News WDW Resorts to add fees for parking

[RustySpork]

I think anyone visiting a monorail resort should have their car booted from the parking lot after a few hours. There's absolutely no reason to park there before going to MK, or monorail resort hopping. There's a TTC right near by..park the car and you have access to all of the resorts, and MK. Leave the parking lot freed up for the people staying there.

People staying there, and people spending money there.

 

[GoofGoof]

I have heard this before, but correct me if I'm wrong. One factor of occupancy is available rooms. So if some rooms at a resort (or multiple resorts) are out of commission for rehab/upgrade, whatever), then occupancy percentage can look ... more robust than it really is.

I probably seem like a dog with a bone, but really, I'm not wedded to either result - occupancy being up or down. I just don't think any one thing is dispositive. There are many factors at work here. And one person having trouble booking at times doesn't tell a complete story. That's all.

I posted this in another thread, but it applies to this discussion too:

The occupancy has actually been really strong lately. I went through the numbers in the 10K in another thread and they show a pretty healthy year over year growth in actual rooms occupied which cannot be manipulated by taking rooms out of service.

I'm gonna go all @ParentsOf4 and drop some numbers from the 2016 10K in here to try to see how much playing with the numbers impacts the movement in occupancy.

Per the 10K:

• Domestic theme park attendance was down 1%
• Domestic hotel occupancy was up year over year from 87% to 89%
• 2016 available room nights = 10,382,000
• 2015 available room nights = 10,644,000
• 2016 occupied room nights = 9,240,000 (10,382,000 X 89%)
• 2015 occupied room nights = 9,260,000 (10,644,000 X 87%)

Based on this information the actual number of occupied rooms is pretty close to flat year over year. So while attendance is down 1% they did sell about the same number of hotel rooms (technically it was down 0.2%).

Now if we look at the decrease in available room nights it's approximately 700 rooms taken out of service for the full year. A portion of those are probably at Wilderness Lodge as they are being converted to DVC. The rest are just out of service for other reasons. I think BC/YC had a pretty major refurb in 2016 so that could be part of it too. They definitely could also be playing with the numbers here and boosting occupancy by taking rooms out of service.

Edit: It was brought to my attention that there were 53 weeks in fiscal year 2015 vs the standard 52 in 2016 which probably explains the bulk of the decrease in both attendance and available room nights.

To be exact if you take the weekly run rate for 2105 and convert that to a standard 52 week year (total divided by 53 multiplied by 52) the available rooms nights in 2015 would have been 10,433,000 and the occupied room nights would have been 9,085,000.

In another thread recently @ParentsOf4 posted this:

In case anyone wonders why Disney is adding hotel room capacity:

View attachment 190279

And this:

DVC is included in the occupancy reported by Disney and is counted as "two-bedroom equivalents". This means that DVC inflates the occupancy number but since DVC accounts for only about 11% of Walt Disney World rooms (because they are counted as 2-bedrooms), the effect is modest, typically 1 or 2%. Disney does this because counting DVC as 2-bedrooms helps with the important Per Room Guest Spending (PRGS) metric.

Converting hotel rooms to DVC skews the numbers to the extent that those rooms are taken out of service for extended periods of time. The current conversion at the Wilderness Lodge is skewing the numbers by roughly another 1%, since there are fewer "available room nights" during the conversion.

At any one time, Disney also has another 4% or so of rooms out of service, thus not counted as available room nights. Given the age of most Disney resorts, it's understandable that some rooms need servicing or remodeling at any one time.

Don't let these numbers mislead you. At the moment, Orlando area hotel occupancy is strong, with both Disney and Universal looking to add hotel/timeshare rooms.

The risk is that both are building during a boon. Orlando tourism is sensitive to economic downturns and another recession is sure to hit eventually. Disney's plan to open Star Wars Land will help. As Universal demonstrated when it opened the first Wizzarding World of Harry Potter, vacationers still come if you have a truly exciting product. If Disney creates an outstanding Star Wars Land, it should be a hit no matter what the economic situation, keeping hotel occupancy strong (even if Disney has to offer some discounts).

Disney's hotel costs are relatively fixed. A hotel occupancy rate of (say) 70% would be a financial disaster for Disney. Even immediately after 9/11, when tourism plummeted and Disney closed hotel rooms, occupancy bottomed out at 76%. Conversely, profits soar when occupancy hits 90%. Remember, when occupancy is low, it means there are bad things going on in the economy, meaning that Disney has to offer discounts to reach (for example) that 76%. When times are good, occupancy goes up and there are fewer discounts, meaning more rooms are occupied at a higher price, which is why it's so profitable. When you consider all the factors in evaluating hotel occupancy, there really is a narrow band between financial success and failure.

"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. "

Based on all of this, even if the occupancy number is reduced by 4 to 5% by taking rooms out of service or DVC conversions it's still a healthy number above 85% occupancy. The thinking that hotel occupancy was suffering but being masked by manipulation is largely untrue. The truth is they simply don't have enough hotel rooms today and you can bet demand will grow even stronger with Pandora and Star Wars opening soon too.

 

[GoofGoof]

And quite frankly the most opportune time to consider charging for parking and possibly implementing resort fees. Oooops, sorry - we almost got back on topic there.

Yeah, I'm not helping the cause am I

This is just my opinion, but I don't see how resort fees make any sense for WDW. The only purpose they serve in the world of travel is to artificially lower the room rate when you are searching online for the best price. It allows the hotel to collect a higher guaranteed rate than what shows on a site that compares multiple hotels. How many people are bargain shopping for rooms at WDW? Most people who book there are willing to pay the higher prices to be "on property". So if you aren't tricking people by showing a lower room rate on an online travel site than what's the point? If they want $30 more for the rooms, just raise the rates by $30. I see little value for WDW in taking on the negative publicity of resort fees considering the vast majority of guests staying at WDW aren't bargain shopping on a travel site.

 

[Laketravis]

Yeah, I'm not helping the cause am I

This is just my opinion, but I don't see how resort fees make any sense for WDW. The only purpose they serve in the world of travel is to artificially lower the room rate when you are searching online for the best price. It allows the hotel to collect a higher guaranteed rate than what shows on a site that compares multiple hotels. How many people are bargain shopping for rooms at WDW? Most people who book there are willing to pay the higher prices to be "on property". So if you aren't tricking people by showing a lower room rate on an online travel site than what's the point? If they want $30 more for the rooms, just raise the rates by $30. I see little value for WDW in taking on the negative publicity of resort fees considering the vast majority of guests staying at WDW aren't bargain shopping on a travel site.

Agreed. Some sort of parking fee? Probably, as a means to throttle capacity. Resort fees? Not likely.

 

[Smooth]

Are room rates, resort fees, and parking fees all taxed at the same rate?

 

[GoofGoof]

Are room rates, resort fees, and parking fees all taxed at the same rate?

No. room rates are taxed at 12.5% for WDW. Parking and resort fees would be at the regular 6.5% sales tax rate.

 

[Smooth]

No. room rates are taxed at 12.5% for WDW. Parking and resort fees would be at the regular 6.5% sales tax rate.

So, if they the added a $30.00 resort fee versus raising the room rate $30.00 , guests would actually pay a little less.

 

[contrariwise]

There's been plenty of reports talked about here on the rising occupancy rates, mostly during the earnings calls. This is from November:

"Not only do we have the property, but we've seen such high occupancy rates in Orlando and California, we believe it would be smart for us to build more hotels out ... at both sites."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-earnings-attendance-20161110-story.html

I will defer to your expertise on this, but I don't think "high occupancy rates" translates to "increased occupancy rates". It has been alleged that occupancy rates have SO increased that the parking situation has perceptibly changed at resorts. I don't know if it's true or not. But I can't accept one person's limited experience as authority.

I will add this - if occupancy rates weren't "high", then Disney would be stupid for the exponential rate growth on DVC. Occupancy rates must be high. But are they so high that parking has become a scarce commodity ... recently?

 

[NearTheEars]

I will defer to your expertise on this, but I don't think "high occupancy rates" translates to "increased occupancy rates". It has been alleged that occupancy rates have SO increased that the parking situation has perceptibly changed at resorts. I don't know if it's true or not. But I can't accept one person's limited experience as authority.

I'm no expert, just sharing what I've read here and elsewhere. (I added something to my OP before reading this reply).

@ParentsOf4 is the go-to person on numbers and charts.

 

[GoofGoof]

I will defer to your expertise on this, but I don't think "high occupancy rates" translates to "increased occupancy rates". It has been alleged that occupancy rates have SO increased that the parking situation has perceptibly changed at resorts. I don't know if it's true or not. But I can't accept one person's limited experience as authority.

Occupancy is up recently. Borrowed from @ParentsOf4 :

Not sure how much it impacts the parking situation given the occupancy levels were almost as high in 2007/2008 before the recession kicked in and also pre 9/11.

 

[21stamps]

There's been plenty of reports talked about here on the rising occupancy rates, mostly during the earnings calls. This is from November:

"Not only do we have the property, but we've seen such high occupancy rates in Orlando and California, we believe it would be smart for us to build more hotels out ... at both sites."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-earnings-attendance-20161110-story.html

ETA: I personally can't confirm that the current rate is the highest ever or anything, but it was said over and over by Iger and subsequently talked about here that hotel numbers have been very strong. I just remembered this specific article from the fall. There has since been another earnings call I believe.

The parking situation is mainly caused by rule breakers looking to cheat the system. It just makes it worse during times when the resort is "sold out", and why those resorts limit who can park there at certain times. It is nowhere near the main cause. I blame FB and Disney fan sites for that

 

[SugarMagnolia75]

Yes, guests would save on tax. Disney would still get the same $30 either way. I know there is a push in Hawaii at the state level to charge resort fees the additional tax on hotel rooms. Not sure if FL is looking at that as well so the loophole might close at some point. Parking would always stay at the lower tax rate.

They won't be included in any room only discount calculations either. So those discounts won't be quite as good as they used to be.

Your deflections are hilarious.
If they aren't increased then why do they need more hotels?

What hotels have they built recently besides DVC? And with the exception of the the GF Villas and the Poly bungalows, haven't most DVC additions involved using space that previously had been used for deluxe hotel rooms. ( Poly, Bay Lake Tower)

 

[contrariwise]

Your deflections are hilarious.
If they aren't increased then why do they need more hotels?

I have not deflected anything. I have answered questions directly, and not dodged anything. Do you answer everything? Do you deflect? I am not going to ridicule you, but you don't seem to be able to follow a simple line of reasoning. I am trying hard to go slow, but I am becoming frustrated.

As to your question ... Need more hotels? I don't think they NEED more hotels, but I suspect they've discovered that hotels, DVC in particular, are easier money than theme parks. They are milking the theme parks at this point. That's just my guess. Easy money seems to be the name of the game these days. And as much as I am pretty sure I am right, I am equally disappointed. I wish I wasn't right, and the company that I loved would stop dropping the ball.

 

[GoofGoof]

The parking situation is mainly caused by rule breakers looking to cheat the system. It just makes it worse during times when the resort is "sold out", and why those resorts limit who can park there at certain times. It is nowhere near the main cause. I blame FB and Disney fan sites for that

Parking at the parks also went up 33% from 2014 to 2016 (from $15 up to $20). It's possible more people are looking to beat the parking fee due to the steep price increase. I have no actual evidence to support that, but it would make sense.

 

[contrariwise]

The parking situation is mainly caused by rule breakers looking to cheat the system.

Not being subtle anymore. Please stop stating things as fact without providing an iota of proof.

 

[GoofGoof]

They won't be included in any room only discount calculations either. So those discounts won't be quite as good as they used to be.



What hotels have they built recently besides DVC? And with the exception of the the GF Villas and the Poly bungalows, haven't most DVC additions involved using space that previously had been used for deluxe hotel rooms. ( Poly, Bay Lake Tower)

They are adding hotel rooms to CSR but the CBR project looks like it may be DVC.

 

[21stamps]

I have not deflected anything. I have answered questions directly, and not dodged anything. Do you answer everything? Do you deflect? I am not going to ridicule you, but you don't seem to be able to follow a simple line of reasoning. I am trying hard to go slow, but I am becoming frustrated.

As to your question ... Need more hotels? I don't think they NEED more hotels, but I suspect they've discovered that hotels, DVC in particular, are easier money than theme parks. They are milking the theme parks at this point. That's just my guess. Easy money seems to be the name of the game these days. And as much as I am pretty sure I am right, I am equally disappointed. I wish I wasn't right, and the company that I loved would stop dropping the ball.

I deleted my comment bc I don't wish to "discuss" with you on this subject any longer. I asked you to let it go. At least stop quoting and referring to me.
You don't want to believe that occupancy has risen in the past few years..causing a need for more hotels, and very good reasons for new hotels.
That's your deal. Fine.
Once again, I agree to disagree. Please, move on from this convo with me.

 

[SugarMagnolia75]

They are adding hotel rooms to CSR but the CBR project looks like it may be DVC.

But aren't they knocking down several existing buildings to do it? Do we know what the net gain of rooms will be?

 

[contrariwise]

I deleted my comment bc I don't wish to "discuss" with you on this subject any longer. I asked you to let it go. At least stop quoting and referring to me.
You don't want to believe that occupancy has risen in the past few years..causing a need for more hotels, and very good reasons for new hotels.
That's your deal. Fine.
Once again, I agree to disagree. Please, move on from this convo with me.

Ok. But really, it's because no one has shown that it has increased. Much less appreciably increased so much that parking would be significantly impacted. Is it really so annoying that I won't just take your word for it?

 

[21stamps]

Parking at the parks also went up 33% from 2014 to 2016 (from $15 up to $20). It's possible more people are looking to beat the parking fee due to the steep price increase. I have no actual evidence to support that, but it would make sense.

My only "evidence" is my personal experience having a problem..Also meeting people in line for the launch from MK, after park closing, hearing people talk on the launch..:and friends who have had the same experience.
So, it's completely anecdotal and people can choose the believe or not.

However, I'm sure if you searched the subject you can find plenty of people on FB or message boards who say they do this..or are asking for advice of how to do it.