Based on?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Resort Parking Charges
- Thread starter CaptainJackNO
- Start date
Damon7777
Well-Known Member
Stop and think, please.
If indeed what you say is true then Disney would have charged some crazy, absurd number to park or better yet disallow parking all together.
Damon7777
Well-Known Member
I'm not done with this yet because at face value it is absurd.
Disney does want that $78 because it is a mere drop in the bucket for all on property stays. Add up all on property stays with an auto and you got something significant.
Yes, a cash grab to be sure!
Of course parking lots are not free to build, but I think you missed the point of what I was saying, either intentionally or unintentionally.
We agree that the decision to charge for parking is Disney's, but my point is based on the assertion that this is the "industry standard." That "industry standard" is not universal, again, it depends on the location of the hotel and scarcity of parking spaces. Suburban hotels typically do not charge for parking. You usually run across parking fees (I have traveled other places besides WDW, big cities, too!) in cities where hotels tend to be high rise buildings, in an urban area where parking space, or any space for that matter, is at a premium. Thus, you get parking charges. Fact is, Disney owns the property, and it being private, they choose whether to charge for parking. BUT, you cannot use the :industry standard" argument because the Disney resorts do not meet typical "industry standard" criteria, such as in a limited footprint urban area, and you can even go as far as the rooms types, sizes, decor, and amenities if you want to split hairs. I will indulge you, so take the Waldorf in New Orleans. Room rates tend to be in the 500 dollar a night range, parking is about 40 dollars a night. Now, let's look at Disney's Polynesian Resort, Rooms about 600 dollars a night, smaller than the Waldorf, the rooms are nice and themed, but do not approach "industry standard" for a hotel room that falls into the Polynesian/Waldorf price point. So, if you want to use "industry standard", that argument is moot because Disney cannot use industry standard as justification to charge for parking, but not meet "industry standard" in regards to room size, decor, or amenities, but meets or exceeds the "industry standard" rate. In Disney's case, the CAN have their cake and eat it, too, but it will rankle the nerves of quite a few guests.
In regards to you trying to shoot holes in my occupied/not occupied parking space argument, what you failed to get is I was using that argument in regards to your "industry standard" assertion, and making the point that the "industry standard" you refer to is an urban area with grossly limited parking availability, lending itself to, once again, Supply and Demand. It's scarcity, sir. Disney does not have scarcity. I thoroughly enjoyed that you feel my point is "irrelevant," since you make this assertion with no facts nor statements to support its irrelevancy. What I would like from you is to explain what upkeep costs amount to 13 dollars per night, and if these parking lots need upkeep that require charging, then what does Disney charge Uber, Lyft, Rental car companies, delivery and rental companies who drop off rental strollers and ECVs, or wheelchairs, since their vehicles are considerably heavier and cause much more stress on their prized parking areas than my one vehicle. I hope I am not being asked to foot the parking lot maintenance bill for outside vendors.
Look, I agree with you. They can charge whatever they want. They do it all the time, and people like you and I will pay it, time and time again because we are loyal to the product and Disney more often than not delivers on what they sell. With that said, Disney is no more in a position to need to improve their parking areas now than they were in the past. I do believe that, as Captain America said, that Disney does sell the idea that they are doing this to keep people on site. But if you really think of this rationally, you will see this is just humdrum. That's a convenient excuse to sell to Disney apologists, or people who will not do anything but toss their credit card to the cast member to pay their bill, as I dis. But, if one really removes their Philharmagic opera glasses, rubs the pixie dust out of their eyes, and stops looking for hidden Mickeys, they would see this was an untapped cash source that Disney could somewhat justify because "other hotels do it." That's the truth. They can charge what they want, but it is an all out cash grab.
Let's think of this, All Star Sports has 1,920 rooms. If only half of those rooms occupants drove, you're looking at 12, 480 dollars per night. That's over 4.5 million dollars per year just for that resort. If you triple that amongst the other 2 All Star Resorts, that's a cool 13.5 million dollars. Pop and Art of Animation, now you're at 22.5 million dollars a year. The rates go up as you get into the Moderates and Deluxe hotels. You're looking, modestly, at about 200 million dollars a year in new revenue from parking. Now I ask you, you think this is really only about keeping guests on site, or do you think that nice little hunk of new change might have somewhat of a bump in park profitability and stock prices???
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
after
True, asphalt is not forever, nothing is, however a parking lot gets far less wear and tear than a high traffic road which requires frequent repaving. I would be interested to see how often the resort parking lots require repaving; just an uneducated guess not very often in the life of the resort. We can think of every potential reason to justify the new fee but it all boils down to a no cost cash cow for Disney IMO
True, asphalt is not forever, nothing is, however a parking lot gets far less wear and tear than a high traffic road which requires frequent repaving. I would be interested to see how often the resort parking lots require repaving; just an uneducated guess not very often in the life of the resort. We can think of every potential reason to justify the new fee but it all boils down to a no cost cash cow for Disney IMO
This made me laugh,... because its true
So what your saying is that its offensive to the paying guests when I reaort hop to try out the different resort bathrooms and water fountains?
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
How would any one know you are not a guest?
I think that's a good question. Wondering the same thing, over here.
The chip readers scanning the magic band as you walk through the lobby?
Kadiem
Active Member
The white loafers and polyester pants maybe?
I didnt want to admit it, but yes.The white loafers and polyester pants maybe?
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Go to the Animal Kingdom Lodge lobby any random day around 6:00 PM. You can tell.
I actually laughed at your cousin Eddie post. I could just see a guy in a hunting cap, bathrobe, and a beer lol
Disney knows exactly what amount to charge that fits into the "Goldilocks" zone for guests wallets, but either way, it is not a cash grab.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Standing lots require cycles of sealing, painting, ultimately resurfacing. That all assumes no failures or damage. Sealing/topcoats can be as frequent as every other year depending on conditions. Painting is 2-5 years depending on materials used and surface lots have a life expectancy of ~20 years before milling and resurfacing is needed. I don’t know how FL conditions alter those ball park numbers. You don’t have the freeze cycles... but you have far more heat and uv impacts and water obviously is a huge deal there. The substrate is a big part of the life expectancy of a lot. The other piece people don’t often think of us curbs... that concrete breaks down too and usually needs more frequent repairs than the surface lot.
Those who have been exposed to property management through being an owner or through things such as HOAs would be familiar with these things. Consumers take things for granted
Every property owner does capital reserve planning to fund their long term upkeep and replacement for these kinds of programs.
disneyflush
Well-Known Member
A fee designed primarily or solely with the intent of generating profits is a cash grab. The secondary justifications where this is supposedly keeping a percentage of the guests from renting a car is riding the coat tails of the actual cash grab and is convenient reasoning. We don't have palm trees in Indiana. I like to see them as a novelty. If I go to Disney World and .001% of my overall reasoning is to see a Florida palm tree along the way then the shocked-voice sentence "He paying tons of money to go to Disney World just to see a palm tree!' wouldn't be untrue. This is 98% a cash grab. Arguing over what it is based on the other 2% is just sily.
TurboCaroline
Is it 5:00 yet?
Sorry but I have to correct you...a parking space is 9'X18'. I do agree with everything else you said though..
NickMaio
Well-Known Member
So obviously a cash grab - - - They should change the name of the charge to "pocket picking fee".
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
Standing lots require cycles of sealing, painting, ultimately resurfacing. That all assumes no failures or damage. Sealing/topcoats can be as frequent as every other year depending on conditions. Painting is 2-5 years depending on materials used and surface lots have a life expectancy of ~20 years before milling and resurfacing is needed. I don’t know how FL conditions alter those ball park numbers. You don’t have the freeze cycles... but you have far more heat and uv impacts and water obviously is a huge deal there. The substrate is a big part of the life expectancy of a lot. The other piece people don’t often think of us curbs... that concrete breaks down too and usually needs more frequent repairs than the surface lot.
Those who have been exposed to property management through being an owner or through things such as HOAs would be familiar with these things. Consumers take things for granted
Every property owner does capital reserve planning to fund their long term upkeep and replacement for these kinds of programs.
I'm not trying to argue with you. If it is true asphalt needs to be resealed every 2-3 years per the asphalt sealing industry (also read it is pointless to seal) why are the asphalt high traffic roads never sealed and seem to last 10-15 years before needing resurfacing.