well a time share is a time share... but for the new homes being built, they are in fact being de annexed, so while they will be with in the resort, they won't have voting rights of any kind... and I suspect from the wording they will be fractional ownership, which is not like a time share at all. it is a good or a bad thing for building these homes... neither, it is the nature of the beast. When I win the lottery, you are all welcome to come stay with me. Again a good guess is that it will be a lot of foreign investment and the ultra wealthy that already have several vacation homes in these.
When it comes to the Four Seasons (and yes according to trade mark you have to spell out "four") this is going to attract a level of customer that WDW cannot currently attract, because the GF while nice, is not the Four Seasons. The Four Seasons is as far above the GF as the GF is above motel 6. The typical Four Seasons guest spends $600 a night on a room, uses room service no less than once a day (be it for coffee and donuts, or drinks, or a desert type thing) and has a large expense account to put it all on. They go on vacation for several weeks at a time, well the wife and kids do while Dad jets back and forth to meetings etc. while they (wife and kids) have a good time. It really is just different.
The Four Seasons Dad doesn't want to wait in line and it willing to pay a Hefty sum so he can do the dad thing and still get in 18 holes and a massage. All told with tickets and dining... you are looking at folks dropping $1500 a day for their vacation to WDW while staying at Four Seasons. you can see they are gearing up to cater to this kind of customer, as this kind of customer is not impacted by recession, and wants exclusive always on fast pass, and the Nintendo DS map device, etc. Is that good or bad... well there already do somethign like that at universal, other parks are experimenting with it... Cedar Point has a service where you can get direct front of line access all day, for $200 per person min 4 people, etc. It is a way to grow the bottom line.
If I could afford it would I do it, sure maybe, sometimes. There are already situations where the ultra rich are getting exclusive access, just no one knows about it 'cuase they keep it on the downlow, like with the Sultan of Bruni's kids when they are in WDW... they take a floor or two and get front of line access, just that it looks like a tour group and no one notices.
Now the stroller rental thing... that is just plain silly. cause you can rent a car cheaper, this blows their advertising of a family of 4 for $1600 or whatever out of the water... I mean that advertising campaign has the souvenir business hurting 'cause that's what a family will budget then have nothing left over for the GI joe with kung fu grip... the values are always packed, but then again, the mods and deluxe are always packed too. In order to please the share holders WDW has to expand at the bottom and at the top of the economic ladder... but after a little home work, adding $200 for a stroller, $160 for park hopper, meals, etc. That $1600 vacation is now more like $2500 throw gas and.or air fare and you are at $3500 for a family of 4 from ohio.
But that is the price to play at the happiest place on earth.
so what are we trying to persuade people to do? boycott strollers, and bring your own? Stop at walmart on the way in and get a disposable? to lower the price to a reasonable increase. I understand the argument about stroller parking getting out of hand... but is the alternative to not bring kids? Heck my first trip was when I was 7 or 8 somewhere in there, and that is about right to be able to walk it all yourself, and remember the trip. I know I had been to stuff like cedar point and kings island, and Sea World of ohio (what a flop) before that, but the memories are not as clear. The parents bringing toddlers... I just see it as a lot of work with a diaper bag, for something that the kid is not going to remember... but Disney has done such a great marketing job on making it a family right of passage and your kid will grow up to "put the lotion on its skin" if ya don't take them to WDW.
So is it more realistic to reset expectation? Is this WDW's way of saying, wait till your kid can throw a tantrum in the Emporium for the Ears with the name and the nerf hoola hoop now improved with retsin toys that have to go home in a gunny sack? is this the first salvo at changing the type of family that comes to WDW?
In the 70's the fact that our family would goto WDW was outrageous. When I would start school in the fall and I would say I went to WDW for summer vacation, I had a teacher call me a lier in front of the class... who then called my parents to tell them what I lier I am, and she didn't apologize when they told her yeah, he went to WDW for a week this summer... it just wasn't common for a family to vacation at WDW, it was exclusive. But now it is pretty much everyone, that can go, and does go. I'm not saying that is bad, but I remember when Coral Reef had waiters that wore white gloves.
ok so there is my rant... what was the question?
Not even sarcasm!
