October hours at MK

[raidermatt]

Awhile back, I defended Disney's reduction in hours when compared to last year, because they were in line with the reported attendance drop. (Note- I did not and am not defending them for the reductions since 1998).

Well, October hours just came out. MK is open from 9-6 everyday except Saturday's, which are 9-9. That's 291 hours.

I looked up Oct. 2001 on laughingplace, and came up with 327.5 hours, or an 11.1% reduction.

This seemed out of line, so I checked the Dis's estimate for Oct 2002, which is based on last year's hours. Dis estimated 330 hours, which makes this year an 11.8% reduction.

Disney may not expect great attendance in October, but surely they expect better attendance than last October?

Why am I posting this? Partly because hours are news, but mostly to say I am formally withdrawing my support of Disney's reduction in hours from 2001 levels. (I know, stop the presses!) Some said that even though attendance maybe down, the hours reductions had nothing to do with that. I wanted proof, and it looks like I got it.

The only caveat I'll throw into this is if neither laughingplace nor the Dis reflect what October's hours ended up actually being last year, rather than what was originally posted. I tend to think this is not the case because I saw laughingplace update changed hours when we were on our trip in May.

 

[manning]

From some other post, the impression is that crowds are up this summers but not the hours. I guess there is some complaining about it.

 

[toefungus]

The park hours were actually great when I went at the end of June. Everynight MK was open 9am-11pm and one night it was open from 9am-12am with TWO Spectromagics. Disney-MGM STudios was open until 10:00 with TWO fantasmics. Epcot was the same as always. Those are what the hours should be! Crowds were heavy but we could still get everything done because we had two showings of Fantasmic/Spectro and the parks were open later. I don't know what happend to the hours but they went down the toilet after the 4th.

 

[BRERALEX]

and i like to repeat a little tidbit i read on another post. Admission prices didnt go up this year but with so many reduced hours its kinda like they did

 

[All Aboard]

Finally! A post 9/11 year to year comparison. Matt, even if the 2001 hours you are comparing to are not final, the actual hours are far more likely to be greater and not fewer. You are likely comparing to the final posted hours for last October, I doubt the real ones were any shorter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't virtually the entire month of October "regular season?" One in which WDW charges higher than value rates at the resorts? Yet, 6pm MK closures is as early as it gets, as early as the earliest value season closures.

 

[toefungus]

Yes it does affect the guests experience at the parks. How would you like to try and see a Spectromagic that's 6 and 7 rows of people deep because there's only one showing? Or having to get seats two hours early for Fantasmic because there is only one showing? It's not just the hours that make a differnece, but when they shorten the hours they also cut 2nd performances of shows and parades. Then you're losing even more time for attractions, shopping, ect......

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Obviously, these answers could quickly and reactionarily (word?) devolve into various forms of "it's just more proof"...but really what does it mean?

It means that the parks are open less than they were before.

But, that same thing has happened to my local Borders. Or the local library for that matter.

You don't have to pay $50 to enter your local Borders do you?

Is there any proof that guests actually get to ride fewer rides because there are shorter hours? I ask this question because I think there are more pieces of information which are needed other than just the blanket fact that the parks have shorter hours.

Are you serious? I respect you and your positions ( I also really appreciate all the rumors you have been posting lately), but I can't believe that you would question that shorter hours = fewer rides!!!

How does that effect the overall quality of a visit to WDW? I'm really not trying to be argumentative or parse words, I just think that the idea of longer hours being automatically good and shorter hours automatically hurting guest experience misses too many factors.

By closing at 6 Disney has eliminated the best part of the day to visit the parks (in the evening when it is cool, and less crowded).

What if MK was still open to midnight each night but was operating with 50% less staffing?

What if Epcot was open 2 more hours but did so with fewer eating or ride options?

Even if there were fewer things to do at least I would be able to sit on a park bench and enjoy the park atmosphere. Besides since when do I have to chose. Disney has always been about providing the best guest experience possible. Pushing me out of the park at 6 with every other guest doesn't cut it (talk about reducing guest experience, how does waiting for an hour for a bus because everyone leaves MK at the same time hit you), and neither does opening with 50% staff or fewer rides. I understand that WDW can't afford to keep the parks open to 12 365 days a year, but closing at 6 during what has become a pretty busy month is pathetic.

I totally understand the point that more hours=more time in the park. But, I think its the "quality" of the time which has to be examined as well as the length of the time.

I expect Disney to provide both quantity and quality. A WDW vacation is very expensive and even for an admitted Disneyophile these hours make me question the wisdom of a trip to Disney.

 

[raidermatt]

Scoop, there's a lot of truth in what you are saying. And of course, I can't answer all of your questions.

One thing I can say is that I don't think anyone familiar with the situation really blamed 9/11 for the whole problem. The ultimate bottom line is the drop in tourism. The drop in tourism was largely a result of a poor economy, but it was also a result of fear of flying, and that was due to 9/11. It is a fact that attendance plummeted immediately after 9/11, changing from a slow decrese to a near freefall. Therefore, 9/11 is an appropriate date to use as a benchmark.

I think I would be safe in saying that the staffing hours will not go UP along with the reduced hours. In other words, if there were 300 CMs in a given park at a given time, I'm pretty sure there won't be 301 now.

I also doubt we will see fewer attractions going down for rehab, unless of course the maintenance budget has been slashed. But that would be a long term negative for the guest experience.

Borders does not charge admission. If they close before I get there, they don't get my money. The library doesn't charge admission either, and surely we can't compare a govt operated facility with WDW? Yes, its paid for through taxes, and if my taxes aren't decreased yet hours are cut, I deserve an explanation as to why.

You're right in that there are other factors besides hours that go into the guest experience. But what evidence is there that any of these other areas are getting bumped up to compensate for the shorter hours?

I'm not saying October 2002 hours necessarily had to be lengthened over 2001. But an 11+% decrease? Maybe we'll hear otherwise in the earnings call, but nothing we have been told so far even comes close to indicating that kind of decrease from post 9/11 is needed. Every time Disney has given us attendance comparisons to last year, the decrease has shrunk, and surely the expected attendance for this October is not 11% less than last October.

I have to believe that if the guest experience was being enhanced in other ways, Disney would be anxious to tell us, so as to offset the complaints about hours. (Remember CC for EE?)

Of course, I'll happily eat my words if I'm wrong...

 

[barreloflaughs]

But, that same thing has happened to my local Borders. Or the local library for that matter.

Well, the Borders may close early today but I can make arrangements to visit it tomorrow or next week on my way home from work. Same with the library...hell I drive by it every day! Not a big deal.

But WDW is another story all together!!! It is 1000 miles away. I would much prefer it be open as late as possible for me and all of the other good folks who travel great distances to be there.

I could understand it if the WDW parks were losing money but all of the evidence I've read here seems to indicate that quite the opposite is true....the parks profits are being used to prop up the rest of the company.


carl
barrel of laughs

 

[raidermatt]

Is there any proof that guests actually get to ride fewer rides because there are shorter hours?

I glossed over this concept the first time, but think it should be addressed.

When cutting from 16 hours to 14, you've probably got a point, at least about the rides. But when cutting from 10 or 11 to 9, the answer has to be yes, at least for a significant certain number of guests. That doesn't mean you can't get everything done if you arrive at 9am. But there is a reason the parks aren't crowded until 11am or Noon. That's when most people WANT to get there. When you take away hours on the backend, you force them to either go earlier than they want to, or you cut into the time they want to spend in the park. Either is a negative to the guest experience.

But even so, we have to remember that WDW isn't just about rides. Many of its guests love it because of the way Main Street looks at night, and all of the nightime shows. When you close at 6pm, there isn't a whole lot of night time to go around. Decreases in the number of nightime shows also detracts.

I'm all for matching hours to attendance in an attempt to keep the guest experience consistent without bleeding money. That's why a the decrease in July for example, did not bother me too much, because attendance was also reported to be down by a similar number. Makes sense.

October does not make sense, at least from a guest point of view.

 

[Bob O]

For me less hours would more than likely mean less rides. As i get to the park when it opens and leave at closing time the less the park is open means leans times i would be able to go n any attractions, escpecially less re-rides of the favorites. And from my experinece the park isnt as busy at closing time the later the park is open which gives you the ability to ride more rides in the beginning and end of the day than the middle. And if you have families that like to take a break mid-day to go swimming or rest that may not be possbile with the reduced hours if they want to see all the attractions.
I have also found the best quality time in the parks to be in the beginning and end of the day when you can get the most done with smaller crowds to deal with, but reduced hours means those times would be less magical for me and my family.
The bottom line is the hours of the parks are being reduced with no equal reduction in the price of admission to the parks so to me wdw is trying to maximize their profits at the expense of their guests. And a 10%-11% drop is a big drop from last years level, and thats not comparing the hours to what they may have been 10 or 15 or 20 yrs ago. This is part of the slippery slope in reductions.
If this doesnt upset people will another 10% reduction next year be finally going too far?? I guess we have to decide when is the reduction in hours too much. Will closing the parks at 500pm or 400 pm finally be the breaking piont for some people as apparently 600pm isnt??

 

[All Aboard]

In all our discussions about AK being whatever fraction of a day's park. The full-day defenders always positioned their argument with "time spent smelling the flowers." Well, this is something I really enjoy doing at MK. Often, it's not about how many attractions I can see in x amount of time. (With EE gone, I better make that change or be disappointed.) I actually like to spend a portion of my day strolling around or just sitting in a nice spot and soaking in the MK atmosphere. Hours reductions most definitely reduce my ability to do that.

Scoop, I'm not sure I understand your position. The MK hours have been reduced by 11% from last October. I don't think anyone was calling for an increase, but certainly would like to have seen the bleeding stop. WDW raises the resort prices in Oct v. the Sep price, yet the hours are just as tight. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't recall October hours ever being this short. It has been considered the "regular" month in the Fall for some time.

 

[All Aboard]

OK, "Great Big Spreadsheet of Everything" time!

I just found my file of all the 2000 posted hours. In Oct of 2000, MK closed at 7pm Sun-Thu, 9pm each Fri and 11pm the first 2 Saturdays and 10pm the last 2 Saturdays.

That's a total of 332 hours, plus another 19.5 if you include EE.

 

[hopemax]

Hi guys

So scoop wants to know...

Seriously. What does it mean that Disney has not raised hours during October or whenever...

How does that effect the overall quality of a visit to WDW?

http://www.orlando-rental-villas.com/weather_data.htm

Average number of days above 80

Jan: 7
July: 31
Sept: 29
Oct: 25

Up here in Seattle we make it above 80 about 5 times per year, so the thought of shorter hours makes me worry about my health. Orlando is hot and humid, and what makes a vacation bearable is the ability to tour the parks prior to noon or after 6PM. Shorter lines is only the added bonus, the reason I'm up early and stay up late is to avoid the sun.

I know what being in that environment does to me. I get dehydrated, I get sunburned, I get cranky. I have less tolerance for crowded spaces, and slow moving lines. I snap at people when I wouldn't normally.

I'm affecting the experiences of my family, other guests, even the CM's that have to interact with me; really no different than that kid who's been out in the sun too long. We've all seen guests blowing up at a CM and I always wonder if that person is just like that, or if it is just the result of being in an unfamiliar climate too long. Grocery Stores worry about their check-out lines getting too long, other business worry about the "on hold" phone time. I think theme parks need to be conscious of climate effects.

I don't want to have to make a choice where I either "listen to my body." Which means, most of the vacation will be spent at the hotel, in which case I might as well go to the real Polynesia, or the real Caribbean. Or ignore what will happen and push along to the parks anyway.

Personally, I think an enforced naptime between 1:00-4:00 would do wonders for the park experience. Kids and adult both will get the rest they need, less tantrums, more patience, less yelling at CM's. CM's in turn would feel better about their jobs (less "problem" guests), which could lead to less turnover, which means less training costs. But in lieu of that, give me longer hours so I can make the decision myself.

So what do shorter hours mean: More guests who feel like they have to stay in the parks during the mid-day. More tired and cranky kids, more tired & cranky adults (dealing with tired and cranky kids, and their own bodies rebeling), which means more tired and cranky CM's (dealing with cranky guests). Lower job satisfaction, more turnover, more inexperienced CM's, and it goes on.

Now, how do I plug this theory into a spreadsheet?

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Folks, I'm just looking for quantifiable ways in which shorter park hours affect the guest experience negatively.

To my way of thinking, you really haven't expressed adequate appreciation for the difference between paying for a day's admission and paying for a certain number of experiences, mentioned in the responses you've already gotten.

It would be a lot more difficult to complain about hours being cut if admission media still consisted of ride tickets: you paid for a certain number of rides, and you will either get them or still have the coupons to get them at some later date. But now admission media are good for "a day in the park(s)," and that day is now quantifiably less than it was before... and because this was a unilateral decision and many "park days" are paid for long before they are used, those days are quantifiably less than what a lot of people thought they were paying for, in the first place.

We did an awful lot of math in a thread last year when the big hours and EE cuts came through. Everyone's vacations are different, but my very own personal math ending up indicating that the real hours I could actually spend in a park in a day decreased around 20%, very significant. That takes into consideration the non-negotiable requirements that we take a mid-day break, eat two meals between 9am and 9pm, and that we avoid counter service for those meals (there's a two-year-old and an 85-year-old with a wheelchair and oxygen tanks to drag around... we are not a fast-moving bunch, and need some settle space/time at meals).

And that doesn't consider that, in the 80% of the day Disney has left me with, the parks themselves are more crowded than they otherwise would have been, making every line take longer, making parades and shows more crowded (which in turn makes saving your decent spot take longer), and just generally pressing you that much closer to moist Waconians, a fate I understand holds horrors even for Volunteer barristers.

I also appreciate non-park Disney offerings (the Fairways course at Fantasia Gardens is the most unique and enjoyable miniature golf I've ever played), but I'd really like to see you take more note of the fact that what Disney has taken away in hours is something that, to a certain way of thinking, has already been paid for, whereas the options you mention are generally additionally priced diversions.

If a Mexican restaurant stops giving you free chips and salsa with your meal, their pointing out that you are allowed to purchase a plate of nachos is unlikely to be considered a trade-off of equivalent value. And even if the free chips weren't the only reason you went to that restaurant, I can't think of any situation where that news would come as a pleasant surprise to the customer.

If it seems like I'm making an assumption that "less hours=less value," I think that's because I realize that the math I did applies only to me, and am therefore hesitant to plaster it on the board as having any wide-spread application, leaving readers without all the information I used to make the decision.

For my family, there is no doubt that less hours=less value; this conclusion is based on trips made before and after the cuts, no need to assume anything. I don't think we're too many standard deviations away from the norm, so I've extrapolated that it is likely that some percentage of other guests would come to the same conclusion.

I'm currently trying to think of a time at Disney when I've actually noticed "boy, this experience really suffers because of the lack of CMs stationed here." If all these CM hours are in areas where there had been previous maintenance cutbacks, that would be a positive; but even then, I'm not sure the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that CoP is being well-cared for in order to keep spinning long into the future overrides the fact that the damn thing isn't going to be open while we're actually in the park.

-WFH

 

[rasvar]

I'm taking any hour postings with a grain of salt, lately. These seem to be just a general shot. It seems like they are truely running on two week ahead scheduling. They really seem to be adjustiing each and every day on the schedule based on hotel occupancies levels reported by all of the Orlando area hotels based on reservations.

 

[raidermatt]

Here's the situation which I particuarily had in mind: Hours have been reduced but staffing is back to pre 9/11 levels. In fact, with the new contract, WDW is hiring as we type.

In this case, does staffing = FTE or headcount? The only way this is a plus is if the hours worked by CMs in the parks decreases by a smaller percentage than the park hours. I find it hard to believe that if the parks close 1 hour earlier for example, that Disney is re-allocating that hour during the open hours rather than saving the 1 hour. After all, aren't labor costs a significant variable cost for the parks?

But since the capacity has been low, we've probably been able to ride as many rides from 9 to 6 in January as someone else could do from 9 to 12 in the peak of high season. In fact, this might initially sound crazy but we've ended trying more things at WDW because the hours were shorter.

Scoop, buddy, I know you didn't really mean that last sentence. You didn't try more things because the hours were shorter. You tried more things in spite of the shorter hours, BECAUSE the crowds are lighter. Agreed. There is a very real justification for hours differing depending on season. But we are talking October to October. Its pretty safe to say crowds will not be lighter this October when compared to last, so guests will not be able to experience more. Even if attendance is only equal to last year, reduced hours will compress the crowds in to less time, which increases line lengths.

Since we don't have access to the books, guest survey data and patterns, etc, we can't really provide quantifiables. I think you are looking for tangibles. We can only hypothesize about the depth of the impact. Given that, here's what we have so far, as brought up by various posters:

1- Less time for rides.

2- Less time for enjoying the atmosphere, sitting on a bench, browsing stores, etc. Some guests will feel #1, some #2, some both.

3- Less flexibility in daily scheduleing. If you like to arrive at 11am, you either have to accept #1 or #2, or you must arrive earlier. Ability to take an afternoon break is reduced. (I know, its possible to schedule without it, but its very clear that some guests WANT to take it, and reduced hours limit their ability to do this)

4- Less time to experience MK at night. Again, very important to some guests (including me!). In Orlando, is it even dark at 6pm prior to DST kicking in at the end of October? I know its not dark here in CA...

5- Less time to experience MK when temps are more comfortable for some guests.

Even if there are a few more CMs in the park, that won't be enough to offset the reasons above. It could be argued that the negative impact is accptable, but I can't see how it can be argued that its not a negative impact.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

You didn't try more things because the hours were shorter. You tried more things in spite of the shorter hours, BECAUSE the crowds are lighter

Actually, I believe he meant that shorter park hours led them to try more non-park Disney entertainments.

Which is probably a part of what Disney wants, more cash registers ringing in the pay-for-play venues.

Of course, since we're staying off-site because of no EE and renting a car because we hate the Disney busses, it's just as easy for us to try Church Street Station or CityWalk as it would be to spend that money at Bongo's or Rainforest Cafe.

-WFH

 

[raidermatt]

If it seems like I'm making an assumption that "less hours=less value," I think that's because I realize that the math I did applies only to me, and am therefore hesitant to plaster it on the board as having any wide-spread application, leaving readers without all the information I used to make the decision.

Well, I won't be so hesitant...

From a micro point of view, sure, there are cases when less hours = same value. For our group, the loss of EE applies here. It was not a loss to us.

But, oh frozen one, as you have pointed out many times before, we can't go back and forth with I like this, I don't like that. (not that you are...)

Taking the macro view, the question becomes do less hours = less value for some guests? Clearly, the answer is yes. The only questions are, is value being added in some other way, either for those same guests or for others, and what's the relative weight of those values.

The nacho analogy fits very well. As you said, nobody will be happy about the decision, at best, some will be indifferent. Some will be upset. So even though some guests do not have their experience impacted negatively, the fact that some do means we have to consider taking away Nachos, or shortening hours, to result in a diminished guest experience. The only question is how large is the impact, or is there some hidden upside.

 

[Miss Park Avenue]

We visit in May and have a 6:00pm closing time. And while we can "get in all the rides" by that time due to less crowds, that is not the reason we drive 1000 miles to the MK. If we wanted the "get in-ride-get out" experience, we would go to a local park. We have spent and invested our money in WDW for the atmosphere, entertainment and magic of Walt Disney World. We are a slow moving bunch too with little ones and grandparents but there's no time for nap/pool breaks, or just sitting around the hub taking in the sights and sounds. You've got to get moving to "get the rides in". Plus (and I don't mean to harp on this) but in May at 6:00 pm it is not even dark yet!!! I pay the same amount for my pass as those in the summer do and we never get to see ANY (let alone one) Sprectromagic parade, no fireworks, no standing under the trees with the twinkling lights watching the castle lit up with my kids (like the dad with his son on his shoulders in the commercials). Those things only happen on Saturday and since that is the day we arrive, we miss it entirely. Less hours is a BIG deal to May visitors like me.

I say, you want to reduce hours? Go back to general admission then and let us pay per attraction. The amusement parks around my home have weekend prices and weekday and holiday admission prices. Why should I have to pay for someone elses fireworks show and fireworks? Why should an elderly person pay so much when all he wants to do is sit and remember his youth on Main Street USA? If not, then at the VERY least, never let the MK close before dark Let the show end with the big finale parade and fireworks, we paid for it too. The way it is now is like sitting at the movies and the film breaks. You get in, ride, and get out.