Umm.. What's up with Epcot today? (05/25/14)

[marni1971]

Please explain how EEA works with one screen.

It doesn't.

 

[marni1971]

If they could just keep the Laughing Place functional...

I've received plenty of HD video of the attraction from early last Saturday morning (for no reason at all) and have to say it looked fantastic.

Even the LP flume jumping jets all worked. Not seen those in years.

(note to certain others.... see - I do give praise when it is valid)

 

[tl77]

Disneyland isn't perfect, but on a recent trip I noticed almost everything worked right. Animatronics were smooth and even the little things, like the fiber optics in Pinocchio, were fully functional and bright.

WDW can't even keep the planets spinning on the Astro Orbitor. It's a simple mechanism that roadside diners have kept up for decades.

WDW has so many people from around the country and around the world, who have pre-booked a hotel room or bought into a DVC, who only come for maybe a week a year, that by the time those people get into the park and see the broken attractions they've already paid Disney quite a lot of money. So instead of spending money on constant maintenance they spend it on constant "advertising"

DL on the other hand is most California locals with annual passes, and all their guest have to pay for is parking, if they want those same people coming back they have to keep the "attractions" looking good. ...ya see the difference there?

 

[randyrut]

Keeping the parks beautiful and in the best working order possible should be the number one constant at Disney.

Everything else moves in waves. Right now, Universal is making big news by creating new rides and new lands. They still have old rides that need to be closed or changed, but no one really complains much about them, because they are giving their customers new things to get excited about. Right now, Disney is spending lots of money on things that their customers dont care much about, so all of the problems that they have are sadly punching their customers squarely in the face. In a few years, Disney will probably start producing new rides and Universal will start to fall off a bit.

But if they just maintained what they do have right now, and kept them working properly, people wouldnt complain so much and be so negative. Going to MK and seeing everything working wonderfully on Splash Mountain will make you excited to be there. Going on that ride and experiencing chickens having seizures will make you unhappy, complain, and want to visit a different park.

I just hope their quality control goes back to the way it used to be. This will make a Disney trip worth taking, even if they dont have all the newer rides another park may have.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I like how people want to lecture those to make a difference. Nine times out of ten actually saying something means squat to the CM or MGMT. I've had folks shrug at me, I've had folks say there's just nothing they can do. So it makes wanting to say something a little difficult, don't you think? Maybe THEIR attitudes should change. No, not everyone reacts that way but it seems to be a lot more common than some want to admit.

This.

It does nothing because the managers you talk to couldn't care less. They care about how many people ride their attraction per hour and making themselves look good on paper. Shutting down the attraction to fix an effect looks "bad" for them. So they don't do it.

 

[Victor Kelly]

One constant I am seeing from many people is that there is a high number of us saying preventative maintenance should be first and foremost followed by new attractions and then other things. Oddly, this is how a company run correctly would do things. I am also saying preventative maintenance property wide.

 

[bethymouse]

Too much emphasis on getting the mine train ready. Now that it is up and running maybe they can focus on other neglected issues with the "older" rides.
Things all around have gotten so expensive. Disney is just following the "trend."

 

[tinkhag6]

So what would cause more complaints? Stopping/closing the ride in the middle of the day to fix a show scene or leaving the ridopen with a show scene problem until it can be fixed that night?

This is actually a trick question....because people will complain about something even if the rides are operating 100%

You are reading my mind. There is always something to complain about. they fix are ride, not to there standards. They update a a ride they complain even though Walt himself wanted the rides to be updated so new generations and old will like. So before i start off I am on the same level as many of you are. I go to disney all the time, i know a lot about disney etc. So when I ride the rides I am more concerned on my children enjoynent then what is wrong with the ride . (wow jack sparrow didnt blink) Some are right some things could be fixed, changed, replaced, whatever. But instead of being so miserable about being at disney and looking for everthing that is wrong with the rides and parks I thank the good lord that I am blessed enough to bring my family to this wondeful place that so many never get to experience as kids(my husband) or worse can not afford to ever go and just enjoy the moment that i am in with my family and seeing how happy and appreciative they are to be there. in case you all didnt know this place is open 365 days there are going to be problems. I am so sick and tired of everyones complaints why dont you just not go Anymore. Especially when you come down to complaing about how sally's car looks. Lol

 

[dvitali]

i wish there was a topic here about how bad thing are at Universal instead of Disney then i could list major items faults that i found last week. rides breaking down dues to lost of powers. how inaccurate any backdrops in the New York section were (Macys never look like that). missing lightbulbs etc.

 

[lazyboy97o]

i wish there was a topic here about how bad thing are at Universal instead of Disney then i could list major items faults that i found last week. rides breaking down dues to lost of powers. how inaccurate any backdrops in the New York section were (Macys never look like that). missing lightbulbs etc.

Start the thread then.

 

[Cesar R M]

Start the thread then.

Agree, its not like its gonna hurt to create a new thread.

 

[englanddg]

Especially when you come down to complaing about how sally's car looks. Lol

If that's all you took away from my posts, then you completely missed the point.

The point isn't that Sally lost her hood ornament. And, that's not really Disney's fault that it disappeared. I blame it on poor Guests who probably wanted to pull it off to have a unique souvenir.

The point is that they didn't care enough to either:

a) Replace it
b) Cover it up

Not in TWO years.

Few weeks? I get it. Few months? Ok, I get it. These are custom parts that need to be applied a certain way, and the heat treatment on her paint to cover up where the adhesive and badge discoloring were isn't the easiest thing to do without removing her completely for a week or two.

But, you're telling me in TWO YEARS they couldn't have done something?

And, as I've pointed out, it's not that specific instance. It's all of them, combined, which give evidence for a poor attention to detail and maintenance procedures. The state of the monorails, the state of some of the rooms, the conditions at some of the food courts (POFQ had dead roaches on it's floor that sat there for hours, for goodness sake!), effects not working LONG TERM on many rides, light bulbs (yes, I'll mention that) which are not replaced months on end, the lackluster Mousekeeping, there's lots more that could be listed.

I agree with much of your post. I just think the confusion is that, most people, are not complaining to complain. They are noting issues that are evidence of a general trend. And, that trend is that Disney is not maintaining the standards THEY set. They used to want to provide the highest quality experiences possible. That was what they were known for, and that is what they built their theme park and resorts brand up to be.

Now...not so much the case.

What makes this a far more bitter pill to swallow is when you see the condition of the Parks and Resorts at Disneyland or do a Cruise. The difference is staggering.

 

[Tom Morrow]

While we're adding to the list, there's also stuff like Tough to Be a Bug's screen looking washed out and faded four a long time now, or Tower of Terror's audio problems that have been present for 5 or 6 YEARS now. Or the re-entry tunnel on Space Mountain's sound effect not starting until you're almost clear of the tunnel, the same way it has been since the 2009 refurbishment. Or blown speakers like on Splash Mountain or for the Fountain of Nations which have been broken for years. The list goes on and on. Is it stuff that will ruin someone's vacation? No, but it adds up.

Remember that there is no excuse for these things when you are paying premium price for what is supposed to be the top-of-the-line theme park experience. If Disneyland and Universal Orlando can keep the vast majority of their show elements functioning properly or fixed within a reasonable time, then WDW could, too.

 

[Over the Horizon]

The problem I see with WDW is that there used to be a high standard of quality that is slowly fading. I could understand if budgets are tight then they need to focus on doing the most that they can to keep the whole together rather than a few individual things. Unfortunately for Disney, they keep turning record profits. So, where is the excuse of not having the means to keep a decent budget for maintenance?

 

[unkadug]

The problem I see with WDW is that there used to be a high standard of quality that is slowly fading. I could understand if budgets are tight then they need to focus on doing the most that they can to keep the whole together rather than a few individual things. Unfortunately for Disney, they keep turning record profits. So, where is the excuse of not having the means to keep a decent budget for maintenance?

It's hard to put money back into the parks when you have to pay all those huge yearly bonuses to the executives for NOT spending any money.

 

[MarkTwain]

It's hard to put money back into the parks when you have to pay all those huge yearly bonuses to the executives for NOT spending any money.

This. I've talked to a lot of managers around the property and the more I hear, the more it sounds like the resort is set up so that the real decision-makers are financially motivated NOT to spend money. It sounds horrible at first, but if you're told that at the end of the year you'll make an additional $75,000 if you can spend less than _____ on lightbulb replacements and AA refurbishments, what would you do? Or maybe you'll be out of the job next year, and you think you if the AAs and burnt-out lightbulbs can make it just one more year before you're transferred to your next job, and then it'll be someone's else problem... except then the next guy ends up making the exact same decision.

At a certain WDW attraction I worked which shall unnamed, a guest approached me and let me know of a major show quality concern I thought warranted immediate attention (something floating in the flume which should NOT be floating in a flume), which I knew would require the ride would to be briefly shut down. I found a manager right away and told him, and he said he would pass the memo onto HIS managers (the big guys). We waited and waited and the final decision was that it would have to wait til after park close, during closing procedures (this was mid-afternoon). I asked why we had to wait (I was confident I could get it out and the ride up and running in 20 minutes flat) and my manager quietly told me that the managers' bonuses are contingent on meeting a certain ride capacity, and that dropping below that capacity could mean a significant loss in income. Apparently even just 20 minutes of basic maintenance was a challenge for this management team. I transferred to merchandise and heard much of the same, although obviously more finance/retail-based.

I think the real tragedy of the resort is that it has created such an incentive structure in the first place, prizing capacity and maintenance costs over show quality. It sounds to me like this issue could be largely resolved if managers had separate, equally-sized bonuses that were dependent on show quality to be earned.

 

[unkadug]

This. I've talked to a lot of managers around the property and the more I hear, the more it sounds like the resort is set up so that the real decision-makers are financially motivated NOT to spend money. It sounds horrible at first, but if you're told that at the end of the year you'll make an additional $75,000 if you can spend less than _____ on lightbulb replacements and AA refurbishments, what would you do? Or maybe you'll be out of the job next year, and you think you if the AAs and burnt-out lightbulbs can make it just one more year before you're transferred to your next job, and then it'll be someone's else problem... except then the next guy ends up making the exact same decision.

At a certain WDW attraction I worked which shall unnamed, a guest approached me and let me know of a major show quality concern I thought warranted immediate attention (something floating in the flume which should NOT be floating in a flume), which I knew would require the ride would to be briefly shut down. I found a manager right away and told him, and he said he would pass the memo onto HIS managers (the big guys). We waited and waited and the final decision was that it would have to wait til after park close, during closing procedures (this was mid-afternoon). I asked why we had to wait (I was confident I could get it out and the ride up and running in 20 minutes flat) and my manager quietly told me that the managers' bonuses are contingent on meeting a certain ride capacity, and that dropping below that capacity could mean a significant loss in income. Apparently even just 20 minutes of basic maintenance was a challenge for this management team. I transferred to merchandise and heard much of the same, although obviously more finance/retail-based.

I think the real tragedy of the resort is that it has created such an incentive structure in the first place, prizing capacity and maintenance costs over show quality. It sounds to me like this issue could be largely resolved if managers had separate, equally-sized bonuses that were dependent on show quality to be earned.

This post should be required reading.

 

[Mike S]

This. I've talked to a lot of managers around the property and the more I hear, the more it sounds like the resort is set up so that the real decision-makers are financially motivated NOT to spend money. It sounds horrible at first, but if you're told that at the end of the year you'll make an additional $75,000 if you can spend less than _____ on lightbulb replacements and AA refurbishments, what would you do? Or maybe you'll be out of the job next year, and you think you if the AAs and burnt-out lightbulbs can make it just one more year before you're transferred to your next job, and then it'll be someone's else problem... except then the next guy ends up making the exact same decision.

At a certain WDW attraction I worked which shall unnamed, a guest approached me and let me know of a major show quality concern I thought warranted immediate attention (something floating in the flume which should NOT be floating in a flume), which I knew would require the ride would to be briefly shut down. I found a manager right away and told him, and he said he would pass the memo onto HIS managers (the big guys). We waited and waited and the final decision was that it would have to wait til after park close, during closing procedures (this was mid-afternoon). I asked why we had to wait (I was confident I could get it out and the ride up and running in 20 minutes flat) and my manager quietly told me that the managers' bonuses are contingent on meeting a certain ride capacity, and that dropping below that capacity could mean a significant loss in income. Apparently even just 20 minutes of basic maintenance was a challenge for this management team. I transferred to merchandise and heard much of the same, although obviously more finance/retail-based.

I think the real tragedy of the resort is that it has created such an incentive structure in the first place, prizing capacity and maintenance costs over show quality. It sounds to me like this issue could be largely resolved if managers had separate, equally-sized bonuses that were dependent on show quality to be earned.

Merely suggesting that managers should get bonuses for putting show quality and guest satisfaction at the bottom of things to do should be a firing offense. Disgusting.

 

[englanddg]

This. I've talked to a lot of managers around the property and the more I hear, the more it sounds like the resort is set up so that the real decision-makers are financially motivated NOT to spend money. It sounds horrible at first, but if you're told that at the end of the year you'll make an additional $75,000 if you can spend less than _____ on lightbulb replacements and AA refurbishments, what would you do? Or maybe you'll be out of the job next year, and you think you if the AAs and burnt-out lightbulbs can make it just one more year before you're transferred to your next job, and then it'll be someone's else problem... except then the next guy ends up making the exact same decision.

At a certain WDW attraction I worked which shall unnamed, a guest approached me and let me know of a major show quality concern I thought warranted immediate attention (something floating in the flume which should NOT be floating in a flume), which I knew would require the ride would to be briefly shut down. I found a manager right away and told him, and he said he would pass the memo onto HIS managers (the big guys). We waited and waited and the final decision was that it would have to wait til after park close, during closing procedures (this was mid-afternoon). I asked why we had to wait (I was confident I could get it out and the ride up and running in 20 minutes flat) and my manager quietly told me that the managers' bonuses are contingent on meeting a certain ride capacity, and that dropping below that capacity could mean a significant loss in income. Apparently even just 20 minutes of basic maintenance was a challenge for this management team. I transferred to merchandise and heard much of the same, although obviously more finance/retail-based.

I think the real tragedy of the resort is that it has created such an incentive structure in the first place, prizing capacity and maintenance costs over show quality. It sounds to me like this issue could be largely resolved if managers had separate, equally-sized bonuses that were dependent on show quality to be earned.

This follows my suspicions. Thanks for sharing.

The real issue with this sort of short sighted thinking is this...

When you invest x millions of dollars into a refurb or new contruction, it is far less costly to maintain it properly than allow it to deteriorate.

As a simple analogy...which is cheaper? Getting your oil changed every 3 months or 3000 miles for the life of your vehicle? Or letting the car run down after a few years to the point where you have to replace the entire engine?

They seem to have adopted a "maintain as little as possible and wait for Burbank to sweep in and drop millions on a refurb every 5 years.

It reminds me of the thread I linked earlier where the lady was complaining that her room was dirty (not worn down, dirty), and the response was "Well, we are getting a refurb soon!"

So...that somehow explains it being dirty?