Complaining About Valet Parking Fees
J
reports that as of July 16th, 2001, WDW will charge $6 to valet park.
Of course, it is a free country, and if WDW wants to charge $1,000 to valet
park they technically can. But I am a frustrated customer, and I need to
let off some steam. THIS IS A HUGE RIP-OFF. I have had trouble with Disney
valet parking in the past because I ask the valets if I should tip when the
car is taken away or when it is returned and I never get a straight answer
because of course the valets hope guests will wallow in confusion and tip
twice. So I do: I tip to take it away, and I tip again to have it brought
back. And now, on top of that, is a charge of $6.
Now not all WDW hotels are the same when it comes to the convenience of
regular versus valet parking. At the Polynesian, for example, the regular
parking area isn't very far from the valet parking area, and neither are far
from the entrance to the main building. And at the Wilderness Lodge, it is
a bit of a walk from the regular parking area to the front door, but it's
not too bad. And at both Wilderness Lodge and the Polynesian, one option is
to valet park when you first check in to so you don't have to carry all of
your heavy luggage in, then use regular parking for the rest of the stay.
But at the Grand Floridian (GF), regular parking is just not an option
unless you really love walking, regardless of the heat or of any downpour
that may be in progress. At the GF, ALL of the parking near the hotel is
reserved for valet. If you want to self-park at GF, you will be sent to the
hinterland in parking lot that feels remote from GF, and does not feel like
it is even part of the resort. I am not paying huge room rates for this
sort of inconvenience.
There was a time when I would be happy to hear that WDW was filling to
capacity, as it was good for the company. These days, I am glad to hear
about declining bookings, because it means discounts on room rates that have
risen faster than inflation for the last ten years (not to mention now
having to pay for valet parking).
And a question: will the $6 for valet parking apply for that day at the
resort, or will $6 be charged each time you use a valet? If it is the
latter, then people staying at the GF will have light wallets if they
venture out from the resort two or more times in a day on non-monorail
excursions.
Of course, this post will bring out the perennial, enduring Disney defenders
who will provide long point-by-point rebuttals of this post (that I will not
read). There are always those who feel that Disney can do no wrong.
But despite the fact that Disney is free to charge what it wants, this $6
move on the valet parking is the work of a clip artist.
Scotty
"J" <jfdl#l...@ksk.ca>
> The lastest news on Deb's Unofficial Walt Disney World Information Guide
> reports that as of July 16th, 2001, WDW will charge $6 to valet park.
Way old news. Where have you been?
> Of course, it is a free country, and if WDW wants to charge $1,000 to
valet
> park they technically can. But I am a frustrated customer, and I need to
> let off some steam. THIS IS A HUGE RIP-OFF.
It isn't a huge rip-off, it is standard practice at most up-scale hotels.
> I have had trouble with Disney
> valet parking in the past because I ask the valets if I should tip when
the
> car is taken away or when it is returned and I never get a straight answer
> because of course the valets hope guests will wallow in confusion and tip
> twice.
If you want your car left out front tip well, up front, otherwise tip when
you get it back.
> But at the Grand Floridian (GF), regular parking is just not an option
> unless you really love walking, regardless of the heat or of any downpour
> that may be in progress.
If you can afford the GF, you can afford the valet parking fee of $6.
> There was a time when I would be happy to hear that WDW was filling to
> capacity, as it was good for the company. These days, I am glad to hear
> about declining bookings, because it means discounts on room rates that
have
> risen faster than inflation for the last ten years
How have the rates risen relative to other resort hotels? Booked a room at
the Ritz Carlton in Naples or Palm Beach lately?? Been to the Halekulani or
the Lodge at Kolele?
> And a question: will the $6 for valet parking apply for that day at the
> resort, or will $6 be charged each time you use a valet?
It is a per day rate.
> Of course, this post will bring out the perennial, enduring Disney
defenders
> who will provide long point-by-point rebuttals of this post (that I will
not
> read).
We have to read your long, boring re-hash of points that have been discussed
here for a week already, but you won't read responses?
> But despite the fact that Disney is free to charge what it wants, this $6
> move on the valet parking is the work of a clip artist.
$6 is low by industry standards and by the amount of hot air you have, I'd
say you have plenty for a walk from the self park.
Scott
rawiswar
Matt
WDW - August/Sept 2001 That was the one & only Neil Mousakka Ladies & Gentleman
ParisByAir
well that they'll make it up very soon in their casinos -- I can't think of
quality chains that will valet for free.
In deep metropolis the rates are quite steep. We valet'd in Boston last month
at our hotel and it was $27. Yes. Twenty Seven dollars!
Having your car parked from you, and returned to you, is a service.
Aksco33
David
'
The Marriot WOrld Center charges 7.00 a day to valet there. They are
just off Disney property. I think 6 is reasonable. and Handicap and
Disney Dining Experience members, will be exempt, but most of these
people tip fiarly decent anyhow, so I doubt they are getting off any
easier than Joe Schmuch on the road.
David
From Here To Infirmary
Actually, that's not true LOL....We are staying at the Grand Floridian for 4
nights, and were not rich or anything. We got a cheap rate of $199! But we
never use Valet parking anyway, were used to being at the All Star Resorts,
lol!
Mike Garrison
"There's no use in calling, I'm passed out on the floor"
"I don't want to be another victim of society"
"Crashed my own house party cause nobody came"
Robb
what hotel it was at.
Robb
"From Here To Infirmary" <pkdco...@aol.comptonthug> wrote in message
news:20010715135117...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Rodney T. Grill
in some real dumps for $150/night and up. I've also stayed at some nice
places for $80. I think $199 for a true luxury hotel with the magic of
Disney is a bargain. And no matter what folks say, if you are willing
(notice I said willing, not "able to afford") to pay $199/night for your
hotel, then you might also be willing to pay an extra $6/day for valet
parking. If not, then you can forego the convenience and park for free.
Yes, you will have to walk some, but it's all about where you are *willing*
to spend your hard-earned money.
- RODNEY
"Robb" <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote in message
news:8gl47.16565$B7.28...@ruti.visi.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Denise
all fees (resort fees, etc.) are negotiable. I am not sure that this will work
at Disney, but for resort fees and energy fees (and parking fees) elsewhere.
Denise
Denise's Webhome
http://members.aol.com/tinybeetle/index.htm
TDC Defender and (close)
Observer of All Virile Male Servers at Epcots Chefs De France
doomaz
"From Here To Infirmary" <pkdco...@aol.comptonthug> wrote in message
news:20010715135117...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >If you can afford the GF, you can afford the valet parking fee of $6.
>
> Actually, that's not true LOL....We are staying at the Grand Floridian for
4
> nights, and were not rich or anything. We got a cheap rate of $199! But we
> never use Valet parking anyway, were used to being at the All Star
Resorts,
> lol!
You may not be rich, but if you can afford $800 for 4 nights, you can afford
$6 for valet. The last time I was at GF the self park was way out across
the road. Is it still that way?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
doomaz
"rawiswar" <rawi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cae5757.01071...@posting.google.com...
> Maybe it's just me, but Disneyworld & Valet parking just don't go
together.
That's because it's really known as Eisnerworld.
Denise
$6 for valet. >>
Not necessarily. You have xxx amount of money to spend on a trip, and
spending $6 a day on valet takes it away from elsewhere (like food).
Robb
charge, while spending $199 a night -- you need to revaluate your lodging
choice. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP, no
it's the saddest statement I have ever read.
Robb
"Denise" <tinyb...@aol.comeOnDown> wrote in message
news:20010716115327...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Robb
Robb
"doomaz" <pres...@whitehowse.gov> wrote in message
news:3b53...@post.newsfeeds.com...
Rodney T. Grill
people go on vacation, they budget for it. Maybe not down to the dollar,
but they know how much they have to spend and it's a pretty munch a finite
amount. No, an extra $6/day probably won't inflict major damage on the
average GF guest's budget, but for many people, it won't be an extra $6
spent at WDW (i.e. as in extra revenue for Disney) but instead it will be
"reallocated" at the expense of other parts of that guest's budget. So
maybe a the guest chooses a less expensive counter meal over a full service
restaurant.
- RODNEY
, but instead maybe discretionary "snacks". In other words, most people
budget for their vacation. if I found that
"Robb" <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote in message
news:G1G47.17804$B7.29...@ruti.visi.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Barry L. Wallis
been said), but can't you still self-park and walk?
--
- Barry as TDC Sorcerer, Magical Manager of the Mysteriously Missing Main
Street Magic Shop
- Unofficial RADP Defender of DCA ( http://members.home.net/barry.wallis )
- "Sorry Mr. Eisner" - Chernabog
"Rodney T. Grill" <rod...@grill.org> wrote in message
news:3b533...@Newsfeeds.com...
Disneybrad
news:3b52dc78$1...@cpns1.saic.com...
> I am coming to this discussion late (so please ignore me if this has
already
> been said), but can't you still self-park and walk?
>
Yes, it is free to park your own car.
You pay if you want them to do it for you.
Brad
Alan Schaefer
>No, an extra $6/day probably won't inflict major damage on the
> average GF guest's budget, but for many people, it won't be an extra $6
> spent at WDW (i.e. as in extra revenue for Disney) but instead it will be
> "reallocated" at the expense of other parts of that guest's budget. So
> maybe a the guest chooses a less expensive counter meal over a full service
> restaurant.
Al
--
Al Schaefer
http://home.earthlink.net/~adschaefer/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~adschaefer/macstheatre.html
Denise
charge, while spending $199 a night -- you need to revaluate your lodging
choice. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP, >>
Why? Everyone else understood what I meant. There are plenty of guests who
are stretching their dollars to stay somewhere special like the Grand Floridian
- that sure doesn't mean they have money to waste on valet parking. I prefer
to stay at a deluxe resort than to spend much money on food, and wouldn't spend
what is the equivalent of two nice dinners for a week of valet parking.
WDW1972
<no.spam...@home.com> writes:
>I am coming to this discussion late (so please ignore me if this has already
>been said), but can't you still self-park and walk?
Of course. Self-parking at the wdw resorts is still free. If you are disabled
there is no charge for the valet parking - not sure why not, but that's what I
read.
Sue - DivaofDVC aka WDW1972
DVC '97 OKW, Vero Beach, & Hilton Head
bicker
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:03:53 -0500, "Robb" <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote:
> > I am sorry, but if you have to go without food because of a valet parking
> > charge, while spending $199 a night -- you need to revaluate your lodging
> > it's the saddest statement I have ever read.>
People are using that phrase "Everyone else understood what I meant" a
lot recently, when in reality it adds absolutely NO value whatsoever
to the discussion, except as an under-the-table attempt at a personal
attack. I'm sure even Robb understood EXACTLY what you meant, he just
DISAGREED with you about the rationality of what you believe.
> There are plenty of guests who
> are stretching their dollars to stay somewhere special like the Grand Floridian
> - that sure doesn't mean they have money to waste on valet parking.
Valet parking is not mandatory. As long as self-parking exists, your
argument has no leg to stand on. Even if self-parking was taken away,
your argument would be weak, at best, because there are many
incidental costs associated with going on vacation -- this is just one
other, and Disney didn't dream it up.
If you want to complain about something Disney dreamed up, complain
about those silly pins! <grin>
--
¤bicker¤ http://beaconwoods.org
Copyright © 2001, Brian Charles Kohn. All Rights Reserved.
Posting in no way grants receivers any privileges, rights,
or licenses, with the exception of quoting in reply as long
as such use complies with US Law concerning Fair Use.
Come to our web site and see our trip report on our trip to
Egypt! http://beaconwoods.org
Rodney T. Grill
Robb's use of sarcasm. If he had just said "I disagree - I think people
staying at a deluxe resort and paying over $200/night won't worry about an
extra $6/day..." then I think it would have been a much different argument.
Using phrases such as "most ludicrous statement" and "the saddest statement
I have ever read" are not those of a friendly debate.
- RODNEY
"bicker" <bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote in message
news:3b582662...@news.beaconwoods.org...
Carol Kennedy
> People are using that phrase "Everyone else understood what I meant" a
> lot recently, when in reality it adds absolutely NO value whatsoever
> to the discussion, except as an under-the-table attempt at a personal
> attack.
And how did the following add value to the discussion?
"Why can't you seem to understand that different people enjoy different
things?" (Brian, 9/10/00)
"Thanks for confirming that is really IS useless trying to explain anything
to you Carol when you come at the issue in the way you came at it this
time." (Brian, 12/7/00)
"Maybe someone else in the newsgroup can help you
understand the sentence, since I'm not going to bother trying anymore."
(Brian, 4/16/01)
"Read it again and again until you understand, or just drop it if you are
unable to understand a concept
as 'complex' as this one." (Brian, 6/27/01)
"You're an easy one to deal with. The only
thing is that you're not much of a challenge." (Brian, 6/27/01)
"Sorry, but that's too obvious (to me) to explain." (Brian, 7/8/01)
Maybe folks are just copying the techniques of the master.
--
Carol Kennedy, TDC Pollo Grande, Speaker of Inadequate Spanish, and
Translator without Portfolio
bicker
<rod...@grill.org> wrote:
> I don't think Denise's response was any more of a personal attack than
> Robb's use of sarcasm. If he had just said "I disagree - I think people
> staying at a deluxe resort and paying over $200/night won't worry about an
> extra $6/day..." then I think it would have been a much different argument.
> Using phrases such as "most ludicrous statement" and "the saddest statement
> I have ever read" are not those of a friendly debate.
I see a clear distinction between hyperbole (which has its place in
debate when readily acknowledged as such) and personal attack (which
never has a place, in debate or otherwise). Personal attacks are
focused on the person: "EVERYONE ELSE understood..." implying that the
reader was inferior in his/her ability to understand. The only thing
Robb said that could be construed as personal was that Denise needed
to re-evaluate her choice of lodging based on her assertion of
financial stress due to the valet parking fee. The bits about "most
ludicrous" and "saddest" were clearly aimed not at Denise, but at the
statement she made.
bicker
<adamsk...@visi.com> wrote:
> bicker <bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote:
> > People are using that phrase "Everyone else understood what I meant" a
> > lot recently, when in reality it adds absolutely NO value whatsoever
> > to the discussion, except as an under-the-table attempt at a personal
> > attack.
> And how did the following add value to the discussion?
> "Why can't you seem to understand that different people enjoy different
> things?" (Brian, 9/10/00)
> "Thanks for confirming that is really IS useless trying to explain anything
> to you Carol when you come at the issue in the way you came at it this
> time." (Brian, 12/7/00)
> "Maybe someone else in the newsgroup can help you
> understand the sentence, since I'm not going to bother trying anymore."
> (Brian, 4/16/01)
> "Read it again and again until you understand, or just drop it if you are
> unable to understand a concept as 'complex' as this one." (Brian, 6/27/01)
> "You're an easy one to deal with. The only
> thing is that you're not much of a challenge." (Brian, 6/27/01)
> "Sorry, but that's too obvious (to me) to explain." (Brian, 7/8/01)
Gosh, you REALLY do bring out the WORST in me, Carol. Each and every
one of those lines was un-called for in the context of friendly
debate. I fully grant that.
Carol Kennedy
> Gosh, you REALLY do bring out the WORST in me, >Carol.
Except that not all of those lines were directed to me.
Charlie Foxtrot
>People are using that phrase "Everyone else
> understood what I meant" a lot recently, when
> in reality it adds absolutely NO value
> whatsoever to the discussion, except as an
> under-the-table attempt at a personal attack.
>And how did the following add value to the
> discussion?
>"Why can't you seem to understand that
> different people enjoy different things?"
> (Brian, 9/10/00)
>"Thanks for confirming that is really IS useless
> trying to explain anything to you Carol when
> you come at the issue in the way you came at
> it this time." (Brian, 12/7/00)
>"Maybe someone else in the newsgroup can
> help you understand the sentence, since I'm
> not going to bother trying anymore." (Brian,
> 4/16/01)
>"Read it again and again until you understand,
> or just drop it if you are unable to understand
> a concept as 'complex' as this one." (Brian,
> 6/27/01)
>"You're an easy one to deal with. The only >thing is that you're not
much of a challenge."
> (Brian, 6/27/01)
>"Sorry, but that's too obvious (to me) to
> explain." (Brian, 7/8/01)
Well, Carol, a set of non-examples from you, as usual. First off,
Brian's comments are directed at you, specifically as his own thoughts.
At no point in any of the above quotes did he take the backhanded slap
by adding something like, "everyone else thinks so to."
Second, it's nice of you to take quotes out of context to attempt to
villify someone. You left out the NUMEROUS exchanges between the two of
you in which you showed your typical ignorance and refusal to listen to
logic along with your typical "if management made a decision it must be
a bad decision" demeanor, which lead up to Brian's complete and total
exasperation in attempting to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Please don't bother telling the world that you never used the words "if
management made a decision it must be a bad decision" when you know damn
well I'm simply making an allusion towards the general tone of your
typical statements.
>Maybe folks are just copying the techniques of
> the master.
Well, that would be you, Carol. You have just recently used the
"everyone else understood what I meant" defense in the thread about
surveys.
Foxtrot
Rodney T. Grill
being a personal attack. OK, so *technically* his comments were about the
statements and Robb has every right to disagree with Denise. I just don't
think it serves the debate well to use such "unpolished" phrases. As for
Denise's comment, I'd say it was provoked. And I guess I was one of the
"everyone else" because I understood the meaning of her post not to be that
people would go hungry, but that they would simply spend less money
elsewhere if they used valet, so Disney will not necessarily reap additional
revenue.
- RODNEY
"bicker" <bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote in message
news:3b557b36....@news.beaconwoods.org...
Charlie Foxtrot
>Except that not all of those lines were directed
> to me.
context. Typical Carol manipulation.
That says a lot about Carol. I can completely accept that she is so
obsessive that she either writes down when Brian insults HER or is
willing to sift through ten months of posts to get a few insults he
lobbed HER way but to do one or both of the above for EVERYBODY, well,
that's just disturbing.
Foxtrot
Denise
being a personal attack. OK, so *technically* his comments were about the
statements and Robb has every right to disagree with Denise. >>
Thank you Rodney. I'd not even have known what you were talking about except
that Brian changed his address and I need to reblock (there is no need getting
upset when I don't have to).
Whether guests use valet parking or not is one thing. I rarely do, and now I
won't at all. That is both my choice, and I really can't afford to be wasting
that kind of money. Whether or not someone can afford the GF at $199 a night
has absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone can afford the valet
service.
As far as Robbs post - I was defending myself in that everyone else who posted
after him did understand what I meant. It wasn't an attack, and I really don't
care if Brian thinks it is one or not.
Steve Preskitt
And that says a lot about Charlie to waste two posts just to badmouth
Carol. Whatever.
Steve
Steve Preskitt
wrote:
>I am sorry, but if you have to go without food because of a valet parking
>charge, while spending $199 a night -- you need to revaluate your lodging
>choice. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP, no
>it's the saddest statement I have ever read.
Most ludicrous and saddest, eh? Perhaps when misinterpreted in that
manner....
Steve
Scotty
"Denise" <
> Whether guests use valet parking or not is one thing. I rarely do, and
now I
> won't at all. That is both my choice, and I really can't afford to be
wasting
> that kind of money. Whether or not someone can afford the GF at $199 a
night
> has absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone can afford the valet
> service.
I am not sure I understand Denise. Are you saying someone who CAN afford the
GF at $199 can NOT afford it at $205? For a week that is $1,393 vs. $1,435.
I can't believe that would be a make or break number for anyone.
I only use valet the day I arrive just because it is easier. In fact, I
hardly ever use the car once I am on property, except to go to the Sports
Complex because the transportation is so bad.
Scotty
Robb
I fully understood what Denise had said. I read right between the lines of
what she was saying. I just don't think complaining about an extra $6 a
night for a non-essential service is very bright, especially the way she
stated the argument.
Is that a personal attack? Maybe, and I really don't care if you support my
position on the matter or not. I don't know Denise, and I am making the
statement to the TOPIC that ANYONE who would complain that Disney is
charging for a service (that is charged at similar resorts in the US) really
needs to look at the bigger picture. To make the statement that they would
not spend that $6 on some other thing at Disney is a sad statement. If you
are budgeting to that extreme a manner, then obviously you are a person who
is going to miss out on the magic while they are counting their pennies.
Making a statement that you will not spend the money ($6) that you spent
valet somewhere else on the property, really doesn't matter to Disney. They
have your money one way or the other. The only one that you are cheating is
yourself.
A resort room that costs $199 is not a $199 a night in reality, there are
going to be higher taxes, service fees, and tips. In reality you should
budget $280 a night. If you are going to live in style, you need to budget
for everything that it entails, or at least not worry about the little
things. This is vacation, not a backpack trip through Europe staying at
Youth Hostels.
When it comes right down to it, hotel rooms look exactly the same when you
are asleep. If you are going to worry about money, there are plenty of
mid-priced hotels on the property that are very nice.
Robb
"Steve Preskitt" <spreskt...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:e9g9ltkd2plqi0j5s...@4ax.com...
Carol Kennedy
> I don't know Denise, and I am making the
> statement to the TOPIC that ANYONE who would complain that Disney is
> charging for a service (that is charged at similar resorts in the US)
really
> needs to look at the bigger picture.
I think I understand what you're saying, Robb, and from my POV too it does
seem somewhat odd to spend $199/night for a room and balk at $6/day for
parking.
But really--"the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP"? There's
been some pretty weird and stupid stuff here (some people would say I've
written some of it, no doubt). You didn't really mean it, did you?
And "it's the saddest statement" you have ever read? Ever? Anywhere? Even if
you had limited that to RADP--after stories here about terminally ill family
members and accidents and such, Denise's was the saddest statement?
Don't you think you went a tad overboard?
Steve Preskitt
wrote:
>I fully understood what Denise had said. I read right between the lines of
>what she was saying. I just don't think complaining about an extra $6 a
>night for a non-essential service is very bright, especially the way she
>stated the argument.
Nor is a personal attack on someone you don't know made on that basis.
You should re-evaluate your definition of "bright", methinks.
>Is that a personal attack? Maybe, and I really don't care if you support my
>position on the matter or not.
And I really don't concern myself with yours - I know Denise, you
don't. I live here, you don't. In the last week I've spoken to a lot
of people that would ordinarily not have been able to afford to stay
at the Flo, but took advantage of the recent specials and not had tons
of money to blow on incidentals such as valet parking or expensive
dinners, and you haven't. Take it for what it's worth, or don't - it
makes no difference to me because it doesn't change the fact that
there are people out there that will spend that kind of money on a
room but still have to maintain their budget.
All in all, it comes down to a difference of opinion, no more, no
less. To make a personal attack on someone just because you don't
agree with them is childish.
Steve
Denise
night for a non-essential service is very bright, especially the way she
stated the argument. >>
Let us look at this one more time, at what I said and what Robb said.
I said (after the post in <<) :
<< You may not be rich, but if you can afford $800 for 4 nights, you can afford
$6 for valet. >>
Not necessarily. You have xxx amount of money to spend on a trip, and
spending $6 a day on valet takes it away from elsewhere (like food).
and then Robb said:
I am sorry, but if you have to go without food because of a valet parking
charge, while spending $199 a night -- you need to revaluate your lodging
choice. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP, no
it's the saddest statement I have ever read.
Now I say: According to Robs new statement, I was complaining about an extra
$6 a night and there was some kind of problem with the way I stated my
argument. The thing is, I had no argument. I was ONLY saying that just
because someone is splurging on the Floridian, doesn't mean that they can
afford to valet the car. Period. I believe it is Rodney that is treating his
wife to the GF at the $199 rate, she thinks they are going to the All Stars.
From what I remember, the budget will be stretched. Perhaps they won't be
able to afford nice dinners, or valet, or anything else - but sometimes you
give up one thing for another. I also never said that anyone would starve.
But I expect there are more than a few who are staying at the GF who are dining
on turkey legs and the Electric Umbrella and that is all they can afford
because they are splurging on the resort. It is not sad, it is not ludicrous,
it is not anything but prioritizing what is important on a trip.
Robb
the statements, and yes I do believe them.
There are many weird things said here, but in the realm of a person trying
to justify an argument - - I believe that is sad (et al). Sure this could
be like the Emmys, and I could break it down in to little categories "best
spam", "best sexual innuendo by a troll", or whatever, I think that anyone
who is going to be that myopic to what the real reason you take a vacation -
then it is a sad statment.
We all like to save money, but to say that you are not going to eat because
of a $6 charge (especially when they are spending $199 a night for a room) -
please. That is a ludcrious statement. There is nothing wrong with being
on a budget, but you are staying at the wrong hotel if you thing that you
are going to go cheap at the GF. That is like going blindfolded through
Splash Mountain just to hear the music.
I believe there is great joy to be had at WDW. Anyone that obsessive is
better off staying at home.
Robb
"Carol Kennedy" <adamsk...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:e5657.19657$B7.31...@ruti.visi.com...
Denise
seem somewhat odd to spend $199/night for a room and balk at $6/day for
parking.
>>
That is how I have always been. I never (if I can help it) use bell services,
I bring my own snacks and water because the $6 here, the $2.50 there can really
add up. When I have planned trips, I may stay somewhere nice, add a couple of
nice dinners and an event or two (like the Backstage Magic tour) and then go as
completely cheaply as possible otherwise.
Carol Kennedy
> who is going to be that myopic to what the real reason you take a
vacation -
> then it is a sad statment.
But there isn't a single "real reason you take a vacation." There are many,
many reasons.
Robb
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:48:46 -0500, "Robb" <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I fully understood what Denise had said. I read right between the lines
of
> >what she was saying. I just don't think complaining about an extra $6 a
> >night for a non-essential service is very bright, especially the way she
> >stated the argument.
>
> Nor is a personal attack on someone you don't know made on that basis.
> You should re-evaluate your definition of "bright", methinks.
That's nice, really. I will use the word that I really wanted to use,
stupid. Forget "bright" (since you can't grasp that I meant what I said),
what she said and how she said it was stupid. It's doesn't really matter if
I know her or not, the attack was on the statment primarily and I stand on
what I said. If she is hurt by it, so be it. She will survive. I didn't
say my OP to get into a pissing match, I said it to make a point. The GF is
not the place to go on a tight budget, you miss the joy of the facility if
you pinch pennies.
> >Is that a personal attack? Maybe, and I really don't care if you support
my
> >position on the matter or not.
>
> And I really don't concern myself with yours - I know Denise, you
> don't. I live here, you don't. In the last week I've spoken to a lot
> of people that would ordinarily not have been able to afford to stay
> at the Flo, but took advantage of the recent specials and not had tons
> of money to blow on incidentals such as valet parking or expensive
> dinners, and you haven't. Take it for what it's worth, or don't - it
> makes no difference to me because it doesn't change the fact that
> there are people out there that will spend that kind of money on a
> room but still have to maintain their budget.
What point are you making? Really none that understands my point. Who
cares that you know her? How does that help your point? It doesn't. Your
"research" is meaningless. It doesn't matter where you live in relation to
me (and that is assuming you know where I live) and it doesn't matter what
specials there are, and if the room is $199 a night or $399 a night -- the
fact is that if you are trying to go cheap the GF is not the place to do it
at.
There are many enticements to seperate your money from you, and if you can't
enjoy the facilities to there fullest, what is the point of going there.
The argument basically boils down to limiting the amount of fun you have
onsite based on a dollar figure -- if this is the way that you travel then I
suggest staying in a room that is within your budget WITHOUT having to
sacrafice of "incidentals" such as FOOD. That is like saying that you won't
pay for park admission because WDW is charging you too much to stay in your
room.
> All in all, it comes down to a difference of opinion, no more, no
> less. To make a personal attack on someone just because you don't
> agree with them is childish.
>
> Steve
Oh Steve - you need to read these posts a lot more. What I said to Denise
was mild, and was opinion based on fact, versus an opinion based on a
childish belief that you can change things by threatening to only spend a
set amount of money with a vendor. Disney really doesn't care, they don't
offer these "deals" for people that will skimp - they are there in hopes
that you will spend money on other things. There is no incentive for WDW to
continue to offer such deals if they don't make it up in extras.
Robb
Carol Kennedy
> I never (if I can help it) use bell services,
> I bring my own snacks and water because the $6 here, the $2.50 there can
really
> add up. When I have planned trips, I may stay somewhere nice, add a
couple of
> nice dinners and an event or two (like the Backstage Magic tour) and then
go as
> completely cheaply as possible otherwise.
Yes, I understand that approach. It's very different from ours (my husband
and I don't agree 100%, so the family approach is a compromise), but that's
why I said "from my POV." I wasn't saying, and I'm 99% sure you weren't
saying, that anyone but ourselves should adopt our various points of view. I
saw you as just injecting a "wait a minute, there's another way to look at
this."
Some people want to spend as much as they can scrape together on the most
luxurious room possible and go as cheap as possible on everything else. Some
people want to get the cheapest room possible and spend lots on fancy meals.
Some go moderate on everything so that they don't have to worry about
spending a little extra here or there (that's pretty close to our family's
approach). Some people camp because they love camping; some camp because
it's cheap. Some rent cars to save time; others use Disney transportation to
save money. Some rent cars because they find letting others drive to be
nerve-wracking; others take Disney transportation because they find driving
nerve-wracking. Some people find sit-down dinners the most relaxing part of
vacation; others can't stand to spend that much money and park-time on
eating.
Or as we said in my youth, different strokes for different folks.
Robb
you have to admit that piching pennies is not a reason to go on vacation.
Robb
"Carol Kennedy" <adamsk...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Ie757.19913$B7.31...@ruti.visi.com...
Denise
of a $6 charge (especially when they are spending $199 a night for a room) -
please. That is a ludcrious statement. >>
I *** NEVER *** said that someone wasn't going to eat. And I have stayed
personally at many deluxe resorts "on the cheap". Why the heck not? On a
trip a few years ago we had like $1200 for four days. A couple of the nights
were spent at the WL, I think one at the All Stars, we went on the Backstage
Magic tour at like $150 a pop and did the VMCP and the Candlelight
Processional. After that, the budget I had for the trip was next to nil (and I
wasn't going to break the budget), we did counter service, no valet, no bell
services, I brought breakfast foods and snacks and beverages. Why? Because
that way I could swing the WL and not just a moderate - and do the tours, etc.
Carol Kennedy
>The GF is
> not the place to go on a tight budget, you miss the joy of the facility if
> fact is that if you are trying to go cheap the GF is not the place to do
it
and if you can't
> enjoy the facilities to there fullest, what is the point of going there.
> The argument basically boils down to limiting the amount of fun you have
> onsite based on a dollar figure --
No one would argue with you (well, this being RADP, I probably shouldn't say
that) if you changed the word "you" in the above to "I." But just because
penny-pinching at the GF wouldn't be enjoyable for you, that doesn't mean it
wouldn't be enjoyable for some others. Not everyone experiences the
situation in the same way. Not everyone defines "joy" or "fun" the same way
or gets joy or fun from the same things.
Denise
you have to admit that piching pennies is not a reason to go on vacation. >>
Or perhaps it just adds to the experience (though not to take it away from
housekeepers, waiters, etc.) Like Carol said, different strokes for different
folks.
Denise
Steve Preskitt
wrote:
>That's nice, really. I will use the word that I really wanted to use,
>stupid. Forget "bright" (since you can't grasp that I meant what I said),
Oh, now personal attacks on me. How quaint. I can grasp quite a bit,
thanks.
>what she said and how she said it was stupid. It's doesn't really matter if
>I know her or not, the attack was on the statment primarily and I stand on
>what I said. If she is hurt by it, so be it. She will survive. I didn't
>say my OP to get into a pissing match, I said it to make a point. The GF is
>not the place to go on a tight budget, you miss the joy of the facility if
>you pinch pennies.
>What point are you making? Really none that understands my point.
No, I was making a valid point that Denise's statement was borne out
by the voices of real guests, but you chose to insult me instead.
>Who
>cares that you know her? How does that help your point? It doesn't. Your
>"research" is meaningless. It doesn't matter where you live in relation to
>me (and that is assuming you know where I live) and it doesn't matter what
>specials there are, and if the room is $199 a night or $399 a night -- the
>fact is that if you are trying to go cheap the GF is not the place to do it
>at.
"Fact"? How is this a fact? Is there a written policy somewhere that
Floridian guests are expected to not try to save money? My
experiences (I was doing research?) indicate that there are at least a
few people that are in fact trying to do the Floridian on the cheap.
Accept it or ignore it, whichever suits you.
>There are many enticements to seperate your money from you, and if you can't
>enjoy the facilities to there fullest, what is the point of going there.
I guess there's no point in going at all unless you spend the most you
can possibly afford on everything in the quest for the optimum
vacation experience . My statement is silly of course - you can go to
WDW and have a great time regardless of where you stay and how much
you spend, but what each individual experience and service is worth TO
YOU can only be decided BY YOU. You obviously believe that valet is
worth the expense, given the cost of the rooms. Others may not -
that's why they offer a choice, and it indicates nothing about a
person's level of intelligence that they decide to self-park.
>The argument basically boils down to limiting the amount of fun you have
>onsite based on a dollar figure -- if this is the way that you travel then I
>suggest staying in a room that is within your budget WITHOUT having to
>sacrafice of "incidentals" such as FOOD. That is like saying that you won't
>pay for park admission because WDW is charging you too much to stay in your
>room.
No, you've completely missed the point of the original statement.
It's the difference between eating at Casey's Corner vs. Tony's, or
the Electric Umbrella vs. the Coral Reef. Either way you won't go
hungry.
>Oh Steve - you need to read these posts a lot more. What I said to Denise
>was mild, and was opinion based on fact
This is the "fact" that a person spending money to stay at the Flo
should not feel obligated to control their spending at all? Again,
that's an opinion. If a person wants to stay at the Presidential
Suite at the Floridian, and then eat only at counter-service
restaurants to save some money, that's their perogative. I may not
agree with their choice nor their reasoning behind it, but I wouldn't
call them "stupid" for it.
>, versus an opinion based on a
>childish belief that you can change things by threatening to only spend a
>set amount of money with a vendor.
Who said anything about threatening the vendor with reduced spending
in order to change things? If I don't like the charge for valet, I
simply don't use valet. I may even say something to Disney about it,
but not with the expectation that they're going to make some kind of
sweeping policy change.
> Disney really doesn't care, they don't
>offer these "deals" for people that will skimp - they are there in hopes
>that you will spend money on other things. There is no incentive for WDW to
>continue to offer such deals if they don't make it up in extras.
Yes there is - it's always better for them to increase occupancy
everywhere they can, and that includes the deluxe resorts. Occupancy
sucks right now, and so they want to get as many bodies into the
hotels as possible. A person that pays $199 and scrimps of the rest
of the trip is still making Disney more money than if they hadn't come
at all.
Steve
Charlie Foxtrot
>And that says a lot about Charlie to waste two
> posts just to badmouth Carol. Whatever.
post which was a bit of "Usenet performance art."
Yes, I did jump into a conversation that didn't involve me, simply to
say bad things about Carol. Now, go back and look again and you'll see
that Carol jumped into a conversation that didn't involve her just to
say bad things about Brian.
I hate when I have to explain things... I emulated her behavior in
order to point out her bad behavior. I totally expected to get jumped
on for it while Carol goes Scott free whenever she does this.
Foxtrot, Master of Puppets
Charlie Foxtrot
>What I said to Denise was mild, and was
> opinion based on fact, versus an opinion
> based on a childish belief that you can
> change things by threatening to only spend a
> set amount of money with a vendor. Disney
> really doesn't care, they don't offer these
> "deals" for people that will skimp - they are
> there in hopes that you will spend money on
> other things. There is no incentive for WDW
> to continue to offer such deals if they don't
> make it up in extras.
understand how this stuff is supposed to work.
Our numbers are growing. Pretty soon it'll be safe for me to say things
like "...and many others agree with me."
Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
Don't worry, Robb, the rest of us "big bully" types have been behind you
since your first statement.
If someone has to budget their vacation to the point that $6.00 a day
has an impact, then they need to check their priorities in life because
it sure doesn't seem like they can afford to be doing what they are
doing. Good vacation budget advice is, figure out how much you need to
get by, bare minimum. Now, take twice that amount of money with you.
It's nice to know you have money to spend on the "unexpected" things
that can make a trip great by being able to afford the extras you didn't
plan for. It's also nice, when you stay on budget to come home and
still have money left over.
Foxtrot
Ron Thompson
>
> Denise <tinyb...@aol.comeOnDown> wrote:
> > I never (if I can help it) use bell services,
> > I bring my own snacks and water because the $6 here, the $2.50 there can
> > really add up.
It can.
> >When I have planned trips, I may stay somewhere nice, add a couple of
> > nice dinners and an event or two (like the Backstage Magic tour) and then
> > go as completely cheaply as possible otherwise.
Nothing wrong with that at all.
> Yes, I understand that approach. It's very different from ours (my husband
> and I don't agree 100%, so the family approach is a compromise), but that's
> why I said "from my POV." I wasn't saying, and I'm 99% sure you weren't
> saying, that anyone but ourselves should adopt our various points of view. I
> saw you as just injecting a "wait a minute, there's another way to look at
> this."
Far too reasonable. This is usenet. "Sucks" and "Rewlz" are the only ways to
be, as in, "My point of view Rewlz, yers Sucks".
> Some people want to spend as much as they can scrape together on the most
> luxurious room possible and go as cheap as possible on everything else. Some
> people want to get the cheapest room possible and spend lots on fancy meals.
> Some go moderate on everything so that they don't have to worry about
> spending a little extra here or there (that's pretty close to our family's
> approach). Some people camp because they love camping; some camp because
> it's cheap. Some rent cars to save time; others use Disney transportation to
> save money. Some rent cars because they find letting others drive to be
> nerve-wracking; others take Disney transportation because they find driving
> nerve-wracking. Some people find sit-down dinners the most relaxing part of
> vacation; others can't stand to spend that much money and park-time on
> eating.
> Or as we said in my youth, different strokes for different folks.
All true. Some also go completetly for broke. Nice room, APs, "best" meals they
can get down there. They also, on principle, will not give Disney money for
various, assorted, miscellanous and sundry things. Valet parking could very
well be one of them. For some people, what I give them now could be a good indication
of what I MAY, notice I used the word MAY so as not to be accused of predicting
bad business decisions, I MAY have to pay for in the future.
To say that someone that can afford to stay at Grande Floridianne can afford to
pay for valet parking is a bit extreme. To say that paying them for that now
MAY lead to paying them for something else tomorrow is extreme to others.
I have to admit, just mashing down a couple of grand for a couple of weeks at the
end of the year down there, the idea of balking at six bux for valet is kinda
odd to me at the moment, but the principle is not. I don't think they did it
to keep pace with major hotels in major cities at all, I think they did it because
they believe they can, and they will not suffer for it.
In the end, what people do will decide it, and if someone doesn't want to give them
the money, I don't blame them, and if someone does, I don't blame them either.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.
bicker
> << I only have one, and that is to have fun. There might be other reasons, but
> you have to admit that piching pennies is not a reason to go on vacation. >>
> Or perhaps it just adds to the experience (though not to take it away from
> housekeepers, waiters, etc.)
But don't keep that point parenthetical -- it is CRITICAL. If you're
going to be THAT worried about money, then clearly tipping of valets,
servers, etc., those things are going to grate on you if a pinching
pennies adds to your experience.
bicker
wrote:
> Saddest? Ludicrous? I am totally aware of the words that I used to describe
> the statements, and yes I do believe them.
> There are many weird things said here, but in the realm of a person trying
> to justify an argument - - I believe that is sad (et al).
I see the distinction. Thanks for the clarification. I suppose the
way I understand it; we EXPECT that kind of outrageousness from folks
like Ron and Paul, but from other folks there is a much higher
expectation of "reasonableness".
I still have to think there were worse examples that can be put
forward, but I also recognize that you weren't intended this to turn
into a contest for the most outrageous thing ever written in RADP!
<grin>
> I believe there is great joy to be had at WDW.
Amen.
bicker
<adamsk...@visi.com> wrote:
> Robb <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote: >I think that anyone
> > who is going to be that myopic to what the real reason you take a vacation -
> > then it is a sad statment.
> But there isn't a single "real reason you take a vacation." There are many,
> many reasons.
Robb didn't say there was only one. The "you" in his sentence clearly
refers to the person who's reason it is. Each person can readily
insert their own reason in place.
bicker
<spreskt...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 20:48:46 -0500, "Robb" <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com>
> wrote:
> >I fully understood what Denise had said. I read right between the lines of
> >what she was saying. I just don't think complaining about an extra $6 a
> >night for a non-essential service is very bright, especially the way she
> >stated the argument.
I have to agree with Steve here. For me, the issue was that the
argument wasn't "compelling", not whether the person making it was
"bright" or not.
bicker
> << I just don't think complaining about an extra $6 a
> night for a non-essential service is very bright, especially the way she
> stated the argument. >>
> Let us look at this one more time, at what I said and what Robb said.
> I said (after the post in <<) :
Okay, if you insist.
> << You may not be rich, but if you can afford $800 for 4 nights, you can afford
> $6 for valet. >>
> Not necessarily. You have xxx amount of money to spend on a trip, and
> spending $6 a day on valet takes it away from elsewhere (like food).
So Robb asserted that you can afford $6 for valet, and you said, "Not
necessarily." and then proceeded to explain one way that you COULD
afford the $6 for valet, i.e., taking the money from some other part
of the vacation budget. Perhaps this was the original problem -- you
contradicted yourself.
Beyond that, I think, for most people, they'd end up simply spending a
little more than their budget. Very few people (not "none" -- just
"very few") go to WDW, spend $800 plus tax on ROOMS alone, and can't
afford the extra $30 for OPTIONAL valet service. THAT was Robb's
point. ... And I *WON'T* say that "everyone else was able to
understand that..." <grin>
> and then Robb said:
> I am sorry, but if you have to go without food because of a valet parking
> charge, while spending $199 a night -- you need to revaluate your lodging
> choice. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP, no
> it's the saddest statement I have ever read.
> Now I say: According to Robs new statement, I was complaining about an extra
> $6 a night and there was some kind of problem with the way I stated my
> argument. The thing is, I had no argument. I was ONLY saying that just
> because someone is splurging on the Floridian, doesn't mean that they can
> afford to valet the car. Period.
You actually didn't say THAT. What you said is what you said. I can
understand why you didn't say what you just said above, because, as
you indicated, it isn't an argument, it's just an assertion and one
that Robb questioned, and still remains as a somewhat outrageous
assertion. Again... $30 isn't going to break most of the people who
pay so much for hotel rooms, and you yourself indicated how that small
portion of people for whom, somehow, it would "break," could afford
it:
> ... Perhaps they won't be
> able to afford nice dinners, or valet, or anything else - but sometimes you
> give up one thing for another.
QED.
bicker
<adamsk...@visi.com> wrote:
> Robb <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote:
> > I don't know Denise, and I am making the
> > statement to the TOPIC that ANYONE who would complain that Disney is
> > charging for a service (that is charged at similar resorts in the US) really
> > needs to look at the bigger picture.
> I think I understand what you're saying, Robb, and from my POV too it does
> seem somewhat odd to spend $199/night for a room and balk at $6/day for
> parking.
> But really--"the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP"? There's
> been some pretty weird and stupid stuff here (some people would say I've
> written some of it, no doubt). You didn't really mean it, did you?
Hmmm.... I have to agree with Carol here, and to be clear, surely
some of Ron's or Paul's stuff would qualify as "most ludicrous."
Robb
Robb
"bicker" <bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote in message
news:3b5871f8....@news.beaconwoods.org...
bicker
<spreskt...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:33:31 -0500, "Robb" <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com>
> wrote:
> No, I was making a valid point that Denise's statement was borne out
Uh, which point was that, Steve? About being unable to afford the
valet parking fee? or about having to cut into the food budget to
afford the valet parking fee?
The point that keeps getting lost here is that valet parking is not
mandatory.
> This is the "fact" that a person spending money to stay at the Flo
> should not feel obligated to control their spending at all?
I don't believe that's the point. I believe the point is that $30
isn't enough money, given the money already being spent, to get that
worked up over. Figure that that is about one-third of the TAX on the
rooms. I'm not saying that it is completely inconsequential, but it
is surely not a make-or-break kind of thing, especially since (say it
together folks) it isn't mandatory!
Robb
"Denise" <tinyb...@aol.comeOnDown> wrote in message
news:20010717234041...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> << We all like to save money, but to say that you are not going to eat
because
> of a $6 charge (especially when they are spending $199 a night for a
room) -
> please. That is a ludcrious statement. >>
>
> I *** NEVER *** said that someone wasn't going to eat. And I have
stayed
> personally at many deluxe resorts "on the cheap". Why the heck not? On
a
> trip a few years ago we had like $1200 for four days. A couple of the
nights
> were spent at the WL, I think one at the All Stars, we went on the
Backstage
> Magic tour at like $150 a pop and did the VMCP and the Candlelight
> Processional. After that, the budget I had for the trip was next to nil
(and I
> wasn't going to break the budget), we did counter service, no valet, no
bell
> services, I brought breakfast foods and snacks and beverages. Why?
Because
> that way I could swing the WL and not just a moderate - and do the tours,
etc.
Really?
"Denise" <tinyb...@aol.comeOnDown> wrote in message
news:20010716115327...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Denise
to keep pace with major hotels in major cities at all, I think they did it
because
they believe they can, and they will not suffer for it. >>
And if guests balk at it and Disney doesn't make money, then it only takes 2
seconds to change it back (unfortunately, the same cannot be said about JIYI).
Jctwizzer
>And if guests balk at it and Disney doesn't make money, then it only takes 2
>seconds to change it back
I came in late on this whole thing, and someone has probably already commented
on this; but, in my opinion, the charge was instituted because too many people
found a way to skip the $6 fee for TTC parking and were parking at the monorail
resorts for the cost of tips, and were clogging up the lots....for the same
reason, the 3 hour parking limit for visitors at those resorts was instituted
but did not significantly reduce the outside visitors. Again: it is my opinion
that the $6 is insignificant as a revenue source for Disney, but based on the
discussion here, will discourage those who found a loophole. People from the
Orlando area did the valet thing for years; then with the interchange of info
the internet, word got out and, as usual, it got out of hand.
Rodney T. Grill
> I still have to think there were worse examples that can be put
> forward, but I also recognize that you weren't intended this to turn
> into a contest for the most outrageous thing ever written in RADP!
> <grin>
That sounds like an interesting contest: Submit the most outrageous, but
on-topic post to RADP. Actually, though, I think someone won that last year
with there full-screen "adult photo" that was part of his sig line. Does
anyone remember who did that? Although I am sure there were some folks
offended by it, it was really quite funny.
- RODNEY
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Rodney T. Grill
"Denise" <tinyb...@aol.comeOnDown> wrote in message
> << I just don't think complaining about an extra $6 a
> night for a non-essential service is very bright, especially the way she
> stated the argument. >>
>
> Let us look at this one more time, at what I said and what Robb said.
>
> I said (after the post in <<) :
>
afford
> $6 for valet. >>
>
> spending $6 a day on valet takes it away from elsewhere (like food).
>
>
> I am sorry, but if you have to go without food because of a valet parking
> charge, while spending $199 a night -- you need to revaluate your lodging
> choice. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on RADP, no
> it's the saddest statement I have ever read.
>
> Now I say: According to Robs new statement, I was complaining about an
extra
> $6 a night and there was some kind of problem with the way I stated my
> argument. The thing is, I had no argument. I was ONLY saying that just
> because someone is splurging on the Floridian, doesn't mean that they can
his
> wife to the GF at the $199 rate, she thinks they are going to the All
Stars.
Yep, That's me.
> From what I remember, the budget will be stretched. Perhaps they won't
be
> able to afford nice dinners, or valet, or anything else - but sometimes
you
> give up one thing for another.
Yep. The budget is stretched because we just got through spending an
obscene amount of money on some remodeling and redocrating around the house.
My wife had a choice of new carpet or a big vacation. She chose carpet (and
yes, it's nice but it ain't no trip to Disney!). So, this trip *was* to be
just a wuick run to the beach with a side trip to Disney for a few days.
It's basically still that, but I;ve decided to pop an extra few hundred for
GF. And yes, that will come at the expense of some other luxury, not
necessarily at WDW.
> I also never said that anyone would starve.
> But I expect there are more than a few who are staying at the GF who are
dining
> on turkey legs and the Electric Umbrella and that is all they can afford
> because they are splurging on the resort. It is not sad, it is not
ludicrous,
> it is not anything but prioritizing what is important on a trip.
I probably *will* valet park. Why? Because we will most likely arrive late
and be very tired after spending the day on the beach and then driving for 5
or 6 hours. I just won't want to deal with parking a long way away. Yes,
we'll probably also use bell services. Even though I will probably shell
out $15 or so on these ameniuties, I won't like it because I feel that I
won't be getting as much *value* as I would if I took that money and bought
a turkey leg, a beer and a Mickey bar. And, at some point during our short
stay, I will probably pass on an opportunity for just such a snack or some
$15 souvenir because i had already spent that money on hotel amenities.
Either way, Disney get's it's money, but they don't get any *more* from me
just because thye have started to charge for valet parking. And that is my
understanding of Denise's post.
- RODNEY (13 days to go!)
>
>
> Denise
> Denise's Webhome
> http://members.aol.com/tinybeetle/index.htm
> TDC Defender and (close)
> Observer of All Virile Male Servers at Epcots Chefs De France
Rodney T. Grill
> No one would argue with you (well, this being RADP, I probably shouldn't
say
> that)
You can say that again! ;-)
> f you changed the word "you" in the above to "I." But just because
> penny-pinching at the GF wouldn't be enjoyable for you, that doesn't mean
it
> wouldn't be enjoyable for some others. Not everyone experiences the
> situation in the same way. Not everyone defines "joy" or "fun" the same
way
> or gets joy or fun from the same things.
And that, too! Our last trip two trips to WDW have been pretty much taken
without regards for cost. Now that does not mean that I didn't try to find
the best deal that fit my needs, because there is no sense in overpaying
when you don't have to. But, we really did not concern ourselves with every
dollar we spent. We just made sure that we received good value for every
dollar spent. This trip is a little different. We will probably eat one
"nice" meal and the others will be inexpensive snacks. We won't do any
extras like Cirque or any package shows or tours. In fact, I bet we even
skip some of the "big" attractions and concentrate on the more realxing
things, like CoP, WDWRR, Tom Sawyer's Island, etc. I want to spend some
time at the pool and visit the water parks. Our goal for fun on previous
trips has been to "do it all". This trip will be to "do nothing".
- RODNEY
KTREALTORS
>found a way to skip the $6 fee for TTC parking and were parking at the
>monorail
>resorts for the cost of tips, and were clogging up the lots...
Thats been brought up. If true, did Dis actually take a step to unclog the
lots and stop the abuse?
I think, no. Now, you choose to park in the lot for 6 bucks or the monorail
resort for 6 bucks. Now its really a matter of perception of convenience for
basically the same price.
Which way would you like to enter and exit the park?
Kerry
There's a great big beautiful tomorrow shining at the end of every day......
Somehow....Someway, you got to make this happen.......
Jon Nadelberg
>
>
> To say that someone that can afford to stay at Grande Floridianne can afford to
> pay for valet parking is a bit extreme.
If you can't afford the valet parking, you can't afford the hotel.
Valet parking costs money almost everywhere. Some places charge $20 a
day.
It's not extreme at all. It's simply a matter of how you spend your
money. There are other hotels on property which cost less and are
perfectly nice. If you can't pay for what the hotel charges you, that
really is your problem. Lots of people can't afford to stay at the
Waldorf-Astoria in NYC, either.
>
> I have to admit, just mashing down a couple of grand for a couple of weeks at the
> end of the year down there, the idea of balking at six bux for valet is kinda
> odd to me at the moment, but the principle is not. I don't think they did it
> to keep pace with major hotels in major cities at all, I think they did it because
> they believe they can, and they will not suffer for it.
Of course they won't. If someone can't cough up the six bucks after
spending $2000, then they need to examine how they work their finances.
--
See 1970s Disneyland!
http://home.pacbell.net/jonvn
Jiromi
>in my opinion, the charge was instituted because too many people
>found a way to skip the $6 fee for TTC parking and were parking at the
>monorail
>resorts for the cost of tips, and were clogging up the lots....
Besides what Kerry mentioned, this does not explain why they are charging
*Disney resort guests* for valet parking. If they were doing this to target
offsite guests who want to avoid the parking fee, they would still allow Disney
resort guests to valet park for free.
--
Ronnie (TDC Iago, Parrot Royal and Screamer in the Czarina's Ear)
Iago & Zazu's Attraction of the Week http://www.emuck.com/aotw
Iago's Disney Page http://members.aol.com/tdciago/index.html
mailto:jir...@MailandNews.com
Ron Thompson
>
> Ron Thompson wrote:
> >
> >
> > To say that someone that can afford to stay at Grande Floridianne can afford to
> > pay for valet parking is a bit extreme.
>
> If you can't afford the valet parking, you can't afford the hotel.
I don't agree. I can afford to stay at any hotel I would care to. Six Bucks
is almost a decent AFuente over there at Sosa cigars. My choice would be
to not pay the valet, but to pay for the cigar. It could be thought that
I can't afford the valet, when I choose not to. You say something similar
a little further along...
> Valet parking costs money almost everywhere. Some places charge $20 a
> day.
I would agree that parking costs money almost anywhere, and valet is
even more. But those places, the places where they charge 20 bucks
a day, don't have any free parking.
> It's not extreme at all. It's simply a matter of how you spend your
> money.
Zactly. The second part that is. I guess it isn't extreme maybe.
> There are other hotels on property which cost less and are
> perfectly nice. If you can't pay for what the hotel charges you, that
> really is your problem. Lots of people can't afford to stay at the
> Waldorf-Astoria in NYC, either.
But when they do, stay with me now, they fully expect to pay for parking,
no matter who parks the car. At any of the Disney resorts, I don't expect
to pay for parking at all, because I can drive out into the Unwashed Masses
lot and leave it, included in the cost of the hotel.
In Noo Yawk, yer payin to park no matter what hotel you stay at, and if you
are a reasonable experienced traveller, you knew this before you got there.
You can't leave your car anywhere for nothing up there, no matter what hotel
you stay at, no matter what the rate you pay. Boston, San Fransisco, DC,
Chicago. It's a long list of big city hotels that you pay dear money to park
in, no matter who parks it.
> >
> > I have to admit, just mashing down a couple of grand for a couple of weeks at the
> > end of the year down there, the idea of balking at six bux for valet is kinda
> > odd to me at the moment, but the principle is not. I don't think they did it
> > to keep pace with major hotels in major cities at all, I think they did it because
> > they believe they can, and they will not suffer for it.
>
> Of course they won't. If someone can't cough up the six bucks after
> spending $2000, then they need to examine how they work their finances.
I don't have to examine how I work my finances, and I still won't cough up
the six bucks. I've never been one to use valet to begin with, so it doesn't
bother me all that much. The bit about them keeping pace with other major city
hotels is, to me, bogus in that those other major city hotels don't have any
free parking of any kind, Disney does. The fact that they do have free parking
means that they may, MAY, suffer for it, because people that have the money
to stay at any hotel they please didn't get that money by tossing it at what
could, to them, be not worth tossing it at.
And is the six bucks an in-out type of arrangement, or will they attempt to
hit you up for 6 each time you use it? Anybody? Bueller?
Carol Kennedy
> Far too reasonable. This is usenet. "Sucks" and "Rewlz" are the only
ways to
> be, as in, "My point of view Rewlz, yers Sucks".
Gee, it's an interesting and refreshing change to have my viewpoint called
"far too reasonable."
On the other hand, in this thread Brian has defended *both* me and Denise,
so maybe hell has frozen over. (Or just moved location, as it is predicted
to be 100-105 degrees here in Minnesota today.)
"My point of view Rewlz, yers Sucks" does have a certain panache missing in
"I disagree," I must admit.
Carol Kennedy
> Hmmm.... I have to agree with Carol here, and to be clear, surely
> some of Ron's or Paul's stuff would qualify as "most ludicrous."
>
<Carol faints>
Carol Kennedy
> Exactly - the "you" was meant in general.
Then my point is that each individual "you" within the general "you" has
different reasons for taking a vacation. There is no single reason that the
general "you" will agree on. Not "to have fun"--some people use vacation for
educational pursuits or duty visits to relatives. Not "to relax"--some
people want vacations full of adrenalin-pumping activity. And so on.
Ron Thompson
>
> Ron Thompson <thom...@tc.faa.gov> wrote:
> > Far too reasonable. This is usenet. "Sucks" and "Rewlz" are the only
> > ways to be, as in, "My point of view Rewlz, yers Sucks".
>
> Gee, it's an interesting and refreshing change to have my viewpoint called
> "far too reasonable."
Hey settle down now don't go gettin all fired up about it. It was only once
you know.
> On the other hand, in this thread Brian has defended *both* me and Denise,
> so maybe hell has frozen over. (Or just moved location, as it is predicted
> to be 100-105 degrees here in Minnesota today.)
mmmm...Minnie Apple Less is a great town. Rock Chester and Duloot too.
Big Lake is beautiful. I like Minnesota.
> "My point of view Rewlz, yers Sucks" does have a certain panache missing in
> "I disagree," I must admit.
Welcome to this, the new world order.
Carol Kennedy
> On the other hand, in this thread Brian has defended >*both* me and
Denise,
Sorry, Brian and Denise, it was *Steve* that Brian was agreeing with--I must
have still been in a stupor from my fainting over his agreeing with me!
DVC-LandBaron
>
>jctwizzer wrote:
>Besides what Kerry mentioned, this does not explain why they are charging
>*Disney resort guests* for valet parking. If they were doing this to target
>offsite guests who want to avoid the parking fee, they would still allow Disney
>resort guests to valet park for free.
>
Exactly!! It's all spin on their part. This will do NOTHING to curb abuse.
What it will do is clog the self park lots even more as people, avoiding the $6
valet charge will just self park instead, for free. Who do they think they're
fooling??!!
Jeff
Robb
Figures.
Robb
"Rodney T. Grill" <rod...@grill.org> wrote in message
news:3b55a042$1...@Newsfeeds.com...
bicker
> And if guests balk at it and Disney doesn't make money, then it only takes 2
> seconds to change it back
Bingo!
bicker
<adamsk...@visi.com> wrote:
> Robb <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote:
> > Exactly - the "you" was meant in general.
> Then my point is that each individual "you" within the general "you" has
> different reasons for taking a vacation. There is no single reason that the
> general "you" will agree on. Not "to have fun"--some people use vacation for
> educational pursuits or duty visits to relatives. Not "to relax"--some
> people want vacations full of adrenalin-pumping activity. And so on.
Fine. Will all readers for whom "pinching pennies" is the overriding
reason for taking a vacation please identify yourselves.
bost...@alt.net
wrote:
>
> Some also go completetly for broke. Nice room, APs, "best" meals they
>can get down there. They also, on principle, will not give Disney money for
>various, assorted, miscellanous and sundry things. Valet parking could very
>well be one of them.
>
For whatever it's worth, here's my take on this issue. My wife and I
will be visiting WDW this December on our long-postponed honeymoon.
Having waited this long, I'm pulling out all the stops, pretty much as
described above: first class air transportation (on frequent flyer
miles); concierge level rooms, including at the GF; APs; Chef's Table
at V&A's; tours; fireworks cruises. I find this valet parking news
irritating far out of proportion to the dollar amount involved. I
realize this reaction is somewhat irrational (but since when has
marketing aimed primarily at our reason?); when I try to figure out
what it is that sticks in my craw, here's what I come up with:
1) For the great disparity in price between deluxe and moderate
resorts, some perks are only to be expected. Free valet parking has,
I think, always been one of those perks distinguishing the deluxe
resorts from the moderate resorts. Now I feel like a bit of a sucker
for paying such a large premium for an experience that is less special
than I had imagined.
2) Having agreed to pay Disney an exorbitant sum of money in return
for, I hope, an extraordinary experience, I would expect them not to
mar the experience by attempting to nickel and dime me to death. A
deluxe experience, to me, includes maximum freedom from the hastle of
evaluating the monetary value of minor inconveniences. So the fact
that paid valet parking is optional is not a saving grace to me.
3) As for myself, I have always considered paying for valet parking
an affectation of the spoiled rich. I have never, and will never,
waste my money on it. So if this change in policy is caused by abuse
of the resort parking lots by non-guests, permitting them to pay for
valet parking will mean that I will have to walk through masses of
non-guest vehicles to get to the resort which I have paid many
hundreds of dollars to stay at. I don't mind spending my money, but I
hate the feeling of being gypped (no ethnic slur intended).
>
> I don't think they did it
>to keep pace with major hotels in major cities at all, I think they did it because
>they believe they can, and they will not suffer for it.
>
Unfortunately, the people who will suffer are the CMs, whom I would
normally tip generously for their services.
Again, I recognize that these attitudes are not entirely rational, and
they certainly, in themselves, will not keep me from having a great
time at WDW, or from returning in future years. But the cumulative
effect of many such minor irritations, as I fear the current
management has visited and plans to visit upon us, is another matter.
After all the decision as to whether or not to return is at least
partly (largely?) emotional, not rational.
-- bostnbob
Carol Kennedy
> Fine. Will all readers for whom "pinching pennies" is the overriding
> reason for taking a vacation please identify yourselves.
>
Straw woman. Neither Denise nor I said anything about the "overriding"
reason. For that matter, I don't think Robb did, either. (I'm not going back
through all the posts.)
Rodney T. Grill
"Why did Disney do this?" and "What will be the results?". A this time, we
have no real answer to either question since only Disney management knows
the first answer and the second will not be known until the change has been
in place for a while (and even then we will probalby not be privy to all the
info necessary to draw conclusions). Even so, it's still an interesting
topic and fun to discuss.
I believe there is only one reason for Disney to implement this change, and
that is to increase revenue. I just haven't seen any recent Disney
mangement decisions made for any other purpose. Now I'm not saying that
it's a bad thing, nor am I saying they shouldn't do it, I'm just saying that
they are not doing it for any other reason. I don't believe it is to deter
theme park guests from free parking at the resorts, although it might. I
also don't believe they are doing it to free more valet parking for hotel
guests, although it could. And I don't think they are doing it in order to
have the revenue to jsutify hiring more attendants so the service will be
better. They are doing it because they simply recognize that there exists,
based on other property's experinces, significant demand for a supply of
valet parking at $6 per day.
Think about it. Does Disney managment really care whether or not resort
guests have plenty of convenient parking? As long as it does not adversely
affect occupancy rates or attedance, no. One thing to note here, I am
talking "Disney Management" - not CM's. I am sure there are plenty, if not
most all, CM's who truly want guests to have the best possible visit. That
is their job and it takes a special person to do it well. I am talking
about management whose responsibility is to maintain or improve the bottom
line.
As for the results, all I (or anyone else for that matter) can offer is
opinions, assumptions and conjecture. I see this affecting several
entities. It will impact guests, parking attendants, other CM's and the
company itself. Each in a different way, of course. Some will be more
positively affected while others will be more negatively affected.
First, it will impact guests. Some will simply not use the service becasue
of the additional cost and instead just self-park. So they'll get a little
more excercise. This could be a good thing (I know it will be good for me).
Some guests will be disgruntled at having to pay for something that used to
be free. This may impact their overall satisfaction with their WDW vacation
and may affect decisions for future visits (theirs and others they may
influence). I think an extremely small percentage of guests will be
affected in such a negative way as to any impact on Disney revenues. Some
guest may choose to pay for valet parking, but will then spend less money on
other things at Disney (i.e. forego that extra Mickey bar). Even so, as
long as the guest goes home with the feeling that he received a good value
for his overall vacation budget, then that will be a positive thing.
Assuming that Disney does not change the wages paid to attendants, this will
impact their income. They will likely experience reduced tips and/or
reduced wages. Tips could be reduced because either by reduced customer
volume, or because some guests will tip less or not at all due to a
misinterpretation of the charge. Wages could be affected due to a reduced
demand for man-hours. The effects on attendants is all negative.
Other CM's will be affected by the disgruntled guests who take out their
frustrations on them. The front desk CM's will have to deal with additional
transactions to charge for the service. The effects on other CM's will be
slightly negative, but most likely the impact will be very slight.
Now, for the company itself. As long as all the negative effects on guests,
attendants and other CM's is not so bad as to cause huge numbers of guests
and CM's to run screaming from The World never to return again, they will
reap the rewards of increased revenues. This is strictly a financial
decision. And seemingly a good one. The aggregate impact on guests and
employees is small enough so as not to have more of a negative effect than
the increased revenue. And not only that, this revenue comes practically
for free. They will not need to build any additional infrastructure to
support it. The largest change will be some retraining of CM's and probably
a few lines of computer code to program the ne charge. Even though I don;t
like having to pay $6 more for the service, it's still a brillian management
decision. If I were part of Disney managmenet, I think I'd make the same
one (Gee, i can almost hear Brian calling me over to the dark side...)
- RODNEY (13 days to go!)
fizzie
allowing resort guests to park free in the parks. Give 'em free parking in the
parks.......charge $6 for valet parking back at the resort. I'll park free and
walk a bit, thanks.
----------
Fizzie
che...@mediaxnone.net
<bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote:
>Beyond that, I think, for most people, they'd end up simply spending a
>little more than their budget. Very few people (not "none" -- just
>"very few") go to WDW, spend $800 plus tax on ROOMS alone, and can't
>afford the extra $30 for OPTIONAL valet service. THAT was Robb's
>point. ... And I *WON'T* say that "everyone else was able to
>understand that..." <grin>
That's it in an nutshell!
Keyword, of course, is "optional".
Steve Preskitt
<bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:20:51 -0400, Steve Preskitt
><spreskt...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:33:31 -0500, "Robb" <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com>
>> wrote:
>> No, I was making a valid point that Denise's statement was borne out
>> by the voices of real guests, ...
>
>Uh, which point was that, Steve? About being unable to afford the
>valet parking fee? or about having to cut into the food budget to
>afford the valet parking fee?
The point was that there are people staying at the deluxe resorts who
still have a budget to maintain and are skipping the little extras in
order to stay within it. For some people, it will mean not using
valet parking. For others, it may mean no balloons for the kids.
Even more others may slack back on the food expenditures. Making the
blanket statement "the hotel is already expensive, so paying for valet
shouldn't bother people" simply won't hold true for everyone.
>I don't believe that's the point. I believe the point is that $30
>isn't enough money, given the money already being spent, to get that
>worked up over.
For some people, it is. It's not for me, personally. For instance,
I'm willing to pay that much money or more for next-day shipping all
the time for development tools and books because I value my time -
most programmers are not. Everyone is different in that regard.
>Figure that that is about one-third of the TAX on the
>rooms. I'm not saying that it is completely inconsequential, but it
>is surely not a make-or-break kind of thing, especially since (say it
>together folks) it isn't mandatory!
No, it's not mandatory, but it's not a lot of fun if you're staying at
the Floridian and have to trudge a quarter-mile to your car in the
pouring rain, or if you have health problems that make it difficult to
make the walk.
A lot of people have been making the point that charging for valet is
common practice, but what hasn't been mentioned is that Disney charges
high prices for their resorts in part because they're *not* like every
other hotel you see. Disney makes the argument that "everyone else
does it" only when it suits them.
BTW, I wonder if the free valet service at PI for AP holders is going
to be going away too?
Steve
Steve Preskitt
<adamsk...@visi.com> wrote:
>I wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, in this thread Brian has defended >*both* me and
>Denise,
>
>Sorry, Brian and Denise, it was *Steve* that Brian was agreeing with--I must
>have still been in a stupor from my fainting over his agreeing with me!
Actually, Brian and I do agree on things a fair number of times,
contrary to popular belief. On the other hand, we also disagree on
things a fair number of times too. :-)
Steve
Carol Kennedy
> Actually, Brian and I do agree on things a fair number of times,
> contrary to popular belief.
Strangely enough, Brian and I do, too. It's just that people seldom talk
about them on RADP.
Jiromi
>A lot of people have been making the point that charging for valet is
>common practice, but what hasn't been mentioned is that Disney charges
>high prices for their resorts in part because they're *not* like every
>other hotel you see. Disney makes the argument that "everyone else
>does it" only when it suits them.
Yes! They talk out of both sides of their mouths.
They promote their resorts as being special and more magical than offsite
hotels. (Stay right in the middle of the Magic, etc.)
Then they claim that charging for valet parking is just conforming to industry
standards.
If anything, they should be the standard-setters, not the followers. All of
their products are becoming more like everyone else's. The gap is closing more
each day.
bicker
Then you might rather use the word "cheated" instead.
bicker
wrote:
Isn't valet parking free at your own resort? Or is that only for DVC
members?
bicker
<adamsk...@visi.com> wrote:
> bicker <bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote:
> > Robb <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote:
> > > I think that anyone
> > > who is going to be that myopic to what the real reason you take a vacation -
> > > then it is a sad statment.
> > Fine. Will all readers for whom "pinching pennies" is the overriding
> > reason for taking a vacation please identify yourselves.
> Straw woman. Neither Denise nor I said anything about the "overriding"
> reason.
Sorry. Let me rephrase: Will all readers for whom "pinching pennies"
is the *real* reason for taking a vacation please identify yourselves.
You were better off with my wording: "Overriding" is less stringent
than "real" -- With "overriding" there can be "underriding" reasons.
<grin> With the word "real," it connotates that any other reasons are
fake.
> For that matter, I don't think Robb did, either. (I'm not going back
> through all the posts.)
He did, and that is what you're arguing with him about.
Carol Kennedy
> You were better off with my wording: "Overriding" is less stringent
> than "real" -- With "overriding" there can be "underriding" reasons.
> <grin> With the word "real," it connotates that any other reasons are
> fake.
Semantic double-speak. "Real" has many other meanings than "not fake."
> > For that matter, I don't think Robb did, either. (I'm not going back
> > through all the posts.)
>
> He did, and that is what you're arguing with him about.
>
OK, Brian, if you say so.
Steve Preskitt
<bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote:
>Isn't valet parking free at your own resort? Or is that only for DVC
>members?
You didn't really just ask this question, did you? :-)
Steve
DVC-LandBaron
>
>Isn't valet parking free at your own resort? Or is that only for DVC
>members?
>
You know Brian, I'm really not sure. I know that according to the bit I posted
on the DIS, DVC members get it free at Boardwalk and Wilderness Lodge (that
would lead me to assume that the Beach Club would be next, but you never know
with Disney!!) Anyway, I had assumed that your own hotel would be free and only
guests (WDW or not) would be charged. But, clearly some other folks think
differently.
The whole concept still stinks (and their spin makes it even stinkier), but I
think we should clarify just who this affects!!
What do think.
Jeff
Jon Nadelberg
>
> bicker <bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote:
> > Fine. Will all readers for whom "pinching pennies" is the overriding
> > reason for taking a vacation please identify yourselves.
> >
>
> Straw woman. Neither Denise nor I said anything about the "overriding"
> reason. For that matter, I don't think Robb did, either. (I'm not going back
> through all the posts.)
>
They always devolve to this level.
It's $6. To valet park. I just paid $9 to valet park at a restaurant
last week. Big deal.
--
See 1970s Disneyland!
http://home.pacbell.net/jonvn
Scotty
"Carol Kennedy"
> Robb <robb_...@ySaThOoPo.com> wrote:
> >The GF is not the place to go on a tight budget, you miss the joy of the
facility if
> > you pinch pennies. . . the fact is that if you are trying to go cheap
the GF is not the place to do
>> it at. . . . > There are many enticements to seperate your money from
you,
> >and if you can't enjoy the facilities to there fullest, what is the point
of going there.
> > The argument basically boils down to limiting the amount of fun you have
> > onsite based on a dollar figure --
>
> No one would argue with you (well, this being RADP, I probably shouldn't
say
> that) if you changed the word "you" in the above to "I." But just because
> penny-pinching at the GF wouldn't be enjoyable for you, that doesn't mean
it
> wouldn't be enjoyable for some others. Not everyone experiences the
> situation in the same way. Not everyone defines "joy" or "fun" the same
way
> or gets joy or fun from the same things.
I think your point is very well made Carol. For one person, penny pinching,
forsaking valet, bell service, deluxe dining, etc so they COULD stay at the
GF might be the thrill of a lifetime (the stay at the GF being the thrill,
not the penny pinching). For me, if I am not able to stay at the GF (or
Yacht Club in my case) because of a "down year", I'd rather live it up at
Dixie Landings (I know what it's name is, I am stubborn) then have to feel
constrained at the GF.
Scotty
Jon Nadelberg
>
> Jon Nadelberg wrote:
> >
> > Ron Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > To say that someone that can afford to stay at Grande Floridianne can afford to
> > > pay for valet parking is a bit extreme.
> >
> > If you can't afford the valet parking, you can't afford the hotel.
>
> I don't agree. I can afford to stay at any hotel I would care to. Six Bucks
> is almost a decent AFuente over there at Sosa cigars. My choice would be
> to not pay the valet, but to pay for the cigar. It could be thought that
> I can't afford the valet, when I choose not to. You say something similar
> a little further along...
>
OK, you disagree. But in my experience, this charge is not uncommon.
> > Valet parking costs money almost everywhere. Some places charge $20 a
> > day.
>
> I would agree that parking costs money almost anywhere, and valet is
> even more. But those places, the places where they charge 20 bucks
> a day, don't have any free parking.
Well, if you think the money for valet parking is too much, you can
always park in the free parking area. The problem is then solved. Or,
you can do what we did on our trip to WDW, and not have a car.
>
> > There are other hotels on property which cost less and are
> > perfectly nice. If you can't pay for what the hotel charges you, that
> > really is your problem. Lots of people can't afford to stay at the
> > Waldorf-Astoria in NYC, either.
>
> But when they do, stay with me now, they fully expect to pay for parking,
> no matter who parks the car. At any of the Disney resorts, I don't expect
> to pay for parking at all, because I can drive out into the Unwashed Masses
> lot and leave it, included in the cost of the hotel.
Can you still park for free? Then you have a choice. I think if you
are given a service, it is not unreasonable to be charged for it. Now,
how much you are willing to pay for that service is up to you. If you
think it's too much, then don't get valet parking.
>
> In Noo Yawk, yer payin to park no matter what hotel you stay at, and if you
> are a reasonable experienced traveller, you knew this before you got there.
> You can't leave your car anywhere for nothing up there, no matter what hotel
> you stay at, no matter what the rate you pay. Boston, San Fransisco, DC,
> Chicago. It's a long list of big city hotels that you pay dear money to park
> in, no matter who parks it.
Yes, you do expect to pay to park there. It's really part of the deal.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But to say something
like how an optional service is going to take food out of your mouth
because you didn't count on an extra $6 a day is pretty silly.
>
> > >
> > > I have to admit, just mashing down a couple of grand for a couple of weeks at the
> > > end of the year down there, the idea of balking at six bux for valet is kinda
> > > odd to me at the moment, but the principle is not. I don't think they did it
> > > to keep pace with major hotels in major cities at all, I think they did it because
> > > they believe they can, and they will not suffer for it.
> >
> > Of course they won't. If someone can't cough up the six bucks after
> > spending $2000, then they need to examine how they work their finances.
>
> I don't have to examine how I work my finances, and I still won't cough up
> the six bucks. I've never been one to use valet to begin with, so it doesn't
> bother me all that much. The bit about them keeping pace with other major city
> hotels is, to me, bogus in that those other major city hotels don't have any
> free parking of any kind, Disney does. The fact that they do have free parking
> means that they may, MAY, suffer for it, because people that have the money
> to stay at any hotel they please didn't get that money by tossing it at what
> could, to them, be not worth tossing it at.
I don't think they'll suffer for it. I really don't think too many are
going to care. When we went to Disneyland a couple of months ago, we
were told up front about the parking fee. That was just part of the
deal, and that was it.
>
> And is the six bucks an in-out type of arrangement, or will they attempt to
> hit you up for 6 each time you use it? Anybody? Bueller?
Bueller is out riding in his friend's father's Porsche.
I don't know about WDW, but we had complete in and out access when we
stayed at the Grand Californian.
Jiromi
>Isn't valet parking free at your own resort? Or is that only for DVC
>members?
From wdwig.com:
<<Here is the official statement: "As of July 16, 2001, the Walt Disney World®
Resort will adopt a standard industry practice and charge for valet parking at
all Walt Disney World Resort locations that offer this guest service. The $6.00
fee (among the lowest in the market) is a daily charge, so once you have paid
for valet service, you will receive unlimited valet parking for the remainder
of the day. However, Disney Vacation Club Members will not be charged for valet
parking at Disney's BoardWalk Resort and Disney's Wilderness Lodge, regardless
of where they are staying. Disney Vacation Club Members must show their DVC
Member card or Walt Disney World Resort ID indicating that they are a "DVC
Member" when leaving their vehicle to be parked in order to receive this
service at no charge at either Disney's BoardWalk Resort or Disney's Wilderness
Lodge. Members will be charged for this service at any other valet parking
operation at the Walt Disney World Resort. Whether or not you are charged to
valet park, gratuities are still appropriate. There will be no charge for
guests with disabilities with the proper permits. This charge only affects
guests and Members who chose to use this service. ">>
Non-DVC members have to pay, even at the resort at which they're staying.
bostnbob
<bicker_...@news.beaconwoods.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:28:43 GMT, bost...@alt.net wrote:
>> I don't mind spending my money, but I
>> hate the feeling of being ****ed (no ethnic slur intended).
>
>Then you might rather use the word "cheated" instead.
I'd rather spit in the ete of poliical correctness whenever possible,
but whatever floats your boat.
-- bostnbob
-- bostnbob
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility
to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration
of Independence, Founder of the Democratic
Party)
bostnbob
wrote:
>
> For one person, penny pinching,
>forsaking valet, bell service, deluxe dining, etc so they COULD stay at the
>GF might be the thrill of a lifetime (the stay at the GF being the thrill,
>not the penny pinching).
>
One penny-pinching hedonist's travel advice was to stay in the
cheapest room of the best hotel in town.