Rumor New Monorails Coming Soon?

[s8film40]

Off topic and I’m sure it is posted somewhere but how deep is the 7 Seas Lagoon?

I’ve always heard that if a ferry sunk the roof would still be above water. I don’t know how accurate that is and I’m sure it varies by location in the lagoon, but if you go back to the construction photos it looks about right.

 

[Bender123]

I’ve always heard that if a ferry sunk the roof would still be above water. I don’t know how accurate that is and I’m sure it varies by location in the lagoon, but if you go back to the construction photos it looks about right.

About 14" at its deepest. Fairly standard lake depth for an inland area.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You could have said the same thing about resort parking fees a year back.

No, I wouldn't have. The two are nothing alike.

Disney wants to incentivize you to stay on property and rely on Disney transportation. The absolute last thing they're going to do is charge for transportation, as this would be directly contrary to their strategy. They're never going to charge for the monorails, they're never going to charge for the buses, and they're never going to charge for Magical Express.

 

[larryz]

About 14" at its deepest. Fairly standard lake depth for an inland area.

You meant "14 feet" at its deepest, yes? I'm pretty sure the ferries draft more than 14 inches...

 

[Bender123]

You meant "14 feet" at its deepest, yes? I'm pretty sure the ferries draft more than 14 inches...

Typed that prior to coffee on a Monday morning...The animals and boats are all 2d, just like Mickey Mouse, so 14 inches is practically bottomless in geometric terms.

 

[Brad Bishop]

No, I wouldn't have. The two are nothing alike.

Disney wants to incentivize you to stay on property and rely on Disney transportation. The absolute last thing they're going to do is charge for transportation, as this would be directly contrary to their strategy. They're never going to charge for the monorails, they're never going to charge for the buses, and they're never going to charge for Magical Express.

The last thing they'd do is charge for resort parking: They want to incentivize you to to stay on site and, as such, stay at one of their resorts. Charging for parking at resorts works against that. They're never going to charge for parking at resorts.

...until they do.

About the only thing I could see them not charging for, because I think it'd be way over the top, is the parking lot trams. That may (may??) be too far for the current management. Everything else? I could completely see them charging for transportation be it bus, boat, or Monorail. I think everything is on the table at this point.

The current management's philosophy is: "Get more dollars from guests. Do as little as possible."

It's why you have the park being sold multiple times per day, the Monorails 10-years overdue for replacement, playing "catch up" with adding attractions, $150/head "after hours" parties, cabanas, Minnie Vans, Magical Fireworks w/ Ice Cream!, resort parking lot fees, etc.
(I know I've missed some)

I'm not even making a argument that it's wrong to do that. I'm just saying that's who they are at this point in time.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The last thing they'd do is charge for resort parking: They want to incentivize you to to stay on site and, as such, stay at one of their resorts. Charging for parking at resorts works against that. They're never going to charge for parking at resorts.

Your logic is correct, but it doesn't reflect current economic realities.

Disney has two (somewhat competing) goals that fall under the umbrella of what we're talking about:

• Convert an off-property guest to an on-property guest.
• Convert an on-property guest with a car to an on-property guest without a car.

The giant caveat is that Walt Disney World Resort hotels are already operating at or near full capacity. They've been consistently hovering right around 90% occupancy for several consecutive years, and the 10% of room nights that aren't filled are typically random mid-week days that they're unable to sell individually. They absolutely want you to stay on site, but when on-site hotels are pretty darn close to full, their focus shifts to maximizing the guest spending of those folks who are already on property. They don't care that parking fees might make their on-property resorts slightly less appealing to off-property guests when the on-property resorts are so full that they wouldn't have anywhere to put the off-property guest if they decided to come on-property anyways.

 

[jakeman]

Walt Disney World Resort hotels are already operating at or near full capacity.

Whoa buddy, common knowledge around here is that huge expanses of hotel rooms have been taken out of service to inflate occupancy numbers.

I think by last estimation by those folks, there's only like 5-6 hotel rooms in use on property.

 

[marni1971]

Whoa buddy, common knowledge around here is that huge expanses of hotel rooms have been taken out of service to inflate occupancy numbers.

I think by last estimation by those folks, there's only like 5-6 hotel rooms in use on property.

He’s right. Though your numbers are a little out.

 

[Brad Bishop]

Your logic is correct, but it doesn't reflect current economic realities.

Disney has two (somewhat competing) goals that fall under the umbrella of what we're talking about:

• Convert an off-property guest to an on-property guest.
• Convert an on-property guest with a car to an on-property guest without a car.

The giant caveat is that Walt Disney World Resort hotels are already operating at or near full capacity. They've been consistently hovering right around 90% occupancy for several consecutive years, and the 10% of room nights that aren't filled are typically random mid-week days that they're unable to sell individually. They absolutely want you to stay on site, but when on-site hotels are pretty darn close to full, their focus shifts to maximizing the guest spending of those folks who are already on property. They don't care that parking fees might make their on-property resorts slightly less appealing to off-property guests when the on-property resorts are so full that they wouldn't have anywhere to put the off-property guest if they decided to come on-property anyways.

You could still argue, using this logic, that:

WDW has been experiencing record attendance and, thus, their focus shifts to maximizing guest spending and that means charging for transportation.

My only real argument with all of this is your initial assertion that: "No way. Never. Not going to happen." - with regards to charging for transportation.

I'm glad that they don't. I hope that they keep it that way. (in a sense, I kind of agree with you) Never?? .. They're not, nor will they ever, even consider it??? I don't believe that. Especially considering their "charge them at every possibility" management style and you can see some parallels with other things that they used to not charge for and are charging for now.

Wasn't there a recent thread about charging a premium for FastPass+?? It's original intent was to keep guests out of line and spending money but, if you can charge for it anyway...

I guess I don't understand why you think transportation is some kind of sacred entity that won't ever have a charge.

I'd even bet complimentary parking for resort guests at the parks goes away. If they're trying to establish "no cars" then there's no better way of doing that than charging for both resort parking and park parking. You could even argue it sort of has with charging for resort parking so why not double dip?

If you're management and you're going down this path of what you could charge for and how people slowly acclimate to not using their cars on-property, then it isn't a huge leap to say: "We're losing revenue from not charging people for parking (resort parking + park parking)!! We need to make that up via transportation fees! If they're coming on site and not using their car then the guest is just getting a literal "free ride" on our transportation! CHARGE THEM!" - I could totally see them having that kind of thought process and coming to that conclusion.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm glad that they don't. I hope that they keep it that way. (in a sense, I kind of agree with you) Never?? .. They're not, nor will they ever, even consider it??? I don't believe that. Especially considering their "charge them at every possibility" management style and you can see some parallels with other things that they used to not charge for and are charging for now.

I don't like using big all-encompassing terms like the collective "they" for an organization the scope and scale of Walt Disney Parks & Resorts. Yes, I'm certain there are people within TWDC that would be happy to charge for transportation but it would be an extremely short-sighted move that would torpedo their core strategy of creating a captive audience. I believe that strategy is fundamental enough and well-enough regarded that any dissenting approaches would be relatively quickly shut down.

 

[Goofyernmost]

You could have said the same thing about resort parking fees a year back.

Yes, but, this is a little different. After you have just paid $20.+ to park your car and then to charge for the only two options that exist to get to MK, would be a problem PR wise, so I would have to go with the, no chance not gonna happen, side of it. They have been charging for that in the parking fees anyway. Just because they don't tell you about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[Goofyernmost]

You're right but the problem is that WDW hasn't been maintaining the monorails properly and this door was indicative of that. I think that the counter argument would be that had they maintained (and replaced, by now) the monorails, they wouldn't have been in such a shabby condition and would run reliably and, while it's always possible that a door would have popped open, it'd be far less likely.

It relates to how WDW used to crone about how the monorails have a 99.8% uptime when, today, that certainly isn't the case. You could argue that it's all nearly 50 years old but, again, if it were properly maintained and they had new trains (and perhaps other investments like extra trains and extra bays to work on them) then we'd probably still be up at that 99.8% uptime.

I think it is a long shot to say that this happened because they "aren't maintaining them. The Monorails would have stopped moving years ago if that were true. We have to use just small amount of common sense in this. I realize common sense is in short supply these days.

 

[Bender123]

I think it is a long shot to say that this happened because they "aren't maintaining them. The Monorails would have stopped moving years ago if that were true. We have to use just small amount of common sense in this. I realize common sense is in short supply these days.

I think we overuse terms here and use them incorrectly. They maintain the monorails, but at some point maintenance nets diminishing returns over time on a depreciating system. A tune up on a 30 year old car will net you far lower results than one on a brand new car.

Disney has, indeed, maintained the system, but what they have not done is strip down and rebuild. At some point a mechanical asset just breaks down and causes cascade failures.

 

[Brad Bishop]

I think it is a long shot to say that this happened because they "aren't maintaining them. The Monorails would have stopped moving years ago if that were true. We have to use just small amount of common sense in this. I realize common sense is in short supply these days.

You're right. "Minimal maintenance" would be a better fit. It's the difference between someone who properly maintains their car and someone who does just what is needed that day to keep the car rolling down the street, though.

 

[John park hopper]

I think we overuse terms here and use them incorrectly. They maintain the monorails, but at some point maintenance nets diminishing returns over time on a depreciating system. A tune up on a 30 year old car will net you far lower results than one on a brand new car.

Disney has, indeed, maintained the system, but what they have not done is strip down and rebuild. At some point a mechanical asset just breaks down and causes cascade failures.

Watched a show on Japans high speed rail system; ever 2 years the cars are taken out of service and completely dismantaled and all specs checked- parts replaced where needed. Now granted the WDW monorail is no high speed train but they sure could take a lesson on maintenence/restoration from the Japanese. Rode the monorail in it's glory days back in the 70's

 

[Disone]

Whoa buddy, common knowledge around here is that huge expanses of hotel rooms have been taken out of service to inflate occupancy numbers.

I think by last estimation by those folks, there's only like 5-6 hotel rooms in use on property.

He’s right. Though your numbers are a little out.

Off topic and well not entirely accurate. WDW does put rooms on what is called, Out of Inventory, but it is not to inflate occupancy numbers. Its to do work in them. I know this forum does not want to believe it, but in general, WDW does not have difficulty selling it's room inventory. This is why to see them still expanding the room inventory. They are are NOT building a 400+ room tower at CS while inflating occupancy numbers at the moderates.

 

[matt9112]

Off topic and well not entirely accurate. WDW does put rooms on what is called, Out of Inventory, but it is not to inflate occupancy numbers. Its to do work in them. I know this forum does not want to believe it, but in general, WDW does not have difficulty selling it's room inventory. This is why to see them still expanding the room inventory. They are are NOT building a 400+ room tower at CS while inflating occupancy numbers at the moderates.

I agree but I also know that tower can charge 2 or 3 times the rest of the resort room wise. I also think this is skyliner main goal sure it helps with the bus system but it also could potential facilitate dare I say a triple digit price increase ?

 

[Goofyernmost]

I think we overuse terms here and use them incorrectly. They maintain the monorails, but at some point maintenance nets diminishing returns over time on a depreciating system. A tune up on a 30 year old car will net you far lower results than one on a brand new car.

Disney has, indeed, maintained the system, but what they have not done is strip down and rebuild. At some point a mechanical asset just breaks down and causes cascade failures.

I absolutely agree with that. I just hate to hear such foolishness like the definitive phrase "Disney doesn't do maintenance." It makes no sense at all and is an insult to the people that work their butts of to make things a safe as they can. What happened with the ONE train could have been terrible, but, it wasn't and was handled in the quickest least disruptive way possible and could have just as easily happened with a brand new train with a faulty part. The trains should be replaced, but, considering the age of that equipment lets point our fingers at the real culprits and not make it sound like the maintenance crew is not doing the best they can and being quite successful in the process. I feel that when people say that they are saying that the bosses are to blame, but, not for lack of maintenance, but, for lack of planning ahead and replacing the fleet when they should have. That is not a maintenance problem, that is a management problem. Don't blame the workers, because that is how it comes across.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Watched a show on Japans high speed rail system; ever 2 years the cars are taken out of service and completely dismantaled and all specs checked- parts replaced where needed. Now granted the WDW monorail is no high speed train but they sure could take a lesson on maintenence/restoration from the Japanese. Rode the monorail in it's glory days back in the 70's

Are you sure that they don't do that? Cause I think they do. Maybe not as often as some think they should, but, to say they don't react to problems quickly is really not a provable statement. If one of the critics is a person that deals with low speed monorail trains is posting that, please come forward because unless you are, you really have no clue as to what should or shouldn't be happening. I'd guess that most of you have cars and drive on bald tires, are about 10K miles past your oil change time and when you hear a strange noise you simply turn the radio up louder so you can't hear it.