Not to reopen that can of worms but...

[larryz]

I don't think that have any skin in this game so to speak but to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...Disney might not like the idea of throwaway room since they may actually be losing money. A family that was actually staying in that room would be spending money on food and souvenirs in addition to the room.

But... isn't the family that's not staying in the room spending as much as the family that would have been staying in the room, because the family that is not staying in the room is the family that would have been if they weren't?

 

[itchin2go]

BOOM! There it is. Disney doesn't want "almost booked the DP". Many people staying for a week don't (or can't) do the math and overpay for the plan. For a single day, the math is too easy.

Also, while I don't have the real statistics, I'll bet that the percentage of off site visitors who spend a day or two at Universal is way, way higher than the percentage of visitors who stay on site. The lure of sticking with WDW is just too strong. So while you eat 99% of your meals on site, off-site visitors who spend a couple of days at US drive their percentage down to 75% at best. There is no debating the point that once Disney has you on property, it has more of your money.

So, the people staying ONsite are less likely to do the math?

Hard for me to say. When we stayed onsite, we still had a car. Maybe we're the unicorn. I do agree that those flying in, using ME, staying onsite are probably the most predictable .... by design.

 

[socrateze]

How are they saving money on housekeeping? The room is still booked. Housekeeper will still show up and go through the motions. And seriously, who stays on property (not even in a DVC) and doesn't buy any good whatsoever and not a single souvenir. I just don't think that makes sense as a counter argument.

What motions will a housekeeper go through on a room that wasn't used? Walk through and mark it clean? Not the same amount of time or labor spent on an occupied room.

 

[socrateze]

Btw being onsite/offsite isn't relevant, that part of my argument wasn't predicated on where a customer was saying. I'm not even saying everyone will buy souvenirs, but you are hard pressed to stay on property and not eat a single meal there. That just isn't realistic.

I was countering the argument that someone would stay in a room and not eat a single meal on Disney property.

If you don't count the park meals( which both on and off property guests eat) we've avoided eating on property while staying on-site. I'm not saying it's the norm, but staying on site does not necessarily mean you'll eat on site.

 

[BlackMagicWoman]

If you don't count the park meals( which both on and off property guests eat) we've avoided eating on property while staying on-site. I'm not saying it's the norm, but staying on site does not necessarily mean you'll eat on site.

Yeah okay.

But you aren't talking about offsite guests. The guest is on site with an extra unoccupied room. I'm just saying yes it is possible that Disney sees it as lost $.

As to the housekeeper, is she not still working? She would still be hired to clean the room no? How is it a savings?

 

[socrateze]

Yeah okay.

But you aren't talking about offsite guests. The guest is on site with an extra unoccupied room. I'm just saying yes it is possible that Disney sees it as lost $.

As to the housekeeper, is she not still working? She would still be hired to clean the room no? How is it a savings?

1 less room to clean. I would imagine they are hourly employees, so they could pay less. Additionally: Disney saves on turning over the room: fresh linens, towels, and bath products. If I were a hotelier, I would love getting paid the same amount for an unoccupied room as an occupied room. Especially when there are plenty of vacant rooms available.

 

[JimmyV]

1 less room to clean. I would imagine they are hourly employees, so they could pay less.

It only works that way if you know in advance that the room won't be used. But Disney doesn't know that ahead of time. For example...
Let's assume that a housekeeper cleans 20 occupied rooms during a shift. The hotel has 400 rooms. When the hotel is booked to capacity, it hires 20 housekeepers to come in that day and pays them by the hour. If the hotel is 80% booked, it puts 16 housekeepers on the schedule. On a particular day, the hotel is 90% booked. So 18 housekeepers show up. But 60 of the 360 booked rooms were throwaway rooms and didn't get used. All that means is that the housekeepers have an easier day. 18 of them are still put on the schedule and are paid for the hours that they are on the clock. Now, I suppose that the housekeepers, who are being paid by the hour, could breeze through their day and complete their rounds faster and punch out earlier. Less hours worked and hence less money paid by the hotel in wages. But what housekeeper would do that? If they typically stay in a room for 20 minutes, and they open a door to find that a room hasn't been used, they just "won" a 20 minute TV break. They are still going to punch out at the end of their shift same as if the rooms had been occupied. But if Disney knew that the 60 rooms were going to be unoccupied, it would have only placed 15 people on the schedule instead of 18 and would have saved money. But since it didn't know ahead of time, it scheduled 18 housekeepers to come in. They all get paid. They just worked less.

 

[Robo]

Disney got paid for the room, with includes the housekeeping pay.
But, those particular sheets and towels might last "one day longer."

 

[mom2rtk]

Don't those fancy new-fangled bands let Disney know that nobody actually entered the room, and thus does not need to be cleaned?

 

[Robo]

Don't those fancy new-fangled bands let Disney know that nobody actually entered the room, and thus does not need to be cleaned?

Hah!

 

[Cyrano]

Moving to TP Community so the discussion can continue