations per parking space in the U.S. comes out to $600.
  
• There are 4(!) spots per car in the US, minimum.
• Americans only spend about $85 annually on parking per vehicle.
  
• Annualized parking subsidy can thus be estimated at $2300
• If we directly paid for parking instead of having it as a hidden cost, most Americans would drive less
• Less driving = less road maintenance, less carbon emissions

The costs of driving are generally artificially low (including fuel costs). Parking's not the only culprit.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/...-wed-drive-500-billion-fewer-miles-each-year/

& that's not even touching the cost of environmental damage...one we will all be paying more & more of as time passes.

 

[DaisyJ]

How much do you even travel, bro. (Teasing) Every Westin, marriott, and Hilton charges for parking, and then charges extra for valet.

What are these hotels that aren't charging for parking? Seriously?

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

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

This article references a study about parking.

• Annualized cost of land, construction, maintenance, and operations per parking space in the U.S. comes out to $600.
  
• There are 4(!) spots per car in the US, minimum.
• Americans only spend about $85 annually on parking per vehicle.
  
• Annualized parking subsidy can thus be estimated at $2300
• If we directly paid for parking instead of having it as a hidden cost, most Americans would drive less
• Less driving = less road maintenance, less carbon emissions

The costs of driving are generally artificially low (including fuel costs). Parking's not the only culprit.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/...-wed-drive-500-billion-fewer-miles-each-year/

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.

 

[Wonder05]

I am always amazed at how willing people are to accept and even (gasp!) expect parking fees. I am from the south and practically never pay to park anywhere. Sure- some of the big cities have parking fees, but I avoid places where I have to pay to park whenever I can. As long as the competition offers free parking, I am choosing the competition. Parking is a basic requirement for me to go places. My car cannot hover above the building/attraction. Parking fees to me are akin to restaurants charging "eating fees" or hotels charging "sleeping fees." I have no problem with places charging for premium parking places, but provide somewhere complimentary for me to put my car so I can visit your establishment. It is a basic element of my visiting your establishment.

I have paid parking fees before, of course, and I have always felt like a sucker every time. Parking fees at Universal really turn me off and leave a bad taste in my mouth. Disney has to be very conscious of the impression they leave with guests. It needs to be positive. Parking fees do not result in any tangible or emotional benefit for the consumer. Better to charge for things that make people happy rather than charging for necessities that should be a basic part of a room fee (yes, I know many people don't drive to Disney. But many people also do not use the second queen bed in the moderate and deluxe resorts. Imagine Disney charging a "2nd bed fee." Many people also do not use the pools. Should they charge a "pool fee"? Some don't use the coffee maker. "Coffee maker day use fee," anyone?).

I would urge people to avoid resorts that charge for parking and to voice their concerns to management- and as others have said, to vote with their wallets. The more upcharges and fees we accept, the more we will see them- benefit to us or not.

And I do see a connection between parking fees and the Minnie Vans. It would be much easier for Disney to charge to pay to park at any non-home resort with the Minnie Vans. When people want to visit restaurants at resorts that are not theirs, they can have someone else take them (i.e., the Minnie Van) and it will cost them the same (or perhaps less than) it would to park at that resort. Voila! Suddenly, people are getting a bargain. I don't like it at all.

Exactly!

 

[SL6827]

Before long, they will make not only the guest pay to park, but the cast members as well. LoL. Just kidding.

 

[Wonder05]

Before long, they will make not only the guest pay to park, but the cast members as well. LoL. Just kidding.

Wouldn't be surprised if the started to charge them dues with the direction this is going.