Originally Posted By ChiMike >>No reason summer and holiday admission cost more when more things are operating and staffing is heavier.<< No reason summer and holiday admission shouldn't cost more when
Originally Posted By mouseoears The problem you may run into there ChiMike, is what would happen if an E ticket breaks down on the day you are there, or if they are rehabing it? Would you be able to get the portion of your tier refunded? I don't know about how well that would work, but I do know the AP holders can be a pain as far as crowds, just too many of them, we were once, and we were pains!
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "don't disagree here...but WDWis the least of our economic issues" Oh, I totally agree there. I guess I was just commenting on the rising costs of everything while pay does not rise so fast. WDW is a luxury, but it's slowly (or maybe not so) being priced out for some. Or at least causing people to take fewer trips there. I do wonder how the other parks will cope though. Maybe a lot of people will think that if they're going to spend the money, they had better do it at Disney because they are percieved as "the best". Universal and Sea World will have to think about it...might they price people away by raising prices, or would they stand to lose money of they don't raise them? I don't know the answer, and I'm just kind of thinking "out loud".
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The problem you may run into there ChiMike, is what would happen if an E ticket breaks down on the day you are there, or if they are rehabing it? Would you be able to get the portion of your tier refunded< no , no different than we can;t recover the tier premium when the Cubs trot out a team less, Kerry Wood /mark prior /Derek Lee etc.....it is what it is
Originally Posted By hopemax I really dislike using local entertainment as a comparison to something like WDW. I'm not really sure what a good comparison is. I understand why people make the comparisons, but I look at sporting events and concerts and can see that there is a limited number of "space" available. A concert may have 2 performances in a 40,000 seat arena, a football team plays eight home games a year, a play may have 60 performances in a theater of 1000 seats. WDW "Seats" 365 days a year, 75,000 people per day, for years on end without much variation (vs how a sporting event would turn out). I can see how supply/demand would work out in those types of entertainment to justify the prices, I can't see it at WDW. And sporting teams, concert promoters KNOW that they can't really justify those prices for long. There is a trend to building smaller venues these days (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/education/01stanford.html?ex=1298869200&en=e085c05b9be2ae5d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03 /01/education/01stanford.html?ex=1298869200&en=e085c05b9be2ae5d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss</a>) because they believe the math works out in their favor. It isn't as easy for WDW to just shrink its supply, but I think we can see it. Closed attractions, replacement attractions with lower capacities, the trend to smaller parks. But when it comes right down to it, IMO, it's going to be a matter of people looking at their new mortage payment, energy bills, maxed out CC, empty 401Ks, while pricing out a vacation to WDW. I think there are a lot of folks who won't be visiting WDW, OR attending White Sox games. Thanks to no job security, the people who come up with these strategies won't be worried about when that wall comes. They'll be gone in 3 years, so jack up the prices this year, the numbers will look good.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I’m lucky if I get a 5% raise each year at work<< Anyone who is getting 5% raises every year is doing better than the average Joe.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper WDW has always been priced out for some...and I think that has always been intentional. In fact, I know it. During Traditions we had an awkward moment where a cast member asked the trainer why ticket prices were so high. That trainers very blatant response was, "we don't want just anyone coming to Walt Disney World." I was more suprised at his cold candor than the answer itself, to be honest. There is a ceiling, I'm sure of that. At some point Disney will find that out as other companies have.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>The problem you may run into there ChiMike, is what would happen if an E ticket breaks down on the day you are there, or if they are rehabing it? Would you be able to get the portion of your tier refunded?<< I don't think a refund would be in order because a marquee attraction ceased operations during a high-tiered season. There is so much going on that can offset that tier price difference. Longer operating hours, more capacity on attractions, more entertainment, better weather, kids don't miss school, adults don't take vacation time during holidays. I agree with a tier pricing because it would effect popular times to visit, just as DVC charges more points for weekends and holiday seasons. One attraction being down isn't going to change popular times of the year to visit. >>I don't know about how well that would work, but I do know the AP holders can be a pain as far as crowds, just too many of them, we were once, and we were pains! << I have nothing against visiting the parks with many APers. I just feel APs for both WDW and DL are woefully under-priced. In a perfect world their price point should preclude someone in Chicago thinking their a good choice for a once a year week-long trip to the property. Disney should make the passes so expensive that a family wouldn't double dip and get two years of a vacation off of one AP. The AP price should discourage the choice of an AP for those situations. MYW was a step in the right direction. I visit for a short amount of time a few times a year. Some in my typical traveling party have converted to the 10 day no expire ticket.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Thanks to no job security, the people who come up with these strategies won't be worried about when that wall comes. They'll be gone in 3 years, so jack up the prices this year, the numbers will look good.<< And hopemax, that is a very, very good point. This reaks of short-term thinking. Certainly they have short-term objectives. But that is what this company has been about in the last decade. You, me and a hundred others saw this problem coming years away. We saw what they were doing to this company. Others criticised our concerns and warnings, telling us to 'love it or leave it'. We knew that the company would have problems that new execs would have to dig out from under. We don't really have new execs, we are not there yet, but we do have a trend that loosely points to better things. Keeping the prices flat and taking a beating because of Disney's self-destructive planning and own lack of forsight is an outcome I prefer less than guests paying more. We have been paying attention and know what happens when Disney preforms poorly. They cut enough so that they return to preforming better. Additional revenue will help deter that. I've already cut back on what I spend with Disney, if I pay more and see things at MK or Disney dining get worse I will cut back on my spending even more. Until they lose my business. It's a personal decision for each person. I rather pay an extra 5% or 10% next year than pay the same prices as last year and have all sorts of cuts made.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I rather pay an extra 5% or 10% next year than pay the same prices as last year and have all sorts of cuts made.>> Ah ... but there's the rub, VBDAD. You assume that Disney won't RAISE prices at the same time at CUTTING/LOWERING quality. They aren't mutually exclusive. And, many times, Disney does do both. I'd gladly pay twice as much for my AP if that meant a return to cleaner parks, more entertainment, less shuttered shops and new attractions.
Originally Posted By ChiMike ^^ no big deal, but that was my quote. >>You assume that Disney won't RAISE prices at the same time at CUTTING/LOWERING quality.<< And that's why I said right above, "We have been paying attention and know what happens when Disney preforms poorly. They cut enough so that they return to preforming better. Additional revenue will help deter that. I've already cut back on what I spend with Disney, if I pay more and see things at MK or Disney dining get worse I will cut back on my spending even more. Until they lose my business." >>They aren't mutually exclusive. And, many times, Disney does do both. I'd gladly pay twice as much for my AP if that meant a return to cleaner parks, more entertainment, less shuttered shops and new attractions.<< And we are in definite agreement. It's what I'm trying to get at. I can't be negative about the increases because I've been begging for them to put more money towards the parks for years. I have to give them a chance to make things better with this increase, if service falls further after the increase I will patronize even less. Which I'm sure most of the guest will do.
Originally Posted By idleBrain <<You assume that Disney won't RAISE prices at the same time at CUTTING/LOWERING quality. They aren't mutually exclusive. And, many times, Disney does do both.>> YES! EXACTLY!! Prices keep going up... quality keeps going down. And it's been going on for years. <<I'd gladly pay twice as much for my AP if that meant a return to cleaner parks, more entertainment, less shuttered shops and new attractions.>> Stopped doing the AP thing over two years ago. But I'd gladly go back, if what you propose, Sof74, were to happen. Simply put, I'd rather give less of my money to Disney now, than I have previously. They're losing my respect with this price increasing/quality cutting behavior, and hence, my business.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Ah ... but there's the rub, VBDAD. You assume that Disney won't RAISE prices at the same time at CUTTING/LOWERING quality. < oh no, as you know I most assuredly realize that scenario , can and does happen...but I know the corporate world well enough that without price increases your chances of improvements ( expenses) without price increases ( additional revene) are ZIPPO. Just because they get an increase doesn;t mean we get improvements, but it at least raises some chance
Originally Posted By goofy5-22 Anyone can complain about a price raise, but these people should dare not complain when new rides are not built, when less bus transportaion has to be used due to gas, or any other refurbishment has to be made. It may cost 67.00 to go to Disney for 1 day, but it will cost me 75. to any sporting event for 3 hours here in Boston. I go to Disney 2 times a year Some trips I spend more, some less. It's all in how you look at it.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Anyone can complain about a price raise, but these people should dare not complain when new rides are not built, when less bus transportaion has to be used due to gas, or any other refurbishment has to be made.<< A very good point Goofy! Nice to see your 2nd post!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss It's interesting to see complaints here about how a trip to WDW is becoming less affordable, and yet in other threads I have seen complaints that the company has gone too far with discounting.
Originally Posted By ChiMike ^ You wouldn't see that contridiction from me. I think a trip to WDW has become too afordable. As RoadTrip said earlier, I think it would be great to see demand decrease. Which might be happening now.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 The company has made itself one in which many savvy 'Disney consumers' know that there will always be discounts to be had. That happens when you overbuild resorts. WDW has a good 5,000-10,000 too many rooms. But they aren't stopping. And that means discounts. When Disney is tossing out $36 rooms on Priceline.com, you know they can't fill 'em.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Which basically says to me that Disney (at least the resorts)is no longer a premium product.
