News WDW Resorts to add fees for parking

[Laketravis]

For anyone faced with the potential of daily parking charges at an on-site WDW resort, this could only make those 2BR/2BA condos right outside the main gate even more attractive at less than $900 a week (and sometimes only a fraction of that when you catch their $299 a week specials).

 

[21stamps]

my two cents.... this isn't happening. Nice scare tactic though.

I'm with you.

Unfortunately, if the rumor is true, I think they will exactly do just that. They see other local resorts charging a fee for a list of things they offer for free. So they will make up a similar list and start charging. If asked, they will say it is a common industry fee.

Most guests, especially new ones, won't blink twice at it, maybe even several returning guests will do the same. Others will pitch a fit and will likely have it removed, but for this trip only (obvious speculation).

The backlash will quickly subside as it always does. And they will enjoy the spoils.

I will agree to disagree on this one. There is no sensible reason for a decision like this to be made. There is not one benefit for Disney in this scenario.

Raise room prices by $15, no problem. Disney gets a gain and customers don't really blink, the media doesn't pay attention.
Add a $15 "Resort Fee" charge for not one single new perk/service/amenity. You risk alienating your customers..it's all over the media..For what? It's nonsensical.
Add a $15 charge with an extra FP or new service option, ok. You'll get grumbles, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

The way it's being described here does not make sense. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Even beach ones? I don't know many places in tourist areas in Florida, especially the East Coast, that don't charge for self parking or valet parking. This includes condos, apartment buildings, restaurants, night clubs, and hotels..not if you want to be somewhere nice on or very close to the beach.

Cocoa Beach has huge swaths of free parking all over the place.

my two cents.... this isn't happening. Nice scare tactic though.

A scare tactic by whom for what benefit?

 

[indyumd]

I'm with you.


I will agree to disagree on this one. There is no sensible reason for a decision like this to be made. There is not one benefit for Disney in this scenario.

Raise room prices by $15, no problem. Disney gets a gain and customers don't really blink, the media doesn't pay attention.
Add a $15 "Resort Fee" charge for not one single new perk/service/amenity. You risk alienating your customers..it's all over the media..For what? It's nonsensical.
Add a $15 charge with an extra FP or new service option, ok. You'll get grumbles, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

The way it's being described here does not make sense. I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm skeptical as well, especially given that Disney is trying to do more to boost occupancy, not less. I suppose they could be adding a resort fee to hide the cost on services like Tripadvisor, but I see no way they are going to add a $30/night parking fee for resort guests right now.

 

[NearTheEars]

I'm with you.


I will agree to disagree on this one. There is no sensible reason for a decision like this to be made. There is not one benefit for Disney in this scenario.

Raise room prices by $15, no problem. Disney gets a gain and customers don't really blink, the media doesn't pay attention.
Add a $15 "Resort Fee" charge for not one single new perk/service/amenity. You risk alienating your customers..it's all over the media..For what? It's nonsensical.
Add a $15 charge with an extra FP or new service option, ok. You'll get grumbles, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

The way it's being described here does not make sense. I'll believe it when I see it.

I 100% agree that there is no sensible reason to do it.

But adding a fee that doesn't boost the advertised rack rate, and the fact that they can easily point to about 100 other hotels charging the same fee in the area is likely their reasoning.

Not sensible, but plausible.

Again, hopefully it's a rumor that will fade away.

 

[danlb_2000]

Scare tactic? What is the end game? What's the point of this "scare tactic"? I'm confused by your words.

Universal trying to scare people into canceling their Disney vacations.

 

[21stamps]

I'm skeptical as well, especially given that Disney is trying to do more to boost occupancy, not less. I suppose they could be adding a resort fee to hide the cost on services like Tripadvisor, but I see no way they are going to add a $30/night parking fee for resort guests right now.

I 100% agree that there is no sensible reason to do it.

But adding a fee that doesn't boost the advertised rack rate, and the fact that they can easily point to about 100 other hotels charging the same fee in the area is likely their reasoning.

Not sensible, but plausible.

Again, hopefully it's a rumor that will fade away.

But where/how do they benefit from it? If you're sitting in the meeting about this proposal..and one of the decision makers..where do you see the "win"? I don't see it. Why would a decision be made that would do more harm than good?

ETA, People here hate when others say "Disney is a business", right? But the fact is - they are a business, and a decision like this would be a horrible move for their business to make. With ZERO gain. Dessert parties, dining packages, even the stupid MK cabanas all had a reason for being implemented, Disney gained revenue, a certain segment of customers get something they want. That is how a decision making process works. Not just implementing arbitrary fees without any kind of gain in customer satisfaction or revenue, and even more so- implementing something that would jeopardize satisfaction or revenue.

 

[Grimley1968]

But where/how do they benefit from it? If you're sitting in the meeting about this proposal..and one of the decision makers..where do you see the "win"? I don't see it. Why would a decision be made that would do more harm than good?

I've been asking myself that for years now about many of the decisions made by Disney for WDW.

If it comes to pass, this would just be another blunder, IMO.

 

[indyumd]

But where/how do they benefit from it? If you're sitting in the meeting about this proposal..and one of the decision makers..where do you see the "win"? I don't see it. Why would a decision be made that would do more harm than good?

When you go to Travelocity or Orbitz and you search for hotels, the Disney hotels are full price and the Hiltons and Wyndhams are hiding as much as $50-$60 a night in price. So the benefit would be Disney lowering their advertised rate to be more accurate against the off-site hotels. That said, they could designate a portion of the rate to be a fee on 3rd party booking sites, and roll it all in on disneyworld.com and things wouldn't really be that different. I would not assume this is a way to just raise rates secretly -- posted rates and packages are so diverse on a daily basis that i don't think that it matters.

The parking fee I can't find any benefit to charge resort guests. I see many benefits to charging off-site guests.

 

[HauntedPirate]

But where/how do they benefit from it? If you're sitting in the meeting about this proposal..and one of the decision makers..where do you see the "win"? I don't see it. Why would a decision be made that would do more harm than good?

ETA, People here hate when others say "Disney is a business", right? But the fact is - they are a business, and a decision like this would be a horrible move for their business to make. With ZERO gain. Dessert parties, dining packages, even the stupid MK cabanas all had a reason for being implemented, Disney gained revenue, a certain segment of customers get something they want. That is how a decision making process works. Not just implementing arbitrary fees when you're a company like Disney.

If it makes them more money, that's all the "win" justification TPTB need to implement any/all of these fees. They don't give a damn about the guest anymore, only the guests' wallet.

 

[SoccerMickey]

I'm skeptical as well, especially given that Disney is trying to do more to boost occupancy, not less. I suppose they could be adding a resort fee to hide the cost on services like Tripadvisor, but I see no way they are going to add a $30/night parking fee for resort guests right now.

I've heard this rumor recently as well from several friends who work in the resorts. Apparently paid parking was very close to happening last year or so and then it went away but the reasoning is, It seems disney is now at the breaking point of what people want to pay at the resorts and a significant price increase to the rack room rate will deter people from staying in their resorts at this given moment. Obviously they're not going to decrease the rack room rate but if they can generate that increased revenue by charging a resort fee or parking fee, they're able to have some wiggle room in offering deeper discounts to the room rate itself but on paper they can still show an increase in revenue or at least break even.

 

[raven]

Skimmed through the comments but let me try to make sense of this.

Essentially this would urge guests NOT to bring a car onto property so they can utilize the ever-failing, over crowded Disney transportation system?

 

[sxeensweet]

I assume this is for folks visiting the resorts and not staying at them correct? Cause if they are charging your car while you are staying at the resort that is absurd and going to KILL the ap crowd from staying so fast.

Most hotels in the US also including Disneyland charge it to resort guests nightly and can be as steep as $50-60 a night to park a car as a hotel guest on top of the nightly room rate. We have to pay at most hotels outside of WDW everytime. This is not unusual and mostly the norm.

I would challenge your assertion that most non-Disney hotels in the US charge for parking for registered guests. I have found the opposite. The only hotels that I see consistently charging a parking fee are hotels in prime downtown locations where all parking requires payment. Very few hotels and resorts I have stayed in outside of downtown areas charge for parking - even in touristy destinations.

Most destinations we pay for parking unless out of the city etc. But we also and I should add that stay at mostly 4-5 star hotels which I find it commonplace at those in most areas. And yes even at a lesser tier hotel like Hampton Inns we have stayed at if it is downtown I have seen it as you noted. But if staying at one in a smaller town no you don't see them I agree. But probably 75% of the time we pay to park our car even if not using valet.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But where/how do they benefit from it? If you're sitting in the meeting about this proposal..and one of the decision makers..where do you see the "win"? I don't see it. Why would a decision be made that would do more harm than good?

ETA, People here hate when others say "Disney is a business", right? But the fact is - they are a business, and a decision like this would be a horrible move for their business to make. With ZERO gain. Dessert parties, dining packages, even the stupid MK cabanas all had a reason for being implemented, Disney gained revenue, a certain segment of customers get something they want. That is how a decision making process works. Not just implementing arbitrary fees without any kind of gain in customer satisfaction or revenue.

A $1.00 per day fee equates to about $20,000 per day without any additional work. That's $7,300,000 per year. A decent increase in revenue that does not show up on advertised room rates.

 

[HauntedPirate]

They could easily justify a resort fee:

• Use of resort transportation
• Pool towels
• In-room coffee
• Wifi access
• Unlimited local calls

If they want to do this, they can and will easily come up with a list of "amenities" to justify it.

 

[NearTheEars]

But where/how do they benefit from it? If you're sitting in the meeting about this proposal..and one of the decision makers..where do you see the "win"? I don't see it. Why would a decision be made that would do more harm than good?

ETA, People here hate when others say "Disney is a business", right? But the fact is - they are a business, and a decision like this would be a horrible move for their business to make. With ZERO gain. Dessert parties, dining packages, even the stupid MK cabanas all had a reason for being implemented, Disney gained revenue, a certain segment of customers get something they want. That is how a decision making process works. Not just implementing arbitrary fees without any kind of gain in customer satisfaction or revenue, and even more so by jeopardizing the 2.

Monetarily, a lot. They can essentially do nothing, and make a ton of money.

They believe they have an audience so addicted to the product that the ones turned off by the move will be too small to make an impact.

Like I said, not a sensible to us as consumers, but major shareholders will applaud it.

 

[erikjp]

There's also two distressing things about this that I haven't seen people bring up:

1. Disney Parks are already incredibly profitable. Disney in no way NEEDS this money. They aren't charging this to cover rising costs, or to cover improved mousekeeping, or anything that might threaten their bottom line, because their resorts are profitable regardless of charging for parking or not. This is just purely Disney wanting more money. Which is fine, but multiple commenters are acting like Disney has to charge this to remain profitable, or to keep the resorts at comparable standards to off-site hotels, when they really don't need to.

2. Once you charge for parking at the resorts it changes future building at the park, specifically new parking lots/structures. Once you've monetized parking theres very little incentive to build new parking, even if more rooms are added to a resort and the parking lots are getting full, as you can just increase the parking fee to push less people to park there (and make more money off those who will still pay). This exact same thing happened at my local university, that for 50 some off years had free parking, and instead of building more parking garages, they started charging for a parking pass that went from $50 a semester to $200 a semester in 4 years. This is also way more ridiculous at a place like Disney World that has almost limitless land to build more parking lots/garages and ample amount of cash to cover it.

 

[indyumd]

Most hotels in the US also including Disneyland charge it to resort guests nightly and can be as steep as $50-60 a night to park a car as a hotel guest on top of the nightly room rate.

This is patently false. "Most" hotels in the US are not charging for parking.

 

[xdan0920]

But where/how do they benefit from it? If you're sitting in the meeting about this proposal..and one of the decision makers..where do you see the "win"? I don't see it. Why would a decision be made that would do more harm than good?

ETA, People here hate when others say "Disney is a business", right? But the fact is - they are a business, and a decision like this would be a horrible move for their business to make. With ZERO gain. Dessert parties, dining packages, even the stupid MK cabanas all had a reason for being implemented, Disney gained revenue, a certain segment of customers get something they want. That is how a decision making process works. Not just implementing arbitrary fees without any kind of gain in customer satisfaction or revenue, and even more so- implementing something that would jeopardize satisfaction or revenue.

Here's the "win" it's a guaranteed revenue stream. Not attached to discounts. That's why hoteliers do it. It's guaranteed money.

 

[stretchsje]

As a DVC member, I can see in my itemized costs that the majority of my year-over-year dues increase comes from property taxes. Property taxes on Disney's property have been skyrocketing in recent history due to increased appraisals.

Resort fees or not, the hotels are going to raise their prices to maintain their margins as best they can. 6% on a $300/night room is $18/night, about what a resort fee is at some other properties. It doesn't matter if that is slapped onto the rack rate or charged as a fee. Practically speaking there's no difference other than optics.

But the villain in my story is the state of Florida. I wish Disney lobbied for lower property taxes on DVC owners' and guests' behalves.