New Titles and Positions Announced including Jim MacPhee

[Computer Magic]

*I'm not exactly sure, and it has been a huge money-maker. However, check out this: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-diztimeshare1209feb12,0,4931450.story

This is my rationale for my belief that prices will continue to drop, as DVC won't be exercising ROFR as much.

The practice generated about $40 million in operating profit last year for Vacation Club. That's about 2 percent of the operating profit. Nice profit.

Disney would do "less or no" securitization in 2009. CHA Ching....buyers market

 

[WDWFigment]

This is what my sales agent told me was the reason we don't get reported to the credit agencies... I am interested in what you find out though...

I found what I had previously read on the topic, and while several individuals verified that this is the case, I'm not satisfied as to the rationales, either.

Here's the thing, it can't be because of the posture of your property interest, or lack thereof, in DVC. This is true, because one's credit score can be impacted by any breach or delinquency on any contract, not just ones concerning real property (think of doctor's bills, which are contracts for services, primarily).

I don't know enough about credit reporting to definitively state why it's not reported, but, if it has anything to do with the UCC (which governs such contracts), it may simply be that Disney is "contracting around" standard terms dictating credit reporting. Disney can then present this as a perk to get the buyer to finance through them, while it may also afford Disney some benefit (easier process for repossessing upon default? I really don't know. Maybe there is no other reason than wanting to make a better sales pitch).

They may be able to do this when other companies would be obstructed by the FCRA or FBCA since the entire transaction (purchase & financing) are occuring within branches of the same company (just a guess--again, I know very little about credit reporting).

 

[Captain Chaos]

I found what I had previously read on the topic, and while several individuals verified that this is the case, I'm not satisfied as to the rationales, either.

Here's the thing, it can't be because of the posture of your property interest, or lack thereof, in DVC. This is true, because one's credit score can be impacted by any breach or delinquency on any contract, not just ones concerning real property (think of doctor's bills, which are contracts for services, primarily).

I don't know enough about credit reporting to definitively state why it's not reported, but, if it has anything to do with the UCC (which governs such contracts), it may simply be that Disney is "contracting around" standard terms dictating credit reporting. Disney can then present this as a perk to get the buyer to finance through them, while it may also afford Disney some benefit (easier process for repossessing upon default? I really don't know. Maybe there is no other reason than wanting to make a better sales pitch).

They may be able to do this when other companies would be obstructed by the FCRA or FBCA since the entire transaction (purchase & financing) are occuring within branches of the same company (just a guess--again, I know very little about credit reporting).

When I get home, I will look through my DVC ownership books to see if the specifics are listed... if so, I will post them for you over the weekend...

 

[DisneyMusician2]

But the profit will increase wherever they do go.

I think in 10 years the Disney travel sector will be so amazing people will regret not buying in earlier. It will truly be a customer friendly all inclusive program to just about anywhere on the globe available in safe care free packages.

And I disagree with wdw74, I'm convinced Disney chartered air planes will be part of the future. Just the way I see it.

Airlines historically are not a very profitable business. Many have gone under, and continue to merge to keep afloat. They consistently risk bankruptcy. Disney would be foolish to enter this venture to fly solely to Disney parks, as they simply wouldn't be able to accumulate enough traffic on a regular basis to recoup their costs.

Many people come to Disney every day, but not enough from the same place every day to facilitate Disney investing in their own air service. Why take the risk when partner airlines are willing to take all of the liability risk and cost, yet work on your website and your transportation plans?

 

[HMF]

Resort #1 "Sharing is caring, it can be fun!"
Resort #2 "I'll give you some when you have none!"

Please Adam' You are bringing back bad memories.:shrug:

 

[HMF]

No he didn't.

Rasolu was completly oblivious to epcots 25th. but what Macphee did was lobby the higher ups at WDW to give him a small budget to put together something at the last minute.

And until Iger grows some balls and fires Rasolu. Rasolu will only gain more power within the organization until it winds up like GM or Lehman Bros.

Um' it's Rasulo.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Airlines historically are not a very profitable business. Many have gone under, and continue to merge to keep afloat. They consistently risk bankruptcy. Disney would be foolish to enter this venture to fly solely to Disney parks, as they simply wouldn't be able to accumulate enough traffic on a regular basis to recoup their costs.

Many people come to Disney every day, but not enough from the same place every day to facilitate Disney investing in their own air service. Why take the risk when partner airlines are willing to take all of the liability risk and cost, yet work on your website and your transportation plans?

And imagine if their plane was hijacked or involved in a terrorist attack, never mind crashing... Not a business I think Disney wants to be in...

 

[jt04]

Airlines historically are not a very profitable business. Many have gone under, and continue to merge to keep afloat. They consistently risk bankruptcy. Disney would be foolish to enter this venture to fly solely to Disney parks, as they simply wouldn't be able to accumulate enough traffic on a regular basis to recoup their costs.

Many people come to Disney every day, but not enough from the same place every day to facilitate Disney investing in their own air service. Why take the risk when partner airlines are willing to take all of the liability risk and cost, yet work on your website and your transportation plans?

I think they will be chartered flights. So an airline (i.e. Delta) would own the plane but the plane exterior would say Disney and the interior would be designed by WDI. I think if Disney is to operate DVC's around the world as all inclusive inteneraries, the flight there will be part of that.

Mark my words, that is what they will do.

 

[HMF]

Like Adam, I've been hearing whispers of good things out of Orlando. At this point it's a wait and see thing.

I hate to say it but most of WDI's resources are going to DCA. Just out of curiousity would any of you want the park's to do bad in order to get rid of Rasulo?

 

[jt04]

And imagine if their plane was hijacked or involved in a terrorist attack, never mind crashing... Not a business I think Disney wants to be in...

And imagine if a giant asteroid hits the earth and wipes out all life on earth...:brick:

In reality, no business will grow if it exists in a world of "what can go wrong next" doom and gloom.

 

[Missing20K]

Airlines historically are not a very profitable business. Many have gone under, and continue to merge to keep afloat. They consistently risk bankruptcy. Disney would be foolish to enter this venture to fly solely to Disney parks, as they simply wouldn't be able to accumulate enough traffic on a regular basis to recoup their costs.

Many people come to Disney every day, but not enough from the same place every day to facilitate Disney investing in their own air service. Why take the risk when partner airlines are willing to take all of the liability risk and cost, yet work on your website and your transportation plans?

You beat me to it. Those were my thoughts exactly. Far too many originating destinations. The only way to do it would be to fly everyone to orlando and then a Disney charter to the final destination. I can't see the profit for Disney in that scenario. There aren't enough voluntary expenditures on a flight, as there are on a cruise line or at a destination resort, aka, hawaii.

Back to the topic, while I don't know too much about the upper management, I personally see a positive in Meg Crofton being relegated to day to day operations instead of decision making on refurbs, expansions, etc.

I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Who was in charge of day to day operations at WDW beforehand? I ask, because in my opinion, the general upkeep, maintenance, cleanliness, and landscaping of the parks has deteriorated over the last 15 years or so. I'm wondering if this aspect of WDW (always, in my opinion, something that set Disney apart) will get more attention from the recent management shakeup.

 

[HMF]

Again, I think Glendale WDI will be micro-managing the important stuff and that is fine with me. Any insiders see it different?
.

Micro-Management is what Eisner did and look what happened. Eisner supervised too much and Iger supervises too little. BTW Matt Ouimet should be President of the Parks and Resorts Division.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

This is how I look at it, because Epcot is so unique, it will not be as likely to get clones. I think WDI's priority will be fixing JII first, then TT and Energy and a "Land" film for Soarin'. Hopefully an expanded Space Pavilion someday and an E Ticket for Seas and WS down the road. Epcot needs a lot of help from WDI and I think that help is on the way.

Again, all my opinion.

Agreed. Hopefully Disney Execs are thinking the same way.

 

[jt04]

Micro-Management is what Eisner did and look what happened. Eisner supervised too much and Iger supervises too little. BTW Matt Ouimet should be President of the Parks and Resorts Division.

Yes but instead of Eisner it would be creatives like Lasseter etc. managing the projects. I see this as a positive thing if that is what happens.

 

[HMF]

That would be excellent.

I love your avatar but I think you should put in Ed Grier instead of Erin Wallace.

 

[Missing20K]

I think they will be chartered flights. So an airline (i.e. Delta) would own the plane but the plane exterior would say Disney and the interior would be designed by WDI. I think if Disney is to operate DVC's around the world as all inclusive inteneraries, the flight there will be part of that.

Mark my words, that is what they will do.

They can still be all inclusive. Disney just teams up with an airline, like they already do for air-included WDW packages. I don't see how Disney makes any more money than the airline does. And airlines have extremely thin profit margins, if they have any profits at all. Next to the automotive industry right now, there isn't a business less profitable than airlines. Besides the "cool" factor of flying in a Disney plane, what is the advantage from either the consumer's perspective or Disney's? Particularly if they just use a Delta plane, crew, infrastructure. Then they really aren't making any money if they are just paying Delta to fly a Disney branded plane. The only thing I can think of is the marketing aspect. "Disney, from your front door to ours" or something like that. In terms of profitability, however, I just don't see it.

Besides, I think having characters run up and down the aisles might be against FAA regulations. :animwink:

 

[HMF]

Yes but instead of Eisner it would be creatives like Lasseter etc. managing the projects. I see this as a positive thing if that is what happens.

Well' if Lasseter goes in there and gets rid of the Fitzgerald or Jacobson types then I would be all for it.

 

[jt04]

They can still be all inclusive. Disney just teams up with an airline, like they already do for air-included WDW packages. I don't see how Disney makes any more money than the airline does. And airlines have extremely thin profit margins, if they have any profits at all. Next to the automotive industry right now, there isn't a business less profitable than airlines. Besides the "cool" factor of flying in a Disney plane, what is the advantage from either the consumer's perspective or Disney's? Particularly if they just use a Delta plane, crew, infrastructure. Then they really aren't making any money if they are just paying Delta to fly a Disney branded plane. The only thing I can think of is the marketing aspect. "Disney, from your front door to ours" or something like that. In terms of profitability, however, I just don't see it.

Besides, I think having characters run up and down the aisles might be against FAA regulations. :animwink:

:ROFLOL::sohappy: Very good!

It would be all about marketing and brand loyalty. Disney vacations should be all about the total experience and I think they will find that even if losing money on charters, it would create many repeat customers.

 

[tirian]

Yes but instead of Eisner it would be creatives like Lasseter etc. managing the projects. I see this as a positive thing if that is what happens.

No.

Micro-management is always bad in creative industries. People can't work that way.

Period.

 

[tirian]

So many of the "in the know" posters regard DVC as a terrible thing for Disney
...

I just hope yesterday's news will not amount to further "Rasuloization" of the parks.

I actually don't think the DVC is bad at all; in fact, I HOPE to see these people acting like the MiceAge AP folks, meaning that they hold WDW to a higher standard than average guests.

Also, I love your way with words.