Why not expand?

[Napria]

So over the years I’ve seen some threads about this, but why doesn’t Disney expand the campground? I know it’s already pretty huge, and the with the most recent pricing structure change, splitting Premium into Premium and Meadows Premium, they’re making plenty of money, even with upgrading amenities by building a brand-spankin new Tri-Circle D ranch up near the front and adding a gold-mining attraction (or whatever the “sand washing” attraction is going to be), but c’mon, a little love for us, please? I just saw how much the new Reflections DVC and Resort is encroaching on Fort Wilderness. At first I was ok, thinking they were going to build the new Bay Lake restaurant where they’re taking the beach from us, but now it looks like it’s just parking and behind Bay Lake front villas

sorry for venting. I’m just really sad that they’re taking some of our beautiful wilderness away.

 

[Napria]

How about some “Ultra Premium” campsites that back up to Bay Lake instead?

 

[tiggerdad]

Campsites don't generate the revenue that DVC generates. Takes longer to pay off. Also, packing 10 folks per site at such a cheap per evening price also cuts into Disney profits. Typically 5 or more folks would lead to two rooms at another resort.

I would love to see it, but your question was why won't they. Simply put, it just doesn't make as much money.

 

[Napria]

Hi Tiggerdad. Thanks for the reply. Yes, it’s all about the bottom line. But, I paid $900/night last year at Grand Floridan. For that kind of $$ they had to maintain a building, wash linens, provide toiletries, etc. I’ll bet there are some who camp (Higher end class A, even some higher end Fifth Wheel people) who would pay substantially more for Bay Lake frontage. Heck, throw a little Tiki hut on the pad for good measure (like some of those high-end RV resorts). At least that would preserve the Fort. I’m a little concerned when they take some of it away.

 

[PaHunter]

Because Disney does not like campers.

As tiggerdad mentioned first you can have 10 people. But beyond that campers tend to be a little more money savvy. Campers tend to eat meals at their campsite, something hotel dwellers may not do, outside of included breakfast. Then you have campers and locals that use the Fort as just a campground and not as a "park hotel". They are not making much on those people. How many hotel people rent a hotel room just to sit in it ? Not many, yet campers will just relax at the Fort. Campers are also using electricity and not in an efficient manner, cooling campers is a lot different than cooling a hotel that has a system designed for it. Then you have some campers that feel the need to compete with the Osborne lights on a regular basis.
So bottom line is the is a myriad of reasons for Disney just to tolerate the campground as it was there on opening day, but no real good reason for them to expand it. After all there are 34 resorts on site, 28 owned by Disney. Compared to the campground which has 784 sites and 409 cabins. The Fort covers 750 acres vs say CBR which sits on 200 acres and has 1536 rooms.
The campground has only lost, never gained. After all it had it's own railroad, gone.
Sadly we get no love and probably will never see an expansion as the infrastructure cost would be huge and not worth the return on that investment.

 

[WeLovePluto]

Then you have campers and locals that use the Fort as just a campground and not as a "park hotel". They are not making much on those people. How many hotel people rent a hotel room just to sit in it ? Not many, yet campers will just relax at the Fort.

it’s that part that I wonder if they try to change at some point?? Would they require campers to have park tickets for x% of the days of their stay?

how much do they miss out on revenue Because people that want to camp and visit Disney just don’t make the trip because they aren’t aware that you need to book a year and a half out to get a campsite for many times throughout the year.

I thankfully get that now, so shouldn’t be an issue. but I also don’t see a way we’d do Disney without the fort anytime soon. In part because it’s a much cheaper way to do it, but also because of the convenience of it and The familiarity of our daughter on the spectrum with our camper.

 

[Breezy2]

How about some “Ultra Premium” campsites that back up to Bay Lake instead?

Unfortunately, Napria, I only see the campground getting smaller and more high end. As the prices of the campsites continue to go up and up it's obvious Disney is revealing their business plan. Sad, but I think the tent loops will become obsolete as they are a losing cost center. New emphasis will be on developing high end Class A only timeshare sites similar to what already exists in the "RV Resort" market. Disney is behind the curve on this trend. Once Relections is built out I wouldn't be surprised to see the focus switch to the campground. They will start looking at it as potential high end cash flow rather than a losing proposition. It will be a sad day for many of us.

 

[bigdisneydaddy]

Hard to believe that a campground charging $125 per night isnt producing enough profit but all the points made above are well made.

 

[Stratman50th]

Would they require campers to have park tickets for x% of the days of their stay?

I tired of the parks many years ago. There is nothing left I feel just has to be seen. I like Fort Wilderness as a destination of it's own. I like the environment, the settings of the loops. The jump off location for resort hopping and restaurants. If Disney required tickets to stay at the Fort, our days there would be over just as we ended the need to go to the parks.

New emphasis will be on developing high end Class A only timeshare sites similar to what already exists in the "RV Resort" market.

So I admit we would be the target for this, however I like the Fort for what it is, and the only incentive to "buy in" would be access to the parks, which as I stated above.... not interested. Another reason to buy in would be a fixed vacation location. We already live here so buying a lot wouldn't be necessary. Like you, we're close and a 30 minute drive makes for a nice staycation. Any negative changes would make it very easy for us to move on to the next adventure. Lot's to see in this country.

 

[Boopuff]

I will never understand the "10 person per site" that Disney allows. No other campground (that I'm aware of) allows this many people on site. Most campgrounds start charging per-head after 2 adults (kids free but charge per extra adult). Seems to me that a lot of revenue is lost on that alone.

 

[Uncledave54]

I will never understand the "10 person per site" that Disney allows. No other campground (that I'm aware of) allows this many people on site. Most campgrounds start charging per-head after 2 adults (kids free but charge per extra adult). Seems to me that a lot of revenue is lost on that alone.

Shhhhh, not so loud.
They might hear ya.

 

[bama_ed]

I tired of the parks many years ago. There is nothing left I feel just has to be seen. I like Fort Wilderness as a destination of it's own. I like the environment, the settings of the loops. The jump off location for resort hopping and restaurants. If Disney required tickets to stay at the Fort, our days there would be over just as we ended the need to go to the parks.

I've stayed out of this thread so far because I have agitated for expansion in the past and don't believe anything will come of it.

Why expand the campground when you can build another DVC? If the campground produced a profit per square foot greater than the resorts, a Fort expansion would have happened decades ago. DVC gets all your money back up front (as points are sold) rather than building a hotel and waiting for rented nights over the years to provide the payback.

As noted above, the tent loops could probably be reduced in number by converting 1500 to a Full-or-higher and leaving just 2000 (which is WAY over there) for the tents and popup entry level sites.

For decades the Fort and WDW were a family destination for a weeks stay that was one day's travel each way. Now that the kids are grown and I hope to retire someday, I look west longingly for a two-week trip (or longer) in retirement and will be less constrained to stay close to home.

Seriously I've done WDW often so I don't feel the need to get worked up about going again. I'm in for the DISMeet in October because of you all. I'm in for February 2021 because that will be DD's graduation present. And maybe one bucket list reason trip. Who knows after that? I don't feel the burning desire to spend thousands of $$$$ on a visit just because a new Star Wars ride opened. Or the anniversary of this-that.

They could do several things before they expand the Fort:

1. As mentioned above, require tickets to get a site/cabin
2. Limit stays to only 14 days withing a certain period of time (as some state parks do - hello Florida)
3. Make high demand seasons even more expensive (and the upcharge for weekend stays)

I don't worry about losing the Fort completely until they run out of lakefront property all the way around Bay Lake and Seven Seas Lagoon.

I've said expand across the road (Vista Blvd) in the direction of Epcot. But I'm done with that.

Bama Ed

 

[proudmomof4]

I had a conversation with a reservations CM a month or so ago. He was explaining to me that the Fort is hard to get into, blah, blah, blah, I knew that already. He went on to say that FW has the highest return rate of all resorts, which I also already knew. So, I threw it back at him, and said "well, since demand is so high, why don't they expand or build another campground?" He said he has also wondered that, and at a meeting a while back with some executives, they had a Q&A at the end and he brought up that very subject. He said their response was to shrug the whole suggestion off and skirt around the issue.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Campsites don't generate the revenue that DVC generates. Takes longer to pay off. Also, packing 10 folks per site at such a cheap per evening price also cuts into Disney profits. Typically 5 or more folks would lead to two rooms at another resort.

I would love to see it, but your question was why won't they. Simply put, it just doesn't make as much money.

Well why don't they change the 10 allowed at a campsite, most campsites I go to outside of WDW do not allow 10 people. Maybe if they were all your kids immediate family, I could see or make exception, but 10 is usually two families, relatives, friends, whatever all together. I don't get that and whenever there has been an issue there that was it for us.

 

[tiggerdad]

Well why don't they change the 10 allowed at a campsite, most campsites I go to outside of WDW do not allow 10 people. Maybe if they were all your kids immediate family, I could see or make exception, but 10 is usually two families, relatives, friends, whatever all together. I don't get that and whenever there has been an issue there that was it for us.

Look at sleeping capacity of some of the larger RVs. That is what the 10 person limit is based on. I don't disagree with you but you have to ask next question:

If not 10, then what number and why?

 

[WeLovePluto]

They’re probably fine with 10 because the amount of space you take up is the same whether you show up with 2 or 10. So the more people that are in that space the more money they make. If the 10 people on the site have park tickets, they went from making $100 that day to $1000 on that site

I mean, I guess that’s also true if they charge more for any # over x, as it would still be cheaper than multiple rooms on site.

 

[bigdisneydaddy]

If only it were actually 10 and enforced, we have been next to or behind sites that had as many as 15 people staying on the site.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Look at sleeping capacity of some of the larger RVs. That is what the 10 person limit is based on. I don't disagree with you but you have to ask next question:

If not 10, then what number and why?

Ten to an RV? which RVs do that? We all know if there are 10 people they have tents too not just in the RV at least most I have seen, and more than 1 car, I see that too. I don't know how many they should do but most campgrounds I go to limit the amount to 6. Especially now with Covid. But I do see if they are your own children, that should be the exception. Why not have 10 dogs too. Not against dogs we brings ours lol.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

They’re probably fine with 10 because the amount of space you take up is the same whether you show up with 2 or 10. So the more people that are in that space the more money they make. If the 10 people on the site have park tickets, they went from making $100 that day to $1000 on that site

I mean, I guess that’s also true if they charge more for any # over x, as it would still be cheaper than multiple rooms on site.

That's not true that the same amount of space. Ten people you have multiple cars also. You encroach on your neighbors property, space, loudness affects your neighbors. Like I said if you have a large amount of your own children that is different.

 

[Boopuff]

No rv I’ve seen can sleep ten the most I’ve run across is 8 but that’s if you use the dinette to sleep 2, main bedroom again 2 , sofa bed 2, possibly bunks 2. That’s 8 (uncomfortably) but again 10 on a site leads to extra cars clogging already narrow roads.