Too many hotels?

[nickys]

They are building more resorts to get more guests to stay onsite. The same reasoning as offering the DS hotels the EMH and 60 day FP perks. The closer they are to the “bubble” the less likely they are to leave it. Therefore they will spend more money inside the bubble than outside.

I very much doubt the increase in hotel rooms onsite will affect the number of visitors in the parks to any significant extent.

As for DVC, there is also the question of loyalty. They realise that even during a recession, occupancy levels will remain pretty high, compared to the non-DVC resorts. Until the demand drops they’ll keep on adding. Especially in mixed resorts where they can offset some of the costs to DVC.

 

[Goofyernmost]

They are building more resorts to get more guests to stay onsite. The same reasoning as offering the DS hotels the EMH and 60 day FP perks. The closer they are to the “bubble” the less likely they are to leave it. Therefore they will spend more money inside the bubble than outside.

I very much doubt the increase in hotel rooms onsite will affect the number of visitors in the parks to any significant extent.

As for DVC, there is also the question of loyalty. They realise that even during a recession, occupancy levels will remain pretty high, compared to the non-DVC resorts. Until the demand drops they’ll keep on adding. Especially in mixed resorts where they can offset some of the costs to DVC.

Not sure how building more is going to increase the numbers demand wise. If they are running at the normal 85% occupancy they aren't even filling the ones they have. It must be more for the big buck DVC sales then concern about getting everyone to stay onsite. A lot, if not most, of the sales are going to come from people that already visit and probably use the hotels. So I don't even see that much of a gain in that move. However, I am not even close to knowing how the DVC system works. In my neophyte observance it just seems like a major money event with no real concern about increased occupancy.

 

[jkl2000]

Yeah. Now as a newly minted dvc owner I get nervous that demand will go down at some point

I'm not at all versed in DVC. Why are you worried that demand will go down? Do you (or most) DVC owners rely on selling DVC points to other people?

 

[nickys]

Not sure how building more is going to increase the numbers demand wise. If they are running at the normal 85% occupancy they aren't even filling the ones they have. It must be more for the big buck DVC sales then concern about getting everyone to stay onsite. A lot, if not most, of the sales are going to come from people that already visit and probably use the hotels. So I don't even see that much of a gain in that move. However, I am not even close to knowing how the DVC system works. In my neophyte observance it just seems like a major money event with no real concern about increased occupancy.

DVC typically runs at 95%+ occupancy. As I said, loyalty is a big thing. Even if future buyers are currently staying at the resorts, if they buy into DVC they are likely to return more often. Win for Disney there. And when the next recession does hit, they will still visit. Even if the occupancy falls to around 80%, they still get the dues regardless. Another win.

Inevitably, there will be owners who suffer in a recession. So the resale market floods and rental costs drop, as they try to get some kind of return or sell. The result? Prices crash on resale, which generates sales from both new owners who can now afford it and current owners who snap up contracts at rock bottom prices. Disney don’t really lose much here.

For non- DVC resorts, at certain times of the year just now, it is all but impossible to get a room onsite, other than the super-expensive suites. There is still the demand to stay onsite, therefore they build more.

 

[jkl2000]

I think so. Disney will never think so. Just keep filling up those rooms and the parks. It doesnt matter if the attraction lines reach the other side of the park. We'll still keep adding more.

Are park attendance limits determined with consideration of some regulating agency's guidelines? Or does Disney just determine the limits on their own?

 

[jkl2000]

I also think Disney Transportation will at some point be accessed/monitored by MB. (scanner on buses, monorail, boats, and Gondolas)

Another thing I'm not sure about, but don't they somewhat enforce this by not letting people park at resorts/hotels unless they're registered there? Or is the problem people making ADR's and then parking on property and using Disney Transportation?

 

[JIMINYCR]

Are park attendance limits determined with consideration of some regulating agency's guidelines? Or does Disney just determine the limits on their own?

I'm not sure. They do have their scale of park closure phases in place and when the numbers are reached it starts limiting guests into ther parks. Youll see it happen during the major holidays when the parks get slammed. Resort guests can still enter but outside guests get turned away.

 

[jkl2000]

What I am saying is they should make a value resort with simplistic Disney theming say with something themed to the Disney Comics for example, with bus transportation and the same other amenities you get at the other value resorts....

So you mean that they should add even cheaper Disney-owned hotels than the current value resorts on property? I have no opinion on this, just trying to clarify.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yeah. Now as a newly minted dvc owner I get nervous that demand will go down at some point

That’s what I want...more demand swells numbers exponentially and limits availability.
It also drives their prices through the roof. DVC isn’t nearly the value at its current prices that it was for the first 20 years. They raise the cost $8 a point seemingly every 6 months. That’s how you first violate then kill the goose.

I don't know. My guess is that they more likely increase the advantages for staying in the bubble vs off-sites. I also think a year or so after the 50th the perks they just gave to the Disney springs "Partner" hotels will go away.

We’ll see. One of the developing peeves is the “for the 50th” talk. Not much is gonna change. WDW hasn’t done these “celebrations” since Eisner left, they’ve only ever had two big ones, and attendance goes up consistently anyway. It’s a different mentality than Disneyland...where hooks work because it’s lower investment by the customer base to add extra visits - comparatively speaking.

 

[thomas998]

Yeah. Now as a newly minted dvc owner I get nervous that demand will go down at some point

Sorry to tell you this but if you look at the resale market for the points they are already selling at discounts in the secondary market... Not sure that means the demand is all that healthy right now... I just hope you were a good fit for the timeshare when you got on board and not one of the people that they suck into it with a slick sales pitch where it isn't always a good fit for the buyer.... So long as you do Disney every year, stay at the deluxe resort and want to keep going back every year for the foreseeable future you shouldn't worry... We might have done it ourselves except that we wanted the freedom to go somewhere else if any of us got tired of Disney (which the wife and one daughter have already started to do).

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

So you mean that they should add even cheaper Disney-owned hotels than the current value resorts on property? I have no opinion on this, just trying to clarify.

Yes...Exactly what I was going with..

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Sorry to tell you this but if you look at the resale market for the points they are already selling at discounts in the secondary market... Not sure that means the demand is all that healthy right now... I just hope you were a good fit for the timeshare when you got on board and not one of the people that they suck into it with a slick sales pitch where it isn't always a good fit for the buyer.... So long as you do Disney every year, stay at the deluxe resort and want to keep going back every year for the foreseeable future you shouldn't worry... We might have done it ourselves except that we wanted the freedom to go somewhere else if any of us got tired of Disney (which the wife and one daughter have already started to do).

I never went through their pitches. This was something I studied, for perhaps too long and purchased on the secondary market. I would never would have bought if I needed financing, and in the time I began considering buying to now the prices went up significantly I plan to gift or rent out points in years I am not there , and figure my break even point all things considered as being around year 9. And I can always sell it if I find it bothersome to own.

 

[RScottyL]

I think more hotels would be fine, as long as they are tastefully done! I also think they need to be on par with value resorts, as if you think like me, you will not be in your hotel room for long, and don't want to spend a lot of money there for lodging!

 

[King Panda 77]

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Having stayed offsite for my first several trips, I never even heard about the "Disney transportation is for resort guests" thing for a long time. It struck me then and still does now as very foolish. No matter where you are staying, you're paying hundreds of dollars (at least) for park hopper tickets, so it's in their best interest to cart you from MK to AK. The point of the destination is to be a theme park. The resorts are just capturing the business that would be over on 192 or elsewhere.

Which leads me to: why do people think more hotels = more people attending WDW? They're already there, they're just staying somewhere else.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I know it was different at one time, but, I can vouch for the fact that it has been free to anybody with or without a park ticket for the last 35 years, at least. Didn't really have a call to use anything other then the Monorail to MK and to EPCOT or the ferry's from TTC to MK, but, I never heard at anytime that they would charge extra for it. It has always puzzled me how that idea never went away and all this time later, people still think they have to pay for it.

 

[disneyflush]

Yes...Exactly what I was going with..

Universal is using the cheap rooms to try and change the command base of an Orlando vacation from WDW to Uni. Instead of 5 days at Disney and an add-on day or 2 at Uni, they want the 5 days to switch to Uni. This has always been the case but the use of $79/night rooms certainly looks to add a new dimension to people fatigued by both parks aggressive price increases lately. I think the possibility of Disney adding some type of cost competition at this level is fairly slim unless the effects of the room pricing lead to a fairly substantial demand change.

 

[FettFan]

View attachment 321252

 

[Lensman]

Lol!

(But is it only me who is bothered by the fact that the photo is unrealistic? You can't have two hotels on a property!)

Edited to add: OMG, I only just now realized that that would mean that the Monopoly photo also has "too many hotels" like the thread title!

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

Yes there are too many hotels and too much focus on them.

The DVC bubble will pop at some point. DVCs are essentially free money to Disney bc the are a one-off revenue stream. After subtracting the building costs, Disney doesn’t have to worry about much else as fees cover maintenance, etc. Disney should know to limit this type of income, as it cannot be sustained forever, but they get used to seeing it there year after year.

Demand will go down once people continually see neglected parks and operational issues. It hasn’t happened yet, but it eventually will.