News WDW Resorts to add fees for parking

[rushtest4echo]

Disney and Universal are following the rest of the hospitality industry on stuff like this. Unfortunately it's becoming clearer with every decision that this industry thinks that the airline industry is an example of how to run things. Disheartening.

 

[rael ramone]

As you probably guessed, No tables that they were prepared to fill Disney is the only restauranteur in the known universe where when the dining room is OPEN and full of empty tables they will turn you away.

(With the possible exception of 'exclusive' French restaurants...)

You should have done a @PhotoDave219 ... get out the cell phone right in front of them and call reservations asking for a table at that restaurant...

 

[flynnibus]

It is not simply about the advertising; the failure to disclose an accurate price impedes competition, ie the practice itself is anti-competitive.

Disclosure is part of advertising. Advertizing in this context is COMMUNICATION. How the entity communicates its prices and terms, avoiding deceptive practices, and activities that hurt what they can stretch into commerce as a whole. That's what the FTC plays in... not scoping what they are allowed to charge for.

The ground that the FTC would fight for is that the prices as communicated would need to include those fees or better disclosed vs being fees that are"hidden" or deceptive.

In the case of hotel resort fees - they CAN do it, but they have not. Your argument is based on the exercise of such authority being unconstitutional, but the courts have not invalidated the law...unless or until that happens, they can do it.

I agree with you however that the hotel industry would be 'more creative' in trying to secure other revenue streams.

The law doesn't grant them this power, and they haven't pushed the boundary... that's why it hasn't been challenged. But the hospitality industry would not just roll over if the FTC tried to say they can't charge for something. The industry lobby would sue to overturn the FTC and put them back in their place. The FTC will ultimately get involved here I think when it comes to how things are advertised... just as has been done in the airline industry... but that doesn't change the fees or their existence.

 

[Bandini]

It's different. This benefits no one. Not Disney, not any consumer.

This doesn't benefit Disney? Really?

 

[Matt_Black]

I'm not wading through all 37 pages, but if you really don't want to pay for parking, DON'T RENT A CAR. Take the Magic Express to and from the airport and avail yourself of WDW's transportation. It's good for your wallet AND good for the environment.

 

[xdan0920]

I'm not wading through all 37 pages, but if you really don't want to pay for parking, DON'T RENT A CAR. Take the Magic Express to and from the airport and avail yourself of WDW's transportation. It's good for your wallet AND good for the environment.

Or suck it up and pay. AMIRIGHT????

 

[drizgirl]

I'm not wading through all 37 pages, but if you really don't want to pay for parking, DON'T RENT A CAR. Take the Magic Express to and from the airport and avail yourself of WDW's transportation. It's good for your wallet AND good for the environment.

37 pages? Man, I must have missed all the good stuff that got deleted.

 

[Matt_Black]

General "OMG Disney so greedy I hate Iger" posts (of which I'm sure there are plenty here) count extra.

 

[asianway]

the lengths people will go to deny a trend exists blows my mind. How do people function in daily life??

The same reason Disney can charge Ritz Carlton prices for less than Hampton Inn service. These people never travel anywhere else.

I have a friend who is a "Trekkie" said people would buy stuff at a Star Trek convention at 3x the retail price (not talking about HTF stuff) rather than set foot in a retail store

 

[rael ramone]

I'm not wading through all 37 pages, but if you really don't want to pay for parking, DON'T RENT A CAR. Take the Magic Express to and from the airport and avail yourself of WDW's transportation. It's good for your wallet AND good for the environment.

But very, very bad when it comes to maximizing the time that you've spent dearly on in the swamps (one could make the argument for some that actual vacation days they get to use are more valuable currency for some then cash). The best Fastpass down there is access to a car. It's true now. It becomes truer the more transportation deteriorates. Having a car means getting more done in less time, meaning less nights needed.... less expensive food needed...

 

[RobbinsDad]

I'm not wading through all 37 pages, but if you really don't want to pay for parking, DON'T RENT A CAR. Take the Magic Express to and from the airport and avail yourself of WDW's transportation. It's good for your wallet AND good for the environment.

Because everybody flies to WDW. But you have given me a good idea - park at the airport and take a round trip shuttle to the resort. A lot cheaper than 30 bucks a day.

 

[The_Jobu]

Because everybody flies to WDW. But you have given me a good idea - park at the airport and take a round trip shuttle to the resort. A lot cheaper than 30 bucks a day.

The road trip down and eating at the delightfully tacky tourist restaurants is half the fun!

 

[rael ramone]

The road trip down and eating at the delightfully tacky tourist restaurants is half the fun!

Who doesn't like South of the Border?....

 

[contrariwise]

I'm not wading through all 37 pages, but if you really don't want to pay for parking, DON'T RENT A CAR. Take the Magic Express to and from the airport and avail yourself of WDW's transportation. It's good for your wallet AND good for the environment.

Because everybody flies to WDW.

 

[Sonconato]

You have forgotten the alternative explanation for scenarios like this i.e. the executives are looting the company treasury. Disney at the moment is AWASH in Cash yet they are not hoarding it they are pumping the stock at the top of the market because their incentive compensation plans are tied to the stock price.

Yet down the road there is a similar enterprise which is INVESTING in the SAME core business and business model and their financials for that division put Disney's to shame. So the 'mature' business model is frankly a red herring whilst Iger and Company loot Disney.

I pity the NEXT TWDC management team because they will have nothing in the tank to rebuild with and frankly I expect a blaze of lawsuits against the old executive team.

Yes, I think that is the foreseeable future.

 

[rael ramone]

The road trip down and eating at the delightfully tacky tourist restaurants is half the fun!

....this is no longer a vacation....it's a quest....it's a quest for fun....

 

[dreamfinder]

The road trip down and eating at the delightfully tacky tourist restaurants is half the fun!

Yet unrefined?

 

[SorcererMC]

The law doesn't grant them this power, and they haven't pushed the boundary... that's why it hasn't been challenged. But the hospitality industry would not just roll over if the FTC tried to say they can't charge for something. The
industry lobby would sue to overturn the FTC and put them back in their place

No. Federal law grants and delineates federal agencies' authority. Re: FTC, former Chairmen have been clear on this for years.... which is why consumer advocacy groups appeal to them to act. FTC and Natl Econ Council are challenging the practice of partitioned pricing and drip pricing as 'harmful to consumers', per the paper (which is not a federal regulation, but sets the stage). Agreed they haven't pushed the boundary on the exercise of that authority (they've urged Congress to act but the bill died in committee AFAIK). Federal overreach is a separate matter (that the hotel industry could challenge). In the meantime, hotels will charge it and consumers will pay it, and how it plays out now depends on the incoming leaders.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Buybacks are done with the assumption it's "excess" cash not needed to run the business. We can argue that all day long, but Disney's position is they are only buying back shares with money it's not using for maintenance, R&D, and other capital expenditures. The did open Shanghai Disney and build 2 new cruise ships.

I don't know...it's a tough sell. Ultimately you could spend everything on capital expenditures at parks, but there is always a budget. I would like to see them spend several billion at WDW and I think we are/will see that soon.

FP+. SWL. Pandora. You're in multi-billion territory already and get, what, 4 attractions?

Buybacks are done to boost stock price for large shareholders, or for those with a large number of stock options waiting for them. Period. Now, who would have a large number of stock options PLUS a 1.4 million share nest egg and is coming up on retirement in the next year or so...

 

[flynnibus]

No. Federal law grants and delineates federal agencies' authority. Re: FTC, former Chairmen have been clear on this for years.... which is why consumer advocacy groups appeal to them to act. FTC and Natl Econ Council are challenging the practice of partitioned pricing and drip pricing as 'harmful to consumers', per the paper (which is not a federal regulation, but sets the stage)

And not once in any of that does it say they can't charge such fees - they challenge them based on how they are obscured and misleading. So for what.. the 4th time? They challenge how they are communicated - not that they exist, nor do they have any authority to stop them from being charged.. nor does Congress. The bill you cite? It's about how the fees are ADVERTISED

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2599/text

A BILL
To prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of hotel room rates, and for other purposes.
[...]
This Act may be cited as the “Truth in Hotel Advertising Act of 2016”.
[...]
(a) Prohibition.—No person with respect to whom the Federal Trade Commission is empowered under section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2)) may advertise in interstate commerce a rate for a hotel room that does not include all required fees other than taxes and fees imposed by a government.

How can this not be any more clear? "no person [...] may advertise in interstate commerce a rate for a hotel room that does not include all required fees other than taxes and fees imposed by a government"

It does not ban such fees, it only challenges how prices are advertised. The existence of a fee and the ability to charge it, is seperate from the issues around how they are marketed and disclosed. The FTC has scope over the latter, not the former.

There are still reasons for a resort to charge things as fees, even if the total price quote includes them.

The recent FTC noise is about trying to change the loophole so that the fees need to be included in INITIAL representation of prices.. verse simply at final quotes/purchases.

These are very important distinctions when you talk about the scope of the legal authority to regulate this topic.