Originally Posted By leobloom >> What does it say that you can have a management team of 8 to 10 people and not see a manager for an entire shift? << Based on my experience, this was very true. Another component to the hierarchy of CMs was the coordinator position (they wore purple shirts when I was there, don't know if the position has been done away with). I don't know how many coordinators we had, but I never did figure out why the coordinator position was even necessary. It seemed to me that the coordinators did a lot of the work that the managers should have been doing -- fixing staff rotations, addressing on-stage issues in real time, etc. There were some coordinators who only worked as coordinators, but there were other front-line CMs who would work some days as coordinators and some days as attractions CMs. It looked to me like this was one way for management to throw a bone to the lowly CMs who were not likely to move into management. Suffice it to say, after my first two days of training I was blown away by how much hierarchy among CMs (attractions CMs - coordinators - managers - area manager).
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Another component to the hierarchy of CMs was the coordinator position (they wore purple shirts when I was there, don't know if the position has been done away with)>> It hasn't. And they still wear purple shirts in Epcot. And yes, coordinators often do much more work than managers ever do. I always wondered what the managers actually do other than walk around with pickers and pin trade with guests or try to find CMs to yell at. I still don't have the answer to that question.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 The Basics has destroyed any semblance of service at the parks save for Table Serivce rest's. Because the CM must now ONLY be responsible for Safety and bascially acting like a PR person that the service/guest part has gone out the window. However, schdualing bids are the greatest thing ever! Being able to work when and where you want!
Originally Posted By CDF1 A few comments on a couple of topics related to size of WDW: 1. Transportation - it seems to me that, in terms of return on investment, that busses are still the only viable method of transport for the majority of WDW guests. Sure, the monorail system is terrific and really an attraction unto itself for those in the hotels around Seven Seas Lagoon that want to frequent the MK and EPCOT - it seems pretty shortsided that Disney neglected to find a way to add in a stop at the Wilderness Lodge (I think the claim was made that a monorail didn't fit in a rustic national park seeting but one doesn't fit in a Pacific island at the Polynesian or in a turn-of-the-century Florida resort like the GF). Anyway, it was a great idea linking the resorts around the lagoon and the TTTC to Epcot via the monorail. As far as the rest of the resort areas which were developed in a somewhat "urban sprawl" situation, what other choice do you have but roads and busses? Rail systems would be very expensive to build and maintain and with the other parks and hotels so spread out, how do you effectively link them up? At least in the Epcot area they made clever use of watercraft to provide another option for guests in those hotels to get to the Studios park (although such boat travel does require a good deal of patience). So in the end, it seems that the overall scale of the resort is it's blessing and it's curse from a transportation aspect - the plus is that there are so many options for things to do but the minus is that those things are so far apart. 2. Size in relationship to quality/product consistency This is not a new issue for many businesses - as size increses so do the problems with managing a large work force and attending to the myriad of details. Doesn't it really become an issue of how to train and empower management of certain geographical areas or specific facilities that can be entrusted to maintain company standards? It does take some measure of investment to build and keep management people that do make a difference in these types of activities - is Disney following through with that investment or are they trying to get by with more entry-level employees as opposed to keeping longer-term managers that can get things done on their own? Companies like McDonalds seem to be successful in ensuring their product is consistent despite what is probably a very high rate of turnover at the entry-level positions - are the techniques they use applicable to something like theme park operations? I've always enjoyed my trips to WDW - I went there a lot when the kids were smaller but now that they are older we haven't been there since EE opened at AK. We didn't even use a rental car last trip - used the luggage service and WDW transportation the whole time and outside of one case where we had to wait a bit longer than we liked for a bus to our specific resort, the transportation system worked very well for us.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo After the amazing monorail experiences at Europa Park as well as Alton towers, and the real world quality transport in cities across Europe ( underground waits of a max of 4 minutes on Friday) wdw charges a premium for a subparagraph service level. In short, their transport sucks
Originally Posted By CDF1 From post 66: "and the real world quality transport in cities across Europe" Would agree - in cities like London and Paris you can get around town very quickly and easily via the bus and subway systems (with an occasional assist from a taxi if you want to pay the freight - actually, highly recommended in London as the cabbies there are extremely knowledgable and sometimes quite entertaining!)
