cdnusagurl
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
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?
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.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.
No, not every Hilton, Westin, Marriott, etc charges 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?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.
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.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.
Supply and demand....I am not exactly sure what is wrong with increasing revenue. They are a for profit business last I checked.
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?
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
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.
Supply and demand don't apply here.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.
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.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.
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.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?