Sorry,Just not impressed with Bonnet Creek

[spiceycat]

I wouldnt smoke around you b/c I follow the designated rules, BUT nonsmokers need to be aware of the smoking sections because there aren't many places we can go. Non-smokers dont like it when we(smokers) invade your non smoking space(which is understandable especially with your allergies) so please dont invade our smoking section and expect us to move when we have VERY LITTLE places to smoke...thank you for understanding.

my big problem is really with DVC - they first had all the entrances and exit at OKW villa for smoking - got them to change a few. then meet a person who could not be still - chain smoker and boy he had a problem - he realized he was making me sick and just could not be still.

disney and other hotels don't seem to understand that smokers need room to move and so my complaints are more with them than the smokers.

had a problem at Pop too - they put the smokers (who had a section already) at every one of the sitting areas outside. sorry but too much is too much. kept me from walking around the lake last time.

but back to WBC - it could have been a great resort - but the furniture is inferior to DVC (except BLT) - it is definitely worst than Marriott and HGVC. It reminded me alot of Bryan's Cove - it had some of the same furniture. and definitely that same tub.

now the location is a little better - but hey not more than a few minutes -

if you take the location away it is not any better than any of the other timeshares in the area and worst than the real superior timeshares.

speaking of strange things - do those elevators feel strange to you?
was in building 2 and sometimes the elevator would almost stop inbetween floors - after it did it twice to me found the steps and used them for most of my trip.

also had problems with parking - you could never get the same spot twice - now at my age really need to kept the same spot or at least in the same area.

with the other timeshares could get a spot close by generally within 5 spaces.

at WBC you were luck to get in the same lot - mostly I did not. plus the parking lot were confusing for me. finding the exit took a while the first time and depending upon where I had to park - it took longer to find the exit at times.

also the door to the building - it had two different locks and it took me a while to understand that only one of the locks worked - can be slow - especially with my arms full.

now it did have some good points but really think it would be an improvement to put a bridge in that lake - then you could walk to the other pools without having to walk around that lake every time.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

my big problem is really with DVC - they first had all the entrances and exit at OKW villa for smoking - got them to change a few. then meet a person who could not be still - chain smoker and boy he had a problem - he realized he was making me sick and just could not be still.

disney and other hotels don't seem to understand that smokers need room to move and so my complaints are more with them than the smokers.

had a problem at Pop too - they put the smokers (who had a section already) at every one of the sitting areas outside. sorry but too much is too much. kept me from walking around the lake last time.

but back to WBC - it could have been a great resort - but the furniture is inferior to DVC (except BLT) - it is definitely worst than Marriott and HGVC. It reminded me alot of Bryan's Cove - it had some of the same furniture. and definitely that same tub.

now the location is a little better - but hey not more than a few minutes -

if you take the location away it is not any better than any of the other timeshares in the area and worst than the real superior timeshares.

speaking of strange things - do those elevators feel strange to you?
was in building 2 and sometimes the elevator would almost stop inbetween floors - after it did it twice to me found the steps and used them for most of my trip.

also had problems with parking - you could never get the same spot twice - now at my age really need to kept the same spot or at least in the same area.

with the other timeshares could get a spot close by generally within 5 spaces.

at WBC you were luck to get in the same lot - mostly I did not. plus the parking lot were confusing for me. finding the exit took a while the first time and depending upon where I had to park - it took longer to find the exit at times.

also the door to the building - it had two different locks and it took me a while to understand that only one of the locks worked - can be slow - especially with my arms full.

now it did have some good points but really think it would be an improvement to put a bridge in that lake - then you could walk to the other pools without having to walk around that lake every time.

again the smoking issue is a no win conversation for both sides...i agree with u on all point on Bonnet Creek except for the door locks. i had no prblem with them..the utility vehicles took up parking spaces too.

 

[spiceycat]

on the side - found out that in most of the Disney places - it was the smokers who picked the places. which is why they do seem to take over the resorts...

lots of disney employees smoke.

really wish they would go back to smoker or nonsmoker rooms - would make it easier for everyone - my opinion

 

[blitzkrieg048]

on the side - found out that in most of the Disney places - it was the smokers who picked the places. which is why they do seem to take over the resorts...

lots of disney employees smoke.

really wish they would go back to smoker or nonsmoker rooms - would make it easier for everyone - my opinion

dont know if there is even a right or wrong way, just gotta peacefully coexist. And I dont think smokers take over the resorts if anything everytime I light up a cigar it feels like I just commited a crime..even wen im in the designated smoking areas..lol

 

[shalom]

really wish they would go back to smoker or nonsmoker rooms - would make it easier for everyone - my opinion

I agree that it'd be easier for the smokers and non-smokers visiting the resort, but I think it must be harder for the guys running the resort. Because if they have some smoking and some non-smoking rooms, the balance of people staying there is never going to be quite right, so then what do they do? Leave some rooms empty, or put some people in the "wrong" kind of room? If they put hubby in a smoking room, he's not going to care, but some of the rest of us are allergic and you bet we're going to notice.

And if the balance is the other way -- more smokers than smoking rooms -- either they put a smoker in a regular room and hope the smoker doesn't smoke, or they try to clean the room well after, which isn't going to work with the more sensitive non-smokers. Smoking also increases cleaning costs over time, but charging more for smoking rooms doesn't go over so well.

Putting all the smokers out side, especially in an area of mild weather like Florida, solves all the problems -- for the owners. For the guests, not so much.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

I agree that it'd be easier for the smokers and non-smokers visiting the resort, but I think it must be harder for the guys running the resort. Because if they have some smoking and some non-smoking rooms, the balance of people staying there is never going to be quite right, so then what do they do? Leave some rooms empty, or put some people in the "wrong" kind of room? If they put hubby in a smoking room, he's not going to care, but some of the rest of us are allergic and you bet we're going to notice.

And if the balance is the other way -- more smokers than smoking rooms -- either they put a smoker in a regular room and hope the smoker doesn't smoke, or they try to clean the room well after, which isn't going to work with the more sensitive non-smokers. Smoking also increases cleaning costs over time, but charging more for smoking rooms doesn't go over so well.

Putting all the smokers out side, especially in an area of mild weather like Florida, solves all the problems -- for the owners. For the guests, not so much.

i dont think making smoking rooms help for the reasons u stated. Letting smokers smoke on the balcony would help more because it would allow to keep the smell of smoke outta tthe room but allow the smokers to go utside in the privacy of their own balcony and smoke instead of sitting in the front of the buildings in their p.j.'s where people come and go. But then there would be complaints of guests smelling smoke on their balconies from other guests...so like I stated earlier its a no win conversation. Being a cigar smoker I understand both sides. Nonsmokers frown upon prople who smoke and thats ok with me, its totally understandable but people are going to smoke no matter what, and smokers need a place to enjoy their cigar or cigarette when they're on vacay just like nonsmokers enjoy their morning coffee or evening coocktails, or whatever. I know its sort of an apples and oranges coversation but its a legal product and something we enjoy.

 

[JimMIA]

The assumption you both are making is that the preferences of the resort guest matter. I suspect they don't.

What matters much more is the corporate responsibility, not just to customers, but especially to their employees. The reason why you're seeing smoking limited to outdoor areas has nothing to do with the odor or inconvenience to others -- it has to do with worker safety.

Here's a quote from the Center for Disease Control fact sheet on second-hand smoke:

Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings does not eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.3

Here's a link to the full fact sheet: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

With the US Government taking that kind of a position, any company with a brain or a lawyer is going to prohibit smoking indoors...period. For maintenance people, and especially housekeeping personnel in the hospitality industry, the guest's room is their office. The prudent employer will not knowingly put their employees at risk.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

The assumption you both are making is that the preferences of the resort guest matter. I suspect they don't.

What matters much more is the corporate responsibility, not just to customers, but especially to their employees. The reason why you're seeing smoking limited to outdoor areas has nothing to do with the odor or inconvenience to others -- it has to do with worker safety.

Here's a quote from the Center for Disease Control fact sheet on second-hand smoke: Here's a link to the full fact sheet: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

With the US Government taking that kind of a position, any company with a brain or a lawyer is going to prohibit smoking indoors...period. For maintenance people, and especially housekeeping personnel in the hospitality industry, the guest's room is their office. The prudent employer will not knowingly put their employees at risk.

i can see how you could come to that conclusion, but I disagree. I think it is mostly to do with the guests and very little todo with the workers. If Disney were concerned about worker safety in the rooms from smoke, they could offer masks for the housekeeping staff while they clean the room. Don't underestimate Disney's concern for their image on smoking from guests. I highly doubt Disney would employ total smoke free rooms in fear of being sued by their staff. I mean anythings possible but I really doubt it. Just my opinion. The fact sheet you provided was insightful and I've read many of the same facts. However how much exposure of secondhand smoke does it take to increase all of the health issues it stated...what is the actual % of smokers who get cancer from secondhand smoke or smoking from that matter. And what is the % of cigarette smokers to cigar smokers. There is many facts I have read from actual non smoking M.D's that disprove alot of the myths to attached to smoking. Now having said that I dont in any way think that smoking is healthy or good for you. Lets get that straight. But neither is McDonalds, B.K, ice cream, or Alcohol. As a matter of fact i wonder what is good for you anymore. This country was built on freedom and free speech and the ability to make personal choices. Unfortunately the future looks like it may be regulated by govt. programs that take away many of our freedoms..Lets hope not. anyway getting back to the original point, your customer base drives your business not your employee base in most instances, and I think thats the case with the smoking issue.

 

[JimMIA]

i can see how you could come to that conclusion, but I disagree. I think it is mostly to do with the guests and very little todo with the workers. If Disney were concerned about worker safety in the rooms from smoke, they could offer masks for the housekeeping staff while they clean the room. Don't underestimate Disney's concern for their image on smoking from guests. I highly doubt Disney would employ total smoke free rooms in fear of being sued by their staff. I mean anythings possible but I really doubt it. Just my opinion. The fact sheet you provided was insightful and I've read many of the same facts. However how much exposure of secondhand smoke does it take to increase all of the health issues it stated...what is the actual % of smokers who get cancer from secondhand smoke or smoking from that matter. And what is the % of cigarette smokers to cigar smokers. There is many facts I have read from actual non smoking M.D's that disprove alot of the myths to attached to smoking. Now having said that I dont in any way think that smoking is healthy or good for you. Lets get that straight. But neither is McDonalds, B.K, ice cream, or Alcohol. As a matter of fact i wonder what is good for you anymore. This country was built on freedom and free speech and the ability to make personal choices. Unfortunately the future looks like it may be regulated by govt. programs that take away many of our freedoms..Lets hope not. anyway getting back to the original point, your customer base drives your business not your employee base in most instances, and I think thats the case with the smoking issue.

Whatever.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

Whatever.

Oh I forgot we all hafat agree with Jim and not have our own view or opinion...let me re-post...Jim your absolutely right with your post and fact sheet that absolutely is the reason why there are all nonsmoking rooms. YTour right again!

 

[blitzkrieg048]

However, public discussion boards are not just about YOU.

When you put a premise up in a public forum, others have a right to disagree. As you've seen, from the length of this thread, there are a number of posters who have a different opinion than you hold. That's what discussion boards are all about

.

So if you post a comment that someone takes exception to -- or thinks is incomplete -- somebody will disagree...not because of YOU, but for the benefit of other readers.

you should take your own advice wen people disagree with you

 

[Grumpy Grandma]

i can see how you could come to that conclusion, but I disagree. I think it is mostly to do with the guests and very little todo with the workers. If Disney were concerned about worker safety in the rooms from smoke, they could offer masks for the housekeeping staff while they clean the room. Don't underestimate Disney's concern for their image on smoking from guests. I highly doubt Disney would employ total smoke free rooms in fear of being sued by their staff. I mean anythings possible but I really doubt it. Just my opinion. The fact sheet you provided was insightful and I've read many of the same facts. However how much exposure of secondhand smoke does it take to increase all of the health issues it stated...what is the actual % of smokers who get cancer from secondhand smoke or smoking from that matter. And what is the % of cigarette smokers to cigar smokers. There is many facts I have read from actual non smoking M.D's that disprove alot of the myths to attached to smoking. Now having said that I dont in any way think that smoking is healthy or good for you. Lets get that straight. But neither is McDonalds, B.K, ice cream, or Alcohol. As a matter of fact i wonder what is good for you anymore. This country was built on freedom and free speech and the ability to make personal choices. Unfortunately the future looks like it may be regulated by govt. programs that take away many of our freedoms..Lets hope not. anyway getting back to the original point, your customer base drives your business not your employee base in most instances, and I think thats the case with the smoking issue.

You can not be serious!

 

[blitzkrieg048]

You can not be serious!

lol its funny how everyone can state their opinions but me
what part cant I be serious about?

 

[Grumpy Grandma]

lol its funny how everyone can state their opinions but me
what part cant I be serious about?

No you state your opinion ...

 

[blitzkrieg048]

No you state your opinion ...

your right let me rephrase that...when i state my opinion is met with hostility and disrespect, hows that? Love your name by the way, but somehow I suspect its not true.

 

[shalom]

With the US Government taking that kind of a position, any company with a brain or a lawyer is going to prohibit smoking indoors...period. For maintenance people, and especially housekeeping personnel in the hospitality industry, the guest's room is their office. The prudent employer will not knowingly put their employees at risk.

Good point. I was thinking less of the guests and more of the company's need to clean the rooms and to have the most rooms available; hadn't considered the health of the employees, though.

I do think second hand smoke is a legitimate concern, especially with young ones (hubby's family offers a couple examples). Whether second hand smoke is a big deal with non-smoking adults who're in the room long after the smoker is gone, I dunno, but the nonsmoking rule does make for a more pleasant work space. The smoking outside rule with the ash trays on the balcony does seem to work pretty well the places I've been that had it, although we are definitely in the group that closes off the unit when a neighbor makes use of that right.

I suppose Disney can't make use of that rule because not even all the Deluxe units have balconies, and obviously it wouldn't work with the Values or Moderates.

 

[JimMIA]

Good point. I was thinking less of the guests and more of the company's need to clean the rooms and to have the most rooms available; hadn't considered the health of the employees, though.

There is another legal consideration as well -- Florida's pretty stringent Clean Indoor Air Act. With few exceptions, the law outlaws smoking indoors except in private homes.

In public places, the two main exceptions are bars with only a small percentage of their revenue from food sales, and hotels, timeshares, etc. For the hosipitality industry, the law says no smoking indoors but allows each property the option of designating smoking rooms. In other words, the properties are allowed to create their own exception to the law if they choose.

When the law was first passed, many Florida hospitality properties did just that -- established smoking-optional rooms as a legal exception to the general law. That was a cautious approach, complying with the letter of the law with the intent to try to accommodate guests wishes. Disney was one of the companies which took that initial approach; this happened before we bought Wyndham points, so I don't know what Wyndham's approach was.

Over time, Disney followed the lead of many other hospitality companies by tightening their restrictions to where they are now. My personal opinion is that their tightening was in response to two factors:

1. Complaints from guests in a business environment where other companies had adopted much more stringent rules than Disney, with no loss of competitive advantage. That tightening by competitors offered an advantage for many potential Disney guests, and undoubtedly caused them to stay elsewhere.
2. Increasing liability exposure because they were lagging behind competitors. When everyone was on the same page, nobody could complain successfully as long as Disney was within the law...which they clearly were. However, when the business environment changed, I'm sure Disney's very astute lawyers realized that they could be asked to explain why Disney made a business decision to stick with a permissive posture which exposed employees and guests to hazards. That's not a debate lawyers want to have in a liability lawsuit.

Disney was WAY late to the party, but in the end, of course, they adopted a MUCH more stringent policy than required by the law -- not only prohibiting smoking indoors, but also on patios/balconies and even in open public places like theme parks where smoking is clearly still legal, but objectionable to many guests.

 

[Brian Noble]

this happened before we bought Wyndham points, so I don't know what Wyndham's approach was.

There wasn't really a specific, company-wide policy for quite some time---and, as far as I know there may still not be. Wyndham's resort portfolio is something of a patchwork of resorts that existed prior to the point system, resorts purchased (or integrated into the system via WAAM) from other developers, and purpose-built properties. So, many resorts brought their own independent take on the matter. Over time, resorts have gone to "non-smoking optional" (you can't smoke, but we don't have a punishment mechanism if you do) to no smoking at all---in other words, with a room recovery fee for enforcement. I don't even know that there is a consistent approach to balconies.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

There wasn't really a specific, company-wide policy for quite some time---and, as far as I know there may still not be. Wyndham's resort portfolio is something of a patchwork of resorts that existed prior to the point system, resorts purchased (or integrated into the system via WAAM) from other developers, and purpose-built properties. So, many resorts brought their own independent take on the matter. Over time, resorts have gone to "non-smoking optional" (you can't smoke, but we don't have a punishment mechanism if you do) to no smoking at all---in other words, with a room recovery fee for enforcement.

I don't even know that there is a consistent approach to balconies.

probably not, its a no win situation, I think what they have in place now is gonna work best...we're just gonna hafta deal with it and be happy we have a place to smoke at all.

 

[blitzkrieg048]

There wasn't really a specific, company-wide policy for quite some time---and, as far as I know there may still not be. Wyndham's resort portfolio is something of a patchwork of resorts that existed prior to the point system, resorts purchased (or integrated into the system via WAAM) from other developers, and purpose-built properties. So, many resorts brought their own independent take on the matter. Over time, resorts have gone to "non-smoking optional" (you can't smoke, but we don't have a punishment mechanism if you do) to no smoking at all---in other words, with a room recovery fee for enforcement. I don't even know that there is a consistent approach to balconies.

There is another legal consideration as well -- Florida's pretty stringent Clean Indoor Air Act. With few exceptions, the law outlaws smoking indoors except in private homes.

In public places, the two main exceptions are bars with only a small percentage of their revenue from food sales, and hotels, timeshares, etc. For the hosipitality industry, the law says no smoking indoors but allows each property the option of designating smoking rooms. In other words, the properties are allowed to create their own exception to the law if they choose.

When the law was first passed, many Florida hospitality properties did just that -- established smoking-optional rooms as a legal exception to the general law. That was a cautious approach, complying with the letter of the law with the intent to try to accommodate guests wishes. Disney was one of the companies which took that initial approach; this happened before we bought Wyndham points, so I don't know what Wyndham's approach was.

Over time, Disney followed the lead of many other hospitality companies by tightening their restrictions to where they are now. My personal opinion is that their tightening was in response to two factors:

1. Complaints from guests in a business environment where other companies had adopted much more stringent rules than Disney, with no loss of competitive advantage. That tightening by competitors offered an advantage for many potential Disney guests, and undoubtedly caused them to stay elsewhere.
2. Increasing liability exposure because they were lagging behind competitors. When everyone was on the same page, nobody could complain successfully as long as Disney was within the law...which they clearly were. However, when the business environment changed, I'm sure Disney's very astute lawyers realized that they could be asked to explain why Disney made a business decision to stick with a permissive posture which exposed employees and guests to hazards. That's not a debate lawyers want to have in a liability lawsuit.

Disney was WAY late to the party, but in the end, of course, they adopted a MUCH more stringent policy than required by the law -- not only prohibiting smoking indoors, but also on patios/balconies and even in open public places like theme parks where smoking is clearly still legal, but objectionable to many guests.

i'll buy that but lean more toward the first reason of complain by guests