Pop Century

[HorizonsFan]

No one is clamoring for a 'less-themed' theme park, run by Disney, in order to allow a particular demographic to afford a day's pass to a toned down version of 'Disney Magic".

But here you are assuming that we all agree that the value resorts are 'less themed'. I don't think that they are. They are themed differently than the other resorts and have less landscaping (hence a lower maintainance price) but I see Disney everywhere in those resorts. The CMs are just as friendly and helpful, the food is pretty much the same food as in the parks, the pools are fun, the busses (mostly) run on time and people have magical vacations there. I think the real, underlying disagreement is just what are "Disney Standards". Since they've never been defined by the company, I think we all have to make that judgment call for ourselves. I'm sure you can come up with some compelling evidence to support your version of "Disney Standards" but at the end of the day, I have to look at it with my own eyes and experience and ask, "does it look out of place?" Looking at the value resorts, I would say no, it doesn't look out of place TO ME.
Your milage may (and certainly will) vary...

 

[hopemax]

It's just a matter of who you want to upset. And I apologize in advance for going into areas beyond the All-stars. Whom do you upset:

The family who can't afford the higher prices. Or the family who expects the Company to maintain the level of "show" that the company uses to sell their products in the first place.

I would have no problem telling the family that in order to protect the integrity of our product we can't make visually unappealing structures. We owe that to the customers who have been loyal to us this far.

However, before I went out and said that, I would look at the balance sheets and ask myself, "Is it really not feasible for us to create a $80 hotel that doesn't look ugly?" I would be willing to accept a lower profit margin to accomplish that, so that both families could be happy. I wouldn't offer the full-service restaurant, larger rooms, elaborate swimming facilites, exercise rooms, extensive recreation options though. I do think there should be differnces between the classifications. But the thought of someone thinking they only deserve UGLY because they can't afford more really bothers me.

But if it were not possible, then I would feel obligated to change my marketing campaign so that your hypothetical family wouldn't be told that "this is the place for average middle-class families." And if Disney feels that they have to compromise their traditional level of quality so that more people can afford it, they should come out and say that instead of saying the quality hasn't changed.

but there is a demographic segment that could not stay on WDW property without the values and still visit WDW more than once every half-decade

And I agree, but my gut reaction is to look at the profit margins as much as cutting the quality. I'm just afraid that over the last decade or so we've gotten to used to the loyal customers being the only ones asked to make all the sacrifices (the look of the values is only the tip of the iceberg) and change their expectations and that the Company and the Shareholders shouldn't have to change their expectations one bit. I know shareholders have a right to make money, yada, yada, yada...

But when it comes right down to it who's got a better chance at survival: us without Disney or Disney and its shareholders without customers? And I hope we, as customers, remember that everytime Disney asks us to take less. If we stand our ground, they have to change because their survival depends on it. And that's true for any company or industry. And I also have a feeling that this year people are starting to realize that there are great vacation values that aren't Disney and are choosing them. 9/11 just exacerbated a festering problem, and one of the worst things imaginable for Disney is for people to get out of the habit of choosing Disney. But the last place I expect to see this in practice is on message boards on a fan-based site like the DIS where we joke about going to Disney like it's some kind of disease or addiction.

 

[HorizonsFan]

Hopemax:
Much like Landbaron, your argument relies on all of us agreeing that the value resorts are ugly. That's a matter of individual taste and not everyone feels as you do. I think they look fun and I had a great time staying there.

 

[hopemax]

It is an individual choice, however using the All-Stars as an example and they were mine to do with what I want...If 75% of people think they look fine, but 25% think they're ugly, my reaction would be to ask "What can I do to get 80% or 85% or more people to think they look fine."

That's just my philosophy in life. I got it from my parents, my teachers and what I knew about a guy named Walt Disney. And maybe it was all just "spin" but I took it to heart.

 

[YoHo]

hopemax hits the nail on the head. Does anyone think that the Polynesian is Ugly?

Does anyone think cinderella's castle is ugly?


Yes, its all opinions, but Shouldn't disney try to get as many differing opinions as possible with one shot?

If 100 people are asked "Do you like the "themeing" of the allstars?" and 75 say yes, 25 say no, but then you ask the same 100 "Do you like the themeing of the Polynesian?" and 85 say yes, and you can only build 1 of those resorts. Which would you build.



My contention has been from Page 1 that Disney could have built a hotel with the same capital costs, the same maintainence costs and the same number of rooms as the Allstars (well, Pop century was the focus, but so what) and done so with a different theme that would have appealed to a larger percentage of people.

Its not that people's opinions are wrong, but a hotel that only 15% of people think is ugly instead of 25% will probably generate more revenue and hence more profit.



There have been a couple other arguments floating around here, but that is my core belief, Disney could have done it MORE right! It could have been even better and yet sacrificed nothing.

 

[JeffJewell]

thedscoop...

So, without the AllStars, what are their options? Go every three years and spend 150 dollars a nite to stay at a non-value resort or stay offsite

...I still don't understand when, why, or how "available at the lowest possible price" became a Disney Standard. Particularly when its implementation requires noticeable cutbacks in other, more traditionally accepted "Disney Standards" like story-telling and plussing.

Without the AllStars, they cannot do this and VISIT AS OFTEN AS THEY WANT TO

It's too bad, but no, maybe they don't get to VISIT AS OFTEN AS THEY WANT TO. Such is life.

casualties of the Disney standard

If someone can't afford the new Acura, and they have to buy the used Honda instead, are they casualties of the Acura standard? Some things cost more, and sometimes, they cost more for a reason.

the economics of making a deluxe resort and charging value rates does not work

I've mentioned a couple of times that I could see a lower cost yet still "Disney" alternative to what we now call Deluxes, but I simply don't think the immersive story and different World should have been sacrificed. Monorail all the parks, ensure alternative transportation (launch or light rail are both okay by me, although I'd be really gigged about a high capacity version of the WEDway principle) from each resort to a park... it really wouldn't even be that hard to retro-fit, in a lot of cases. And maintain a sense of story, even if it's a kid-friendly, low budget story. The little tricycle motors seem to be nutty for Pooh these days, where's the 100 Acre Wood resort?

I still feel the iconic, as opposed to immersive story-telling style, theming, is an unfortunate turn away from one of Disney's principles.

Greg...

I would postulate that full service resort dining options that are self sufficient are not the norm, rather that many of them take a hit on their own. Instead, it's that list of amenities that is aided by their existence

...I suggest that the restaurants that are doing the best for themselves are the high-end restaurants at the Deluxes. I believe that is because each of those restaurants has a unique character. They are the restaurants that you make PS for even when you're staying at another resort. The restaurants at the moderates are fairly generic, family-style in whatever theme is appropriate. Nothing wrong with them, some will strike particular chords with some families, but little outstanding about the restaurants themselves. There are fewer off-resort guests coming to the Cotton Mill thingy than to Artist Point.

Another example of how being less than outstanding can hurt your business, even if you reach more price points.

Disney made the All Stars APPEALING to insure that guests would not stay off-site. I can't believe that isn't clear.

I'm still distressed by the angle they took. It seems to me they were trying to hit a price point, and make it just appealing enough that guests would not go off-site (I'm wet-my-pants curious to see how the rumored cancellation of EE might affect Value bookings). I wish they'd kept more of the cohesive, immersive parts of Disney Magic, and made that as affordable as possible.

hopemax...

And I hope we, as customers, remember that everytime Disney asks us to take less. If we stand our ground, they have to change because their survival depends on it

...well said.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

Jeffjewell, you make a number of excellent points.
For one I like

It's too bad, but no, maybe they don't get to VISIT AS OFTEN AS THEY WANT TO. Such is life.

I agree, and as you've indicated, they've put themselves in a position where they may Have to lower prices to fill enough rooms where not more the 15 years ago they could keep ticket prices high enough that very few people were left out.

 

[hopemax]

While the conversation is still on the doing things "more right" just some things I've thought about in relation to the All-Stars, in this case All-Star Movies. And lets say that they had to do "oversize icons"

Disney chose themes: Herbie, Mighty Ducks, 101 Dalmatians, Toy Story, Fantasia.

What if they had built something like Alice in Wonderland, the scene where Alice is small. Or Honey I Shrunk the Audience, like the playground in MGM or the giant's castle from Mickey & the Beanstalk or maybe even Babes in Toyland? In those cases the "oversize icons" would be performing a function other than just being a really big whatever, they're there to help you feel like you are in the "movie."

 

[Eeyore2U]

DS,

Your forgot my position form the original thread.

That Pop Century is UGLY!!!

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by thedscoop
tell me how a table service restaurant would be "self-sustaining" and why its such a big deal after all...Disney table service restaurants are pretty expensive. Even at boatwrights or olivia's a family of four can easily spend 60-70 dollars on a meal...so why in the name of sam hill would it make sense to put a table service restaurant in a resort which would cost that same family of four as much to eat at as to stay in...no, no, no...if Port Orleans could not keep one open, an AllStar table service would be a negligent front end waste of capital...

I'm guessing, but I'd bet the closing of Bonfamille's at Port Oreans had more to do with the smaller size of the resort (approximately 1,000 rooms, or a little more than half that found at just one All-Star Resorts) than it did with hotel guests being willing - or able - to spend enough to eat there. There just wasn't a big enough "market" to support the restaurant, and it apparently didn't attract sufficient off-site guests to make up the difference. Or, its also possible Bonfamille's really was a success, but with the Dixie consolidation only one "full-service" restaurant was "needed", and Boatright's had a bigger profit margin (larger hotel).

That said, I see no reason why a full-service restaurant would not be successful at the All-Stars or Pop Century. Plenty of All-Star guests travel to other resorts for dinner reservations - they have to, with only a food court available otherwise. One nice, full-service restaurant serving all three All-Star resorts might be an option, drawing on the population of almost 6,000 rooms. Done right (in other words, much nicer than the resort itself) it could even attract other Disney guests to the All-Stars for meals.

Just because someone is staying at a value resort doesn't necessairily mean they are spending less money on their vacation than someone staying at a moderate (or deluxe). Indeed, it could be argued persons at the All-Stars have more "disposable" money to spend on character meals (bound to be a hit at All-Stars with all the children around) since they are spending less on lodging. Those staying in All-Star on a budget (and many are, of course), and lacking park passes for every day, might be more likely to eat in their own resort than those in a deluxe, who with full activities every day only sleep in their expensive rooms. Again, this doesn't describe everyone, maybe not even a large group.

As for the $40,000 a year hypothetical family; I know people who make a lot more than that, go every year, but consider All-Stars too expensive (they have unlimited passes, do an "expensive" meal every day, etc). On the other hand, I know families who don't make half that who go 1-2 times a year and stay in moderates, All-Stars, or a split with deluxe properties (but spend less on food and shopping). I'm wondering if both families don't wind up spending about the same amount.

In any case, I'm glad the All-Stars (or any inexpensive Disney resort) is there. It's not the theming or amenities, though, that dictate the price. Supply and demand drives the price - whatever the market will pay is where the price will be set. This summer demand was soft, so deluxe rooms could be had for moderate prices. In a few years, with inflation, a booming economy, and strong demand, we'll pay the same thing for Pop Century.

 

[Janet2k]

Lrodk, thanks for the links to the photos of the Fizzle Resort. I really appreciated seeing them. For a while there I was worried that I was never going to see more than one photo of that place. I can now breathe a sigh of relief. And once I view those photos a little closer, I’ll cast my “ugly” or “not ugly” vote for Eeyore2U’s benefit. Stay tuned (as if any of you folks ever pay any attention to what I say in this thread).

 

[I <3 Eeyore]

I've been following this thread since the beginning and some of the underlying sentiment disturbs me. How did this go from rating the visual appeal of Pop Century to a dissertation on whether or not families of moderate means should be allowed to take up space on site at Disney? Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but that's what I'm hearing. When WDW first opened, my parents drove 4 kids and a grandpa down to spend 3 days in the most magical place on earth. We crammed into 2 motel rooms (offsite cuz that's all there was back then. Oh God, am I dating myself here! We had a wonderful time because we made the magic, not because our accommodations were luxurious.

I've taken my DD twice in the past two years and will again in Feb. thanks to my mom, who purchased DVC so her children could afford to bring their families to Disney. I can't comment on the standards of the value resorts because I've been fortunate to be able to stay at OKW and BWV, courtesy of mom. But as a single mom with 5 kids, I have to say I resent the premise that I shouldn't be allowed to visit WDW frequently and stay onsite at a value resort because someone thinks they're not up to standard. There are many advantages to staying onsite, especially with children. And my economic status shouldn't preclude my staying in a Disney resort. WDW has made an enormous effort to ensure that everyone feels welcome and it seems elitist to me that those of moderate means should be told, 'Too bad, you'll just have to come less often then. ' If I've misinterpreted the sentiments here then I apologize in advance for that. But I don't think I have and that bothers me. A lot!

 

[HorizonsFan]

Your forgot my position form the original thread.

No we didn't. We just restated it. Pop Century is ugly TO YOU.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[JeffJewell]

WDW has made an enormous effort to ensure that everyone feels welcome and it seems elitist to me that those of moderate means should be told, 'Too bad, you'll just have to come less often then. '

...saying "those of moderate means" are less desirable human beings is clearly inappropriate, but that's not what people are doing.

Saying that no, not everyone is guaranteed that the vacation they hope for will be within their budget every year, that's simply a statement of a fact of life in a capitalist society. Personally, this is what I've been saying.

Despite the fact that the Values let more people afford to stay on-site, there are still millions who can't afford it at all. Labelling those who can afford more than you as "elitist" just defines you an "elitist" to anyone who can't afford even what you can. Calling the position "elistist" is an arbitrary determination based on drawing economic lines where it suits your argument.

If the question is "how can we make the Disney style of vacation resort cheaper," then I'm all in favor of finding the answer and offering the same product for less. If the question is "how much of the Disney style of vacation can we leave out and still have people pay us for it," then I say the question is fundamentally flawed and any answer is going to be a disappointing one.

my economic status shouldn't preclude my staying in a Disney resort

I'm afraid that life may hold a series of similar disappointments for you: your economic status determines whether or not you can do certain things in this society. My economic status precludes me from owning a Ferrari. That does not mean that those who can afford Ferraris are "elitists," and it does not mean that Ferrari is in any way obligated to stick their nameplate on a Ford Escort just so I can afford to run around saying "I drive a Ferrari."

Jeff

 

[I <3 Eeyore]

Jeff;

I appreciate your argument although I still disagree with it. I believe you and I have a difference of opinion as to where the lines should be drawn. In that respect, your argument is as arbitrary as mine. However, this being a free nation, we're both equally entitled to them. And I find it interesting that you should comment on how I will be disappointed in my life because my economic status will limit my ability to obtain desired material things.

A little insight: I am not driven by materialism. I have had to adjust my goals and my priorities many times in my life, both as a result of economics and the result of bearing several children with disabilities. I am aware of the limitations in my life and I adjust accordingly (I enjoy driving my Honda Civic and have no desire to own a Ferrari). I don't expect my autistic son to be the president of GM, but I do expect him to be the best he can be given his limitations. I also expect Disney to accommodate families of moderate means so they can enjoy onsite accommodations. I don't believe that's too much to ask. Perhaps I look for something different at Disney. As I said before, I/we make the magic, not the luxury of our accommodations.

 

[airlarry!]

I'm with Yoho on this one. This question is not really about whether people of moderate means should or should not be able to stay on-site.

I liken this to the question of table service and counter service in the Parks. Obviously, the greatest Disney vacation would have all wonderful character meals inside stunning surroundings like Cinderella's castle or the Crystal Palace. But not everyone can afford to eat table dinners for every meal.

So Disney has counter service...fast food...relatively (in Disney terms) cheaper ways of eating a lunch or dinner.

There is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong (sorry Baron...for once I disagree with you) with having various levels of hotels on property. Because if we take that argument to the logical extreme, only the Grand Floridian type of hotel should be allowed on property. But that would be silly. It is okay to have one hotel that has Concierge, one hotel that has moderate service but still Disney theming, and one hotel that has value but still Disney theming.

All I ask, and I think Yoho has said this all along, is make the hotel the best you can make it for the price point you are delivering. I don't think I have read anyone's comment that the All-Stars couldn't be better than they are...and hence the Pop Century too...and more Disneyfied. There were loads of wonderful suggestions on how to improve the theming/decoration without breaking the bank. Our beloved Imagineers could do it in a heartbeat...but I would bet that AV would confirm for us that the All Stars were not Imagineered! They were design by that infamouse Real Estate development arm of Disney. I would bet a Roll and a coffee from Starring Rolls on that one.

Another Voice? Anyone else? Confirmation?

 

[JeffJewell]

I appreciate your argument although I still disagree with it

...we have to say stuff like that a lot on this board.

I believe you and I have a difference of opinion as to where the lines should be drawn. In that respect, your argument is as arbitrary as mine.

I understand what you mean, although I've tried to make my line less dependent on an arbitrary income level of guest. Currently, I'm using "immersive story-oriented theming" and "feeling of being in a different World" to describe the basic aspects of traditional Disney theming that I feel are missing in the Values, and missing solely because the intent was to make the resorts as cheap as possible. I think those aspects were important in making the Disney hotels more desirable in the first place, and their loss lowers the bar for what the term "Disney resort" implies (I certainly recognize that this is arbitrary in a whole 'nother way, but the conversation "what does Disney stand for" should theoretically be less perilous and hurtful than "how poor a family should get to stay on-site every year").

That's my real lamentation: not that the po' white trash (hey, I was born in a four-room house in a backwards little town called Easley, South Carolina. When I talk about the po' white trash, I'm mostly talking about family) is cluttering up Disney, but that Disney is sacrificing pieces of what made it great _only_ in order to meet a price point. I think that's an unfortunate change in the way Disney designs resorts.

And I find it interesting that you should comment on how I will be disappointed in my life because my economic status will limit my ability to obtain desired material things

Yeah, I have a right gift for turning an inflammatory phrase. I was just commenting that I didn't think the "my economic status shouldn't preclude my staying in a Disney resort" line represented a realistic approach to life. If one is to get agitated that their "economic status shouldn't preclude X," where X is anything that costs money in our society, it seems one is going to end up agitated quite a bit.

I intended no comment on your personality, just on the one quote.

I/we make the magic, not the luxury of our accommodations.

If that's true, then what's the big deal about staying on-site? If the magic is in you to begin with, what are we paying extra for with the Disney hotels? The fact that it says "Disney" on the side?

That's kinda the point I've been trying to make: the All Stars don't do much to distinguish themselves from non-Disney hotels (and the possibility of the end of EE could make that distinction even more fine), and in particular, they turned away from some of the very things that made so many of their other resorts unique from non-Disney hotels.

It's not disappointing to me that the "less economically fortunate" can now stay at a Disney hotel. What's disappointing to me is that, in order to hit the price that allows those stays, the definition of a "Disney hotel" suffers. I'm not mad they made a less expensive hotel, I'm mad they made a less expensive hotel that feels so similar to "normal," non-Disney hotels.

It's upsetting that Disney, to a certain way of thinking, is _cheating_ the Value customers (whether they're happy to spend the money or not) with the product they're offering at that price, not that the Value customers simply exist.

Jeff

PS: None of this is to say we can't agree to disagree, or that folks can't enjoy their All Star vacation without my blessing; consider them blessed, go, have fun.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by gcurling
d-r



I don't see any smilie, so I assume that you seriously believe this.

You have to be joking, right!?!?!?

Actually, gcurling, "ugly" was a really, really poor choice of words right there. I think I was using the word because the post that I was thinking about while I was responding used the term ugly.

However, to be clear, I do believe the idea that Disney purposefully made the all stars at a lower value point (amenities, theming, etc.) than the moderates, and the moderates at a lower point than the deluxes, in order to justify the price differentials. The car examples are good ones. If you can by a car that has the amenities and is as comfortable and as dependable and looks as good as a more expensive one, why wouldn't you buy the more expensive one?

I really do believe that the cost isn't driven by the cost of the resort / the amenities, but by what people are willing to pay. This is basic economics here - simple as supply and demand. Whatever product you may be selling, you do not price it based upon what it cost you to acquire / produce, you price it based on what people are willing to pay for it. For examples of this, look at the price of gasoline on Sept. 11, of generators the day before a hurricane or blizzard, the baseball that Mark McGuire set the record with a couple of years ago the day after Bonds broke it, or of things on e-bay.

It is in Disney's best interest to get as many people to spend their entire vacation at disney as possible, including staying at a disney resort. And there are many people - whether they could afford it or not - who will choose to stay at a less expensive accomodation than the deluxes or even moderates. It is better for disney to keep them on-site rather than off-site. But if the value resorts where themed as well as the others who would pay more to stay at the others? I really do believe this point of view.

Ugly though was a bad choice of words, that is pretty subjective, and truthfully, I don't find all stars as ugly as some folks do (1$ to my wife).

The pictures of pop century and what I saw last month were pretty ugly though


Here's the thing though - what does it bother you or your vacation for these places to exist? If you aren't staying there, why would you care? Crowded early entry and e-nights are the only reasons I can think of, and those aren't valid, because the argument here isn't why disney shouldn't add 6,000 new deluxe rooms.

DR

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by HorizonsFan

But here you are assuming that we all agree that the value resorts are 'less themed'. I don't think that they are. They are themed differently than the other resorts and have less landscaping (hence a lower maintainance price) but I see Disney everywhere in those resorts. The CMs are just as friendly and helpful, the food is pretty much the same food as in the parks, the pools are fun, the busses (mostly) run on time and people have magical vacations there. ...

Friendly cms, standardized food, fun pools, and on time busses aren't "theming." You could argue they are "amenities" but they don't make the resort any "more or less themed." And while I agree that people have magical vacations there, this doesn't mean it is more or less themed, either.

DR

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by DC7800


I'm guessing, but I'd bet the closing of Bonfamille's at Port Oreans had more to do with the smaller size of the resort (approximately 1,000 rooms, or a little more than half that found at just one All-Star Resorts) than it did with hotel guests being willing - or able - to spend enough to eat there. There just wasn't a big enough "market" to support the restaurant, and it apparently didn't attract sufficient off-site guests to make up the difference. Or, its also possible Bonfamille's really was a success, but with the Dixie consolidation only one "full-service" restaurant was "needed", and Boatright's had a bigger profit margin (larger hotel).

That said, I see no reason why a full-service restaurant would not be successful at the All-Stars or Pop Century. Plenty of All-Star guests travel to other resorts for dinner reservations - they have to, with only a food court available otherwise. One nice, full-service restaurant serving all three All-Star resorts might be an option, drawing on the population of almost 6,000 rooms. Done right (in other words, much nicer than the resort itself) it could even attract other Disney guests to the All-Stars for meals.

Just because someone is staying at a value resort doesn't necessairily mean they are spending less money on their vacation than someone staying at a moderate (or deluxe). Indeed, it could be argued persons at the All-Stars have more "disposable" money to spend on character meals (bound to be a hit at All-Stars with all the children around) since they are spending less on lodging. Those staying in All-Star on a budget (and many are, of course), and lacking park passes for every day, might be more likely to eat in their own resort than those in a deluxe, who with full activities every day only sleep in their expensive rooms. Again, this doesn't describe everyone, maybe not even a large group.
.\\\

In my opinion, Bonfamille's was the best restaurant I've tried at a moderate resort. I thought the menu was more interesting than the others, and I really, really liked the breakfast buffet. I agree with you though that 1,000 people in the resort probably wasn't enough to sustain it, but you know what? There are sit-down restaurants at other resorts that have around 1,000 people - artist point at wilderness lodge (smaller than 1,000 before dvc) and the polly, cont. and gf aren't that much bigger. The GF has narcooses, citricos, the gf cafe, and victoria and alberts, plus a fast food place. I don't think those are all kept in business by people staying at the gf. Those restaurants at deluxes are well known enough and well liked enough to attact people who do not stay at that resort - plus they are easy to get to. Unless I was staying at PO, or maybe dixie landings, there was no way I would go to the breakfast buffet at Bonfamille's, no matter how much I liked it. But I don't mind stopping in kona for some tonga toast, because it is convenient.

The all stars, on the other hand, are not exactly on the beat path (well, exept for the 6,000 families who are staying there). I don't think that anyone would go eat there if they weren't staying there. The only other place that is so remote is AKL, and boma and jiko are trying hard to establish themselves as places so unique that people will make the trio over from AK. But even then, I suspect that the traffic from off resort guests (besides disney-philes like on this site) is pretty low - the reason I say this is that there isn't a good way there. We went to join family staying there for breakfast and there wasn't an easy way there, and it was clear from CMs that not a lot of people are going there to breakfast from off-site, because they were a little surprised that we did. Also, originally they were concerned about limiting traffic to AKL from the curious, but that hasn't turned out be a problem.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think a sit down restaurant at the all stars would do so well, not because I don't think that people could afford it, but because there isn't much off-site traffic, plus I know that a lot of people staying at all stars are mostly interested in the parks and don't want to waste time eating at their resort. Plus, they have pretty extensive food courts that seem to fill the need for food. I don't think they'd stay in business. Not because people couldn't afford it, but because it isn't needed or convenient - just my opinion of course.


DR

PS Besides, if a sit down restaurant at the resort is an important amenity to you, why not choose a moderate resort Each moderate resort has a sit down restaurant (This is my point about how Disney made the resorts with different levels of amenities at different price points - I'm sure that there are folks staying at all stars that would enjoy valet parking or turn down service, too, but those are amenities reserved for a different price point).