News New Gondola Transportation - Disney Skyliner -

[DisneyDaver]

just Build a monorail instead.. they have more money then they know what to do with no matter the cost..

As a public company, Disney has a fiduciary duty to it's shareholders to maximize profits (within the framework of the existing laws) and it would be unethical for Disney to act otherwise. Cost matters, no matter how much money Disney has.

 

[TrojanUSC]

What makes you think WDW is trying to desperately cater to those who would like a Four Seasons-like service experience?

WDW deluxe resorts are all about paying a premium for convenience, not service. I've never seen any attempt to copy Four Seasons' service and I really don't think that is what WDW is aiming for.

Where to a start? Just a smattering:

- Cabanas in the parks.
- Forthcoming Club 33
- Countless upcharge offerings that prioritize convenience and service.
- Massive expansion in VIP tours program.
- Allowing Four Seasons to build in Golden Oak at all meant they knew their resorts were losing a massive section of their clientele, whereas fifteen years ago those people would stay at the Grand without issue.

 

[COProgressFan]

Disney hotels, moderate or deluxe, are laughably bad compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the industry. You just miss out on the gorgeous theming and slight perks you get by staying off-property. Service and amenity wise they simply do not compare to other hotels at their price-point, with the best example being the Four Seasons @ Golden Oak or even the Waldorf, both of which service a clientele Disney is desperately trying to cater to. None of this goes to mention that Disney rooms are sorely outdated, often poorly designed and are just in relative disrepair. Service-wise cast members in 2017 have become theme park employees, basically - their expertise is in magic bands, not in providing a stellar guest experience. A perfect example:

During my last stay on the club level at DAK, I discovered that you can not, under any circumstance, call the front desk from your hotel room. The closest you can get is "guest services" which is just the main Walt Disney World operator, who is completely unversed in the operation of my specific resort. Beyond frustrating. Later, when I wanted to extend my stay, a visit to the front desk at the DAK club level check-in had them quoting me $1500+tax/night for a standard club level room, even verifying with a manager. Shocked I called central reservations - while sitting at the desk - who told me the same room would be $695.00. How is it possible there's such a disparity? Simple. Cast Members at the resorts are not really trained in the operation of a hotel, but rather learn only the bare bones and spend most of their time learning about magic bands, dining plans and park tickets.

Add to that the fact that the front desk "manager" of a supposed four star hotel in a world reknowned resort is often a 24 year old former CP paid peanuts for a living with near zero in hotel experience. You get what you pay for. And that same manager at the all stars could get transferred suddenly to the GF where the cheapest room is probably $450.

You would think that their best most experienced employees would move up, but the caliber of CM's doesn't matter depending on resort and is widely inconsistent.

 

[KrazyKat]

I'm at DISNEY WORLD!!!

 

[rob0519]

What makes you think WDW is trying to desperately cater to those who would like a Four Seasons-like service experience?

WDW deluxe resorts are all about paying a premium for convenience, not service. I've never seen any attempt to copy Four Seasons' service and I really don't think that is what WDW is aiming for.

Totally agree about Disney never even attempting to approach a Four Seasons level of service. Disney desperately wants the money Four Seasons guests spend. At all the Disney Deluxe Resorts you're paying for access convenience to the parks and slightly smaller crowds. The only exception would be a Savanna Room at the Animal Kingdom lodge. Still Disney lower class service, but Four Seasons cannot provide that view.

 

[DisneyDaver]

Where to a start? Just a smattering:

- Cabanas in the parks.
- Forthcoming Club 33
- Countless upcharge offerings that prioritize convenience and service.
- Massive expansion in VIP tours program.
- Allowing Four Seasons to build in Golden Oak at all meant they knew their resorts were losing a massive section of their clientele, whereas fifteen years ago those people would stay at the Grand without issue.

I think allowing the Four Seasons to build in Golden Oak was an acknowledgement by WDW that the WDW deluxe resorts don't (and won't) offer the same experience as the Four Seasons.

The other items you mention are just attempts by WDW to capture more available entertainment dollars from their guests by offering various ala carte upgrade experiences. I wouldn't pay for most of that stuff, but if someone else sees value for the price, then great for them (and for WDW). That is a very different business model than the Four Seasons.

 

[bjlc57]

As a public company, Disney has a fiduciary duty to it's shareholders to maximize profits (within the framework of the existing laws) and it would be unethical for Disney to act otherwise. Cost matters, no matter how much money Disney has.

spoken like a true Kool Aide drinker.. what ever Disney does is perfect.. and the best for them .. not the paying person.. but for them.. and that attitude alone is so ANTI -WALT..

 

[DisneyDaver]

spoken like a true Kool Aide drinker.. what ever Disney does is perfect.. and the best for them .. not the paying person.. but for them.. and that attitude alone is so ANTI -WALT..

I'm not a Kool-Aide drinker at all. My recent Orlando trips have been 80% Universal and 20% WDW because I personally don't like a lot of things WDW is doing and I believe in speaking with my wallet (because that is what brings about change, not website postings).

I believe strongly that all public companies should be doing whatever they can to maximize profit (within the confines of the law) and I think it would be unethical for public companies to do anything that was not profit maximizing. If WDW believes what they are doing maximizes their profit, then I support it even if it isn't what I like personally. I will just choose to spend the bulk of my entertainment money elsewhere.

If enough people stop going to WDW and spending money there, then WDW will change how it operates. If you don't like what WDW is doing, but still spend a lot of money there, they you are a big part of the problem. To be clear, when I say "you", I mean "you" in the general sense of anyone, not "you" specifically.

 

[marni1971]

I think allowing the Four Seasons to build in Golden Oak was an acknowledgement by WDW that the WDW deluxe resorts don't (and won't) offer the same experience as the Four Seasons..

Golden Oak is de annexed.

 

[larryz]

If WDW were to develop and open a resort staffed to match the service a Four Seasons typically provides, that resort would quickly be overrun with guests who ... how to say this gently ... couldn't truly appreciate that level of service. I think they know that, and don't see the need when they can book 90% occupancy based on proximity alone.

And we'd be here talking about how that level of clientele affected that resort's inability to provide a true luxury experience.

Whether or not they'd get a gondola station is moot -- they'd likely get a limo to the back edge of each park...

 

[TeriofTerror]

All I want for Christmas is one thread that doesn't devolve into a "Disney is a business" argument.
And for everyone to learn how to spell "dining" before Free Dining is announced this week.

 

[flynnibus]

I believe strongly that all public companies should be doing whatever they can to maximize profit (within the confines of the law) and I think it would be unethical for public companies to do anything that was not profit maximizing. If

Do you seriously not understand that business models an operations are not just 'runcosts to as low as possible'?

Or that maximizing profits may take a longer view?

Your simple approach doesn't encompass the ideas of how to sustain business instead of just milking it. It's the type of robber baron thinking that lead to regulation because corporations could not be trusted to think beyond today.

 

[DisneyDaver]

Do you seriously not understand that business models an operations are not just 'runcosts to as low as possible'?

Or that maximizing profits may take a longer view?

Your simple approach doesn't encompass the ideas of how to sustain business instead of just milking it. It's the type of robber baron thinking that lead to regulation because corporations could not be trusted to think beyond today.

I never said anything about running costs as low as possible in any of my posts. I never said it was simple. You twist my words. I said that WDW should be running for profit maximization (and in the case of the example that triggered my comment ... Disney should not spend money on additional monorails because Disney has the money and guests would like it).

I have a very good understanding of business models both from a theoretical standpoint from college and grad school and in practice from working for and then running businesses. In fact, from your comment, I question your business knowledge, background and experience.

I deeply understand the long run view and plan for it on a daily basis. There is a big difference between what you refer to as a "robber baron" mentality which brought about regulation and Disney deciding that raising prices and upcharging is the best way to achieve additional revenue. I would not be in favor or Disney skimping on maintenance to the point that rides became unsafe ... but that was not at issue. I an perfectly happy to see Disney charge ala carte for various services and extras and let people select what it worth it to them and what is not.

Disney has adjusted as the competition from Universal increased and threatened Disney long run place in the market ... so Disney is in the process of making some changes. This is good and this is how it should be. What is silly, however, is people who complain about Disney, spend money there anyway and then expect change.

 

[flynnibus]

I never said anything about running costs as low as possible in any of my posts. I never said it was simple. You twist my words. I said that WDW should be running for profit maximization (and in the case of the example that triggered my comment ... Disney should not spend money on additional monorails because Disney has the money and guests would like it).

I have a very good understanding of business models both from a theoretical standpoint from college and grad school and in practice from working for and then running businesses. In fact, from your comment, I question your business knowledge, background and experience.

I deeply understand the long run view and plan for it on a daily basis. There is a big difference between what you refer to as a "robber baron" mentality which brought about regulation and Disney deciding that raising prices and upcharging is the best way to achieve additional revenue. I would not be in favor or Disney skimping on maintenance to the point that rides became unsafe ... but that was not at issue. I an perfectly happy to see Disney charge ala carte for various services and extras and let people select what it worth it to them and what is not.

Disney has adjusted as the competition from Universal increased and threatened Disney long run place in the market ... so Disney is in the process of making some changes. This is good and this is how it should be. What is silly, however, is people who complain about Disney, spend money there anyway and then expect change.

There is no mandate to 'maximize profits' - anyone who says that is either defending their choices or parroting stuff they don't understand.

Maximum value is not tied to profits. Ethics, corporate citizenship, sustainability, and other missions can be counter to 'maximize profits' because it takes an encompassing view. Maximize profits is not the sole measure of the measure of success and corporate leadership.

Value can be driven by many factors.

an officer should not squander any corporate resource and the long term success of the vusiness should be the goal. Anytime someone simplifies that to 'maximize profits' they are doomed to sell everything out to drive that improper focus.

 

[larryz]

an officer should not squander any corporate resource and the long term success of the vusiness should be the goal. Anytime someone simplifies that to 'maximize profits' they are doomed to sell everything out to drive that improper focus.

Maybe folks shouldn't expect a former weatherman-turned-TV-executive to understand the heart and soul of the world's most beloved theme parks...

 

[DisneyDaver]

There is no mandate to 'maximize profits' - anyone who says that is either defending their choices or parroting stuff they don't understand.

Maximum value is not tied to profits. Ethics, corporate citizenship, sustainability, and other missions can be counter to 'maximize profits' because it takes an encompassing view. Maximize profits is not the sole measure of the measure of success and corporate leadership.

Value can be driven by many factors.

an officer should not squander any corporate resource and the long term success of the vusiness should be the goal. Anytime someone simplifies that to 'maximize profits' they are doomed to sell everything out to drive that improper focus.

That's a fair response. And yes, I agree that you are correct the obligation is to maximize value, not profit directly as I incorrectly stated (though I disagree with your in your statement that maximum value is not tied to profit as I believe there is a connection).

My initial response was to the poster that in essence said WDW should build more monorails instead of the gondolas because WDW has loads of money. While I simplified things in my response to that poster, it was more out of frustration of posters/people who think that because WDW has money, WDW should spend that money on things customers (or WDW fans) want without regard to the cost/benefit to WDW or return on investment.

 

[TrojanUSC]

Golden Oak is de annexed.

For the purpose of the residents within the community not being part of Reedy Creek but Disney still controls what was built there and certainly negotiated the deal for Four Seasons to build there.

 

[Monorail_Red_77]

Those 4/5 size steam trains were a disaster to maintain if I remember correctly. Albeit a pretty damn cool way to travel around the campgrounds.

Yes, from what I hear. Also, the tracks were poorly built. Trains were low capacity and poorly ran. They would frequently run out of water and stall on the tracks. Then busses came on the scene and improved the situation. You can still find a poster advertising the FWRR in the Check-In Lobby.

 

[wdisney9000]

While I simplified things in my response to that poster, it was more out of frustration of posters/people who think that because WDW has money, WDW should spend that money on things customers (or WDW fans) want without regard to the cost/benefit to WDW or return on investment.

Take FEA for example. A perfect example of Disney, "giving customers what they want". How do you measure the ROI on the money spent? Guest satisfaction would presumably be the primary. "Return" On Investment does not/should not be strictly viewed as financial. Your customers satisfaction should be extremely important, especially if you want repeat business which factors into the "R" in ROI.

The monorails are major icon of the resort itself. Their, "highway in the sky". Disney is not "maximizing profits" by allowing them to decay. The cost savings is negated when they eventually will have to repair or replace them. All the while they are frustrating their customers who constantly get stuck on the monorail do to its lack of maintenance. Then, while they are sitting there stuck on the tracks, they start to notice the horrible condition of the cabins and the odors start to become more noticeable. Not exactly a good message to send to your customers. Read the Trip Reports section and you will see how common it is that the monorails are down. It has become more and more frequent over the years.

 

[Kamikaze]

Take FEA for example. A perfect example of Disney, "giving customers what they want". How do you measure the ROI on the money spent? Guest satisfaction would presumably be the primary. "Return" On Investment does not/should not be strictly viewed as financial. Your customers satisfaction should be extremely important, especially if you want repeat business which factors into the "R" in ROI.

No, the primary ROI is the money that comes in to visit whatever the I is. Guest satisfaction doesn't have anything to do with it, because if they have already Returned, thus the Investment is bringing that money in, regardless of what the satisfaction scores say.

The monorails are major icon of the resort itself. Their, "highway in the sky". Disney is not "maximizing profits" by allowing them to decay. The cost savings is negated when they eventually will have to repair or replace them. All the while they are frustrating their customers who constantly get stuck on the monorail do to its lack of maintenance. Then, while they are sitting there stuck on the tracks, they start to notice the horrible condition of the cabins and the odors start to become more noticeable. Not exactly a good message to send to your customers. Read the Trip Reports section and you will see how common it is that the monorails are down. It has become more and more frequent over the years.

The monorail is transportation. Cindy's Castle, Spaceship Earth, Mickey, those are the icons of the resort.

I really don't understand the blind love for the monorail. It isn't an efficient system for WDW's guest flow. Which is a large, spread out, amount of guests that also peak at two distinct periods per day. It works at MK because its a small system for the 3 resorts and point to point for TTC-MK. Even the Epcot loop is OK because its point to point, but its still not efficient for MK resorts to Epcot. It should not be expanded, because the costs far outweigh any benefits of instead investing in better, cheaper, more efficient systems. Not because of ROI, but because it simply doesn't do the job in the best way.