News WDW Resorts to add fees for parking

[Tom P.]

3. This is a business that compensates its CEO at roughly 1,180 times the average worker salary -- that's how they've decided to spend their money, and not to the benefit of the consumer or employee.

Bob Iger's made $36.3 million in the last fiscal year. Is that a lot of money? Yes. Is that what The Walt Disney Company has chosen to spend its money on instead of the average employee? Hardly.

According to Wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this discussion), Disney had approximately 199,000 total employees as of September. If you cut Iger down to a $1 million salary and spread the rest equally among the employees, each employee would receive a raise of $177.39. For the year.

Should employees throughout Disney be paid more on average? Yeah, probably so. But don't buy into the garbage that it is CEO salaries that are keeping employee salaries down. Bob Iger's salary is a drop in the bucket in terms of Disney's revenue and expenses, and it would take much, much, much more than what he is being paid to raise average employee compensation significantly.

 

[larryz]

Bob Iger's made $36.3 million in the last fiscal year. Is that a lot of money? Yes. Is that what The Walt Disney Company has chosen to spend its money on instead of the average employee? Hardly.

According to Wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this discussion), Disney has approximately 199,000 total employees as of September. If you cut Iger down to a $1 million salary and spread the rest equally among the employees, each employee would receive a raise of $177.39. For the year.

Should employees throughout Disney be paid more on average? Yeah, probably so. But don't buy into the garbage that it is CEO salaries that are keeping employee salaries down. Bob Iger's salary is a drop in the bucket in terms of Disney's revenue and expenses, and it would take much, much, much more than what he is being paid to raise average employee compensation significantly.

OK, begrudge the hourly Disney worker a couple of crumbs... fine. But I wouldn't put your user name on your T-shirt the next time you visit WDW...

Take that $36.3 million, that's just last year, and add it to the multiple 10's of millions he's been paid over the past 10 years, add it to the $423 million analysts are predicting for his next 4 years, and you could have built a good chunk of a theme park for that.

Or maybe just fixed the Yeti...

 

[Tom P.]

OK, begrudge the hourly Disney worker a couple of crumbs... fine. But I wouldn't put your user name on your T-shirt the next time you visit WDW...

Take that $36.3 million, that's just last year, and add it to the multiple 10's of millions he's been paid over the past 10 years, add it to the $423 million analysts are predicting for his next 4 years, and you could have built a good chunk of a theme park for that.

Or maybe just fixed the Yeti...

I didn't begrudge the employees anything. In fact, I said that they should all probably be paid more on average. My point was not that employees shouldn't be paid more. My point was that Iger's salary is not what's keeping them from being paid more. It's not.

 

[seascape]

Anyone want to start the pool on how long before Disney's legal department figures out how to charge DVC members for parking. Don't even think that's not coming, Just a question of how and when. My guess is DVD will sell the 'outside public areas' to WDW and rent access to them, Hence enabling a charge because pools and parking lots are no longer part of DVC property so DVC HAS to charge for them in the name of 'cost recovery'.

It is possible to add a parking fee at DVC resorts for everyone but the money raised would have to be used to lower maintenance fees and would need to be voted on at the annual meeting.

 

[Nubs70]

Anyone want to start the pool on how long before Disney's legal department figures out how to charge DVC members for parking. Don't even think that's not coming, Just a question of how and when. My guess is DVD will sell the 'outside public areas' to WDW and rent access to them, Hence enabling a charge because pools and parking lots are no longer part of DVC property so DVC HAS to charge for them in the name of 'cost recovery'.

Create a sub company (Reedy Creek Parking Services LLC.

Lease lots to RCPS LLC.

WDW collects lease fees with no LMO

 

[seascape]

Create a sub company (Reedy Creek Parking Services LLC.

Lease lots to RCPS LLC.

WDW collects lease fees with no LMO

The lease payments would have to go back to the resort owners, DVC Members as they own the land. That can't be changed at any resorts until the RTU contracts end.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Bob Iger's made $36.3 million in the last fiscal year. Is that a lot of money? Yes. Is that what The Walt Disney Company has chosen to spend its money on instead of the average employee? Hardly.

According to Wikipedia (not the best source, but good enough for this discussion), Disney had approximately 199,000 total employees as of September. If you cut Iger down to a $1 million salary and spread the rest equally among the employees, each employee would receive a raise of $177.39. For the year.

Should employees throughout Disney be paid more on average? Yeah, probably so. But don't buy into the garbage that it is CEO salaries that are keeping employee salaries down. Bob Iger's salary is a drop in the bucket in terms of Disney's revenue and expenses, and it would take much, much, much more than what he is being paid to raise average employee compensation significantly.

Salary? Iger doesn't give a rat's patootie about his salary. It's all about his stock options, and don't forget the billions he's authorized on stock buybacks to boost DIS stock price since he took over as CEO.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about with paying to park. Look up any "resort" in Orlando and they're all going to charge some kind of parking/resort fee. Even the beloved Universal resorts charge $12/day for parking. Heck...there's a Holiday Inn Waterpark "resort" that charges $12/day for parking and $33/day for a resort fee.

It's real simple...either budget for the added expense or don't go. Disney is not doing anything out of the "norm." Everyone here acts like Disney is inventing some new way to make money when in reality it's an industry norm and was just a matter of time before Disney started charging for parking.

Those that get bent out of shape and think that by not going is really going to hurt Disney or make them change their mind...you're crazy. There are plenty of people (myself included) that will continue to vacation at Disney and in preparation for our vacation (just like you would at any of vacation destination), we will budget for all expenses so that when we go on vacation, we actually enjoy it. Is it silly for any hotel to charge for parking...I agree it is, but you're not going to see my complaining and emailing Bob Iger about it, thinking something is going to change. Do you really think emailing and calling is going to change anything? This decision has been researched and studied for many months before they decided to implement it. A few emails/calls isn't going to change that.

Like someone else said above me, it's totally fine to spend money on useless souvenirs, no one complains about that. But the first time Disney does something that any resort has been doing for decades...all hell breaks loose.

But you guys keep complaining and doing your boycotts. The more of you that boycott Disney means the less amount of people I have to wait behind in lines.

I am ok with paying a premium because I feel that we still get our money's worth. When you are coming to vacation at a place like Disney, you should expect to pay more money for things. Is a value resort really worth $150/night? Is a bottle of water really worth $4?

My family are APs and we got multiple times a month. What you say about the parks and rides being run down just isn't accurate. These are rides and attractions that run pretty much all day 365 days a year...heaven forbid they have issues from time to time.

It's not about "bending over and taking it" like you and everyone else likes to say (see what I did there? I guess you're following others and jumping off that bridge too), it's about common sense (like you said) and understanding that the cost of things, including leisure and entertainment, is going to continue to increase.

There are obviously some people who think that Disney is no longer a value and I respectfully disagree with their opinion. Everyone is entitled to one though. I'm not asking you or anyone to agree with me, I'm simply stating my opinion. If writing to the executives about parking fees reverses the decision, I'll be the first to say "you told me so," but I don't see it happening. So for me, instead of getting bent out of shape, I will just budget a few extra dollars and enjoy my 10 days on property where I can roast marshmallows, have a dining plan, park my car and not move it, take boats and Monorails to parks, enjoy movies on the lawn and all sorts of other bonuses that you don't get by staying off property.

I think you ticked every "Pixie duster" checkbox there is with these posts...

 

[Tom P.]

Salary? Iger doesn't give a rat's patootie about his salary. It's all about his stock options, and don't forget the billions he's authorized on stock buybacks to boost DIS stock price since he took over as CEO.

First, I doubt he doesn't give a rat's patootie about his salary. I suspect that if Disney were to lower his salary to $1 million as I proposed, he would resign. I think his salary means a great deal to him.

Second, I was responding directly to a poster who said that Disney pays their workers too little because they've decided to instead spend that money on Iger's salary. His stock options were not brought up.

 

[Tom P.]

I think you ticked every "Pixie duster" checkbox there is with these posts...

The definition of "pixie duster" around here has become "anyone who still likes Walt Disney World."

 

[larryz]

The definition of "pixie duster" around here has become "anyone who still likes Walt Disney World."

I think it's OK to differentiate between someone who still likes Walt Disney World and others who unapologetically defend each and every price increase, service decrease, and/or detriment to the guest experience...

I still like Walt Disney World but nobody's calling me a pixie duster. I'm not giving them a free pass on blatant money grubbing while reducing the quality and value WDW once delivered.

 

[EOD K9]

The lease payments would have to go back to the resort owners, DVC Members as they own the land. That can't be changed at any resorts until the RTU contracts end.

Also, our member fees are guaranteed revenue for them. If they lower fees, they cant always be sure to recoup that money. I pay the MFs every year even though I may not go every year. They are not guaranteed occupancy. Just my thoughts on why they wouldn't.

 

[The real rescueranger]

It is possible to add a parking fee at DVC resorts for everyone but the money raised would have to be used to lower maintenance fees and would need to be voted on at the annual meeting.

Please don’t confuse Ford with facts. He likes to ramble just for the sake of rambling. DVC is not going to charge for parking (even if they could) because it is a selling point. When you charge $200 per point, they need every perk they can get.

 

[larryz]

Also, our member fees are guaranteed revenue for them. If they lower fees, they cant always be sure to recoup that money. I pay the MFs every year even though I may not go every year. They are not guaranteed occupancy. Just my thoughts on why they wouldn't.

To clarify, "MFs" in this context means "member fees," correct?

 

[monothingie]

Please don’t confuse Ford with facts. He likes to ramble just for the sake of rambling. DVC is not going to charge for parking (even if they could) because it is a selling point. When you charge $200 per point, they need every perk they can get.

I believe parking is part of your deed, if that is the case, there is literally no way this can be changed for current DVC members.

 

[HauntedPirate]

First, I doubt he doesn't give a rat's patootie about his salary. I suspect that if Disney were to lower his salary to $1 million as I proposed, he would resign. I think his salary means a great deal to him.

Second, I was responding directly to a poster who said that Disney pays their workers too little because they've decided to instead spend that money on Iger's salary. His stock options were not brought up.

I don't disagree, executive salaries are but a drop in the proverbial bucket.

 

[larryz]

First, I doubt he doesn't give a rat's patootie about his salary. I suspect that if Disney were to lower his salary to $1 million as I proposed, he would resign. I think his salary means a great deal to him.

Second, I was responding directly to a poster who said that Disney pays their workers too little because they've decided to instead spend that money on Iger's salary. His stock options were not brought up.

To be precise, I said they compensate him 1,180 times the average company salary... and his actual "salary," if you will, is only about $2,500,000. The rest of his compensation is bonuses, perks and options.

 

[EOD K9]

To clarify, "MFs" in this context means "member fees," correct?

Yes, but it can mean something else. Especially as of late.

 

[Tom P.]

To be precise, I said they compensate him 1,180 times the average company salary... and his actual "salary," if you will, is only about $2,500,000. The rest of his compensation is bonuses, perks and options.

A fair point. But I think we keep dancing around the issue.

My point is that a lot of people think that if those greedy CEO's were just paid less, then companies could afford to pay their front line employees better. The truth is that while CEO salaries seem enormous to us, when you're talking about one person's salary vs. that of a couple hundred thousand people, it is meaningless. Yes, Disney makes a boatload of money and, yes, I think they can afford to pay their employees better. But the fact that they're not is not because Iger is getting paid too much. That's my only point.

 

[ford91exploder]

A fair point. But I think we keep dancing around the issue.

My point is that a lot of people think that if those greedy CEO's were just paid less, then companies could afford to pay their front line employees better. The truth is that while CEO salaries seem enormous to us, when you're talking about one person's salary vs. that of a couple hundred thousand people, it is meaningless. Yes, Disney makes a boatload of money and, yes, I think they can afford to pay their employees better. But the fact that they're not is not because Iger is getting paid too much. That's my only point.

Executive compensation is far from meaningless, It hurts long term stockholders and index funds as this article from Forbes notes.

https://www.forbes.com/whats-the-ha...term-damage-to-shareholders-and-pension-funds

CEO salaries drain billions from US companies which make them less competitive on the world market.