Monorail Yellow Evacuation - Bus entrance to MK closed...detouring now (somewhere)

[NelsonRD]

You really don't get WHY they fly on their OWN flights, You might have heard about how Walt and Eisner both had their executives walk and work the park so they would experience the park from the CUSTOMER point of view. As to it being standby no they are listed as regular pax.

Amazingly it's only the airlines where the executives DONT FLY with the customers have that lovely 'cattle car' ambiance and nasty staff while the executives are whisked around in their luxury planes far removed from the actual customer experience.

I understand your point, however, it is not necessary the responsibility of executives to experience the brand first hand of a large organization. They rely on the knowledge of their how the guest experience is being reported. It sounds like a good idea, but it is almost impossible for upper management to be the 'foot in the ground' of a very large organization. I am also not defending the possibility of issues being reported and ignored at the cost of improvements, but I can understand how problems are not reported up the chain as managers try to defend their position. I believe the problem lies more with managers improperly promoted, rather than CEO/Executives making money.

 

[**Stacy**]

But a transportation manager got a BONUS for saving money but not fixing the AC

Once upon a time I worked for an international insurance/finance company. I dealt with annuities in the call center. Our 'director' was obsessed with call times and not necessarily concerned with the quality of the customer service provided on the calls. I was tasked with researching complaints and identifying trends within the weekly complaint report. Every week I found a large number of complaints about one call center rep hanging up on clients mid conversation at the same point (2 minutes). After digging I found that he was able to maintain perfect numbers, while the rest of us were picking up the angry call backs, spending time apologizing about the previous call and even more time correcting whatever issue prompted the original call. In the end the person hanging up continued to receive bonuses and prizes, while the rest of us continued to get thumped for long call times....and I earned the reputation for being "mean" and "picking on" this one particular rep that was responsible for about 30 complaints out of 50 complaints per week.

In that call center doing something correctly the first time would have reduced the need for extra calls, apology letters, and the need to "promote" 3 reps to handle angry call backs that quickly escalated to "supervisors" and opened up phone lines for other calls to get through the call queue sooner.

What I am trying to illustrate is that it's not just Disney that doesn't think ahead or step back to see the big picture...in the grand scheme of things a 2 minute average call time or surplus in the maintenance budget means nothing if your customers stop calling or stop showing up because they took their money somewhere else.

 

[ford91exploder]

Once upon a time I worked for an international insurance/finance company. I dealt with annuities in the call center. Our 'director' was obsessed with call times and not necessarily concerned with the quality of the customer service provided on the calls. I was tasked with researching complaints and identifying trends within the weekly complaint report. Every week I found a large number of complaints about one call center rep hanging up on clients mid conversation at the same point (2 minutes). After digging I found that he was able to maintain perfect numbers, while the rest of us were picking up the angry call backs, spending time apologizing about the previous call and even more time correcting whatever issue prompted the original call. In the end the person hanging up continued to receive bonuses and prizes, while the rest of us continued to get thumped for long call times....and I earned the reputation for being "mean" and "picking on" this one particular rep that was responsible for about 30 complaints out of 50 complaints per week.

In that call center doing something correctly the first time would have reduced the need for extra calls, apology letters, and the need to "promote" 3 reps to handle angry call backs that quickly escalated to "supervisors" and opened up phone lines for other calls to get through the call queue sooner.

What I am trying to illustrate is that it's not just Disney that doesn't think ahead or step back to see the big picture...in the grand scheme of things a 2 minute average call time or surplus in the maintenance budget means nothing if your customers stop calling or stop showing up because they took their money somewhere else.

Thing is it's an executive's JOB to see the 'big picture' just like it's a call center worker's job to pick up the phone.

 

[s8film40]

Thing is it's an executive's JOB to see the 'big picture' just like it's a call center worker's job to pick up the phone.

Yep. Unfortunately an executive who focuses on his/her job isn't going to make it as far as one who focuses on their career. Most executives are looking to move past the position they're in as quickly as possible and so they will do whatever it takes to make it look like things are going well and everything is positive. I guess this is the executive version of that guy who just hangs up after 2 minutes.

 

[ford91exploder]

I understand your point, however, it is not necessary the responsibility of executives to experience the brand first hand of a large organization. They rely on the knowledge of their how the guest experience is being reported. It sounds like a good idea, but it is almost impossible for upper management to be the 'foot in the ground' of a very large organization. I am also not defending the possibility of issues being reported and ignored at the cost of improvements, but I can understand how problems are not reported up the chain as managers try to defend their position. I believe the problem lies more with managers improperly promoted, rather than CEO/Executives making money.

Bill Hewlett and William Packard practiced a style of management called 'Management by walking around', In my experiences with large organizations with screwed up operations the degree of chaos tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of time senior management spends with the troops so to speak.

Perhaps this is why so many CEO's discover that they have dysfunctional organizations when they go incognito for things like 'Undercover Boss' like the CEO found that workers were passing out on the loading dock of one company due to poor ventilation and no fluids available, Yeah the supervisor of that loading dock is gonna report that up the line... (yet the fix was easy set up fans and supply bottled water and sports drinks) a LOT cheaper than the workers comp the company was paying for.

 

[ford91exploder]

Yep. Unfortunately an executive who focuses on his/her job isn't going to make it as far as one who focuses on their career. Most executives are looking to move past the position they're in as quickly as possible and so they will do whatever it takes to make it look like things are going well and everything is positive. I guess this is the executive version of that guy who just hangs up after 2 minutes.

The really good ones do BOTH and they find and hire competent line managers who take the load off them.

 

[s8film40]

The really good ones do BOTH and they find and hire competent line managers who take the load off them.

Yes, and those are the ones that don't last very long at Disney.

 

[PhotoDave219]

The really good ones do BOTH and they find and hire competent line managers who take the load off them.

Thats not the Disney way.

 

[NelsonRD]

Bill Hewlett and William Packard practiced a style of management called 'Management by walking around', In my experiences with large organizations with screwed up operations the degree of chaos tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of time senior management spends with the troops so to speak.

Perhaps this is why so many CEO's discover that they have dysfunctional organizations when they go incognito for things like 'Undercover Boss' like the CEO found that workers were passing out on the loading dock of one company due to poor ventilation and no fluids available, Yeah the supervisor of that loading dock is gonna report that up the line... (yet the fix was easy set up fans and supply bottled water and sports drinks) a LOT cheaper than the workers comp the company was paying for.

I am familiar with lead by example, not by force, and agree that the entire chain of management needs to be educated in what is happening in their organization. My argument is not to get sucked into stories where CEO's/Executives vow to eat cat food to save money, only to turn out to be poor leaders in the field, and toxic to the company. Good intentions or not, I do not get excited about management based on 'feel good' stories. Alan Mulally is remembered for saving Ford, not for his $1 a year salary. This is why I argue when people complain about management pay. Everybody will agree with me that good pay and benefits brings out the best in employees, and I am just saying this applies to upper management as well, just as a higher scale.

I would add College as the biggest contributor to this problem. Many students today graduate with a business degree, and secure jobs in a business they know nothing about. Back in the day, leaders were promoted and selected as they have advanced through an organization, and understand each job. Today, a graduate takes a job in an organization with no passion or knowledge, because they simply needed to get a job.

 

[photomatt]

But a transportation manager got a BONUS for saving money but not fixing the AC

This has more truth to it than you might think. I know for a fact that head chefs at Disney get large bonuses based on the amount they save on food. I'm certain the same thing applies to all departments. This is the root cause of all of the maintenance and service issues property wide. The people who can fix things make more money when they defer maintenance as long as possible. They get bonuses based on how much money they have left in their budget and/or how much under budget they can get.

The only way this is going to change is when enough people die and the cost of the insurance settlements outweighs the cost of maintenance or improvements. I realize this is a harsh statement, but it's absolutely true. It's they way our entire country works, not just Disney.

In the case of the monorail, no one has died because of a lack of maintenance. Yes, there was an accident due to a procedural issue, but that was not maintenance-related. If no one's dying and no one is getting injured, there's no reason to fix it. Yes, this is a pathetic point-of-view, but it is sadly true.

 

[googilycub]

Those aren't monorails.

You're flying off topic.

True. Lets move over to the two rail mode of transportation. I had one of these the other night on a hot UPS train. A little slower up the hills that the new power, but still got the train in ahead of schedule. Built in 1979.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=695357

The point being is to many people on this site get hung up on the age of the monorails. These are not your Honda that needs to be traded in every 7 years. With proper maintenance the monorails should be reliable for 40-50 years.

 

[ford91exploder]

True. Lets move over to the two rail mode of transportation. I had one of these the other night on a hot UPS train. A little slower up the hills that the new power, but still got the train in ahead of schedule. Built in 1979.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=695357

The point being is to many people on this site get hung up on the age of the monorails. These are not your Honda that needs to be traded in every 7 years. With proper maintenance the monorails should be reliable for 40-50 years.

But even these could be retrofitted with AC drive and the new traction motors and be fully equivalent to the new power on the line as well as extending their life by 10-20 years. Let's face it even on Class 1 railroads they are still using locomotives produced in the 60's in regular service in decreasing numbers of course as the new power is objectively better but the old power is still reliable and serviceable.

 

[PhotoDave219]

True. Lets move over to the two rail mode of transportation. I had one of these the other night on a hot UPS train. A little slower up the hills that the new power, but still got the train in ahead of schedule. Built in 1979.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=695357

The point being is to many people on this site get hung up on the age of the monorails. These are not your Honda that needs to be traded in every 7 years. With proper maintenance the monorails should be reliable for 40-50 years.

You're right, they should be. But clearly, they're not.

 

[Monorail_Orange]

True. Lets move over to the two rail mode of transportation. I had one of these the other night on a hot UPS train. A little slower up the hills that the new power, but still got the train in ahead of schedule. Built in 1979.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=695357

The point being is to many people on this site get hung up on the age of the monorails. These are not your Honda that needs to be traded in every 7 years. With proper maintenance the monorails should be reliable for 40-50 years.

Also, to my recollection, diesel-electric locomotives, even the latest ones, are taken offline and rebuilt (prime mover, generator/alternator, traction motors, and update cab controls) every 10 to 15 years...not much different from the type of rebuilds DL's monorail get every, what, 20 years or so between Mk III, Mk V, and Mk VII. Our Mk VI's have only received control updates that we know of. By the way, glad to see those SD40-2s still getting it done.

 

[Brad Bishop]

I would add College as the biggest contributor to this problem. Many students today graduate with a business degree, and secure jobs in a business they know nothing about. Back in the day, leaders were promoted and selected as they have advanced through an organization, and understand each job. Today, a graduate takes a job in an organization with no passion or knowledge, because they simply needed to get a job.

I've put some thought into this over the years and I think some of this can be attributed to a "risk adverse" society.

Think about the current crop of people coming up through the ranks:
- They weren't allowed to play ball in the street
- They had playground equipment that was uber-safe - no chance of them falling onto the concrete below.
- bicycle helmets
- Strapped in as much as possible in the car
- Stranger Danger!
- Don't do anything without your helicopter parent.

Everything screams "Don't ever take a risk!" I think that this plays into it with it's better to let things be (and get your bonus) rather than take a risk and fix things or shake things up. You could replace the monorail trains but the safe thing to do is to try to squeeze 5-10 more years out of them. You could update Epcot but the safe thing to do is to let it be and let the various festivals fill the gap. You could fix Hollywood Studios but it gets enough traffic from being the add-on park that it doesn't really matter (granted - they seem to be trying to fix this one).

The other thing is that the incentives are all wrong. Your incentive is today's bottom line. That's where your bonus lies. That's where you make your money. There is no incentive to do, long term, what's right for the company. The incentive is "save today!". It's the safe thing to do. There's also an incentive to be a bad manager. If you're a good manager with a good team then it looks like you're doing nothing. If you're a bad manager then you're constantly putting out fires. You're busy all the time. You're a real go-getter and no one else could possibly do such a good job as to handle the fires as you, the bad manager. The good managers (things rolling along smoothly) don't get credit and often get fired. This doesn't even touch upon the chain of command that starts to form where you're encouraged to be the "yes man".

 

[bpadair32]

I've put some thought into this over the years and I think some of this can be attributed to a "risk adverse" society.

Think about the current crop of people coming up through the ranks:
- They weren't allowed to play ball in the street
- They had playground equipment that was uber-safe - no chance of them falling onto the concrete below.
- bicycle helmets
- Strapped in as much as possible in the car
- Stranger Danger!
- Don't do anything without your helicopter parent.

Everything screams "Don't ever take a risk!" I think that this plays into it with it's better to let things be (and get your bonus) rather than take a risk and fix things or shake things up. You could replace the monorail trains but the safe thing to do is to try to squeeze 5-10 more years out of them. You could update Epcot but the safe thing to do is to let it be and let the various festivals fill the gap. You could fix Hollywood Studios but it gets enough traffic from being the add-on park that it doesn't really matter (granted - they seem to be trying to fix this one).

The other thing is that the incentives are all wrong. Your incentive is today's bottom line. That's where your bonus lies. That's where you make your money. There is no incentive to do, long term, what's right for the company. The incentive is "save today!". It's the safe thing to do. There's also an incentive to be a bad manager. If you're a good manager with a good team then it looks like you're doing nothing. If you're a bad manager then you're constantly putting out fires. You're busy all the time. You're a real go-getter and no one else could possibly do such a good job as to handle the fires as you, the bad manager. The good managers (things rolling along smoothly) don't get credit and often get fired. This doesn't even touch upon the chain of command that starts to form where you're encouraged to be the "yes man".

Yes and no. Maybe some of it is the way people were raised, but I was a kid that wore a bike helmet, was on a leash and had an early bedtime way longer than what is normal. I am also a manager, and I got there by taking risks, making sure my team runs as smoothly as possible and that there are not a lot of fires to put out. I think it is less risky to make sure there are not a lot of fires waiting to burn you in the backside.

 

[ford91exploder]

Also, to my recollection, diesel-electric locomotives, even the latest ones, are taken offline and rebuilt (prime mover, generator/alternator, traction motors, and update cab controls) every 10 to 15 years...not much different from the type of rebuilds DL's monorail get every, what, 20 years or so between Mk III, Mk V, and Mk VII. Our Mk VI's have only received control updates that we know of. By the way, glad to see those SD40-2s still getting it done.

Yes locomotives are indeed rebuilt from the frame up every decade or so and refitted with the latest version of their prime mover (or a completely NEW one (ie replacing a EMD 567 with a 645 or 710) and new alternator/traction motors/controls . A locomotive is a huge capital investment and it needs to be running smoothly to make money.

 

[s8film40]

Yes locomotives are indeed rebuilt from the frame up every decade or so and refitted with the latest version of their prime mover (or a completely NEW one (ie replacing a EMD 567 with a 645 or 710) and new alternator/traction motors/controls . A locomotive is a huge capital investment and it needs to be running smoothly to make money.

I'm pretty sure this statement could and should apply to WDW monorails as well.

 

[NelsonRD]

I've put some thought into this over the years and I think some of this can be attributed to a "risk adverse" society.

Think about the current crop of people coming up through the ranks:
- They weren't allowed to play ball in the street
- They had playground equipment that was uber-safe - no chance of them falling onto the concrete below.
- bicycle helmets
- Strapped in as much as possible in the car
- Stranger Danger!
- Don't do anything without your helicopter parent.

Everything screams "Don't ever take a risk!" I think that this plays into it with it's better to let things be (and get your bonus) rather than take a risk and fix things or shake things up. You could replace the monorail trains but the safe thing to do is to try to squeeze 5-10 more years out of them. You could update Epcot but the safe thing to do is to let it be and let the various festivals fill the gap. You could fix Hollywood Studios but it gets enough traffic from being the add-on park that it doesn't really matter (granted - they seem to be trying to fix this one).

The other thing is that the incentives are all wrong. Your incentive is today's bottom line. That's where your bonus lies. That's where you make your money. There is no incentive to do, long term, what's right for the company. The incentive is "save today!". It's the safe thing to do. There's also an incentive to be a bad manager. If you're a good manager with a good team then it looks like you're doing nothing. If you're a bad manager then you're constantly putting out fires. You're busy all the time. You're a real go-getter and no one else could possibly do such a good job as to handle the fires as you, the bad manager. The good managers (things rolling along smoothly) don't get credit and often get fired. This doesn't even touch upon the chain of command that starts to form where you're encouraged to be the "yes man".

I think it is time to change the theme song on Carousel of Progress back to "Now is the Time".

 

[Monorail_Orange]

I'm pretty sure this statement could and should apply to WDW monorails as well.

Absolutely, that's why I mentioned the DL monorail comparison for their schedule of overhauls. Granted, I understand DL's monorail is "attraction" grade and WDW's are "commuter" grade, but I think for purposes of maintenance and rebuilds, the comparison is apt, along with looking at railroads and yes, even airlines. I also think WDW should consider adding an additional train or two to allow for frame-up rebuilds of the existing 12 (yes, even teal and peach) and once rebuilt, to allow proper maintenance of the entire fleet without sacrificing capacity. But, I won't hold my breath.