All disney resorts now smoke free.

You guys (Rob & Tyler) almost had me there. So, I called my wife (for real). Here's the answer as to why the guest already there trumps the guest coming in:

No-Shows

No-Shows are people who make reservations but never show. Sounds silly, but it happens quite regularly.

For instance, my wife's hotel is 128 rooms and they generally are set-up to book 6 to 12 rooms more than that depending on multiple factors. (which is HUGE if you think about it - that's almost 10% oversell on some nights)

Nine times out of ten they're fine - meaning that they have 128 or less rooms show up. That 10th time they may have to walk people.

"So what is the point of reservations?", I hear you anxiously waiting to proclaim.

Well, it goes back to what Rob brought up in the 'cutting hours' thread - a fixed number of 'product' to sell that goes lost if no one uses it. The hotel obviously wants to maximize this and does their best to do so - even at the potential expense of the guest. (Yes, all hotels operate this way)

My wife's exact words when I posed the question:

"Because the guest in-house is guaranteed money. The guest with a reservation isn't."

The guest with a reservation is also guaranteed no money next time too if his reservation get cancelled this time and that guest happens to be me.

---

The guest with a reservation is also guaranteed no money next time too if his reservation get cancelled this time and that guest happens to be me.

---

But is it the hotel's fault that they're forced to work that way because people can't be courteous enough to honor their reservation? (see, there's always an 'other side' to it)

Seriously, where do you put the blame? In the hotel for not honoring made reservations or in the guest for doing the same?

It's not the guest's fault and it's not the hotel's - something has to give and it gives in the direction of the money. (it is a business after all)

And even if you do feel that way still, (and this is the part that I always fall back to, that no one seems to get) - that's fine. The best the hotel can do is play the odds. You're pissed and won't come back, but there's 128 other rooms full of people that are happy. 128-to-1 to ensure that revenue is maximized is a no-brainer. Plus, everyone who doesn't get their requested room or gets walked won't be lost as a customer. Many people take it in stride.

Not to mention all the other hotels in the area are working on the same principals. So they (in theory) just exchange pissed off guests. ;)

Just like all the amusement park discussion we have it comes down to - if it didn't pay off, they wouldn't do it that way.

*** Edited 5/2/2007 7:13:09 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

But hold on a minute here. Hotels normally require a credit card when you reserve a room, and unless you cancel before a certain time, you will be charged for being a no-show. Doesn't that mean that the hotel assumes no risk because they're getting your money for the room whether you're there or not?

I don't blame a hotel for doing what it takes to sell every room, every single day. If I were a hotel owner, I'd certainly want to do the same. But as a customer that plays by the rules and makes his reservations, I can't help but be pissed if I'm suddenly turned away from a room that I thought I had, and the fact that the hotel is just covering its ass isn't going to matter at all to me while I'm driving around late at night looking for another place to stay!

---

But hold on a minute here. Hotels normally require a credit card when you reserve a room, and unless you cancel before a certain time, you will be charged for being a no-show.

---

Yup.

Do you know how easy it is to call your CC company and have that charge removed?

The general hotel going public does . ;)

---

...and the fact that the hotel is just covering its ass isn't going to matter at all to me while I'm driving around late at night looking for another place to stay!

---

You shouldn't be. Again, I suppose all hotels make their own choices, but it's my understanding that the hotel will pay for a room at a neighboring hotel.

In fact, all the hotels in the area should have negaotiated rates with each other for just such occasions.

If you walk into my wife's hotel and she doesn't have a room for you, you'll be staying at a neighboring hotel for free.

*** Edited 5/2/2007 7:21:39 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

Thanks for the explanation Gonch. It would suck if it happened to me but I understand why it's done.

I've never been turned away from a hotel because it was oversold so I didn't know that was how it works, so thanks for filling me in. That's comforting to know that those types of situations are planned for ahead of time.

So what happens if a credit card is charged but the person never shows up? Is there a point that the room could be sold to someone else, thus allowing the hotel to make twice as much money on that particular room?

Sure, that can happen and it's another of the many reasons your room may not be what you expected or not there at all.

Again, it's a judgement call. At what point do you assume a guest is a no-show and give the room to a walk-in? It's another of those things in business that's 'art' and not science.

(Although I believe any good artist can break what he does down to a science. :) )

But yeah, if it's 1am and that reservation hasn't shown and someone walks in and you give the walk-in the room and the orginal reservation never does show - you charge their card. Assuming they don't fight the charge, then the hotel successfully double booked the room.

You wouldn't believe how happy the companies running the hotels get when you sell 130 rooms at a 128 room property. :) (another reason that overbooking can pay off)

To try to keep this kind of on topic, hopefully info like this lends a little insight to some of the choices the parks make that don't seem to make sense. This is the same idea.

"What good is a reservation if it doesn't guarantee anything?" seems like a perfectly valid question - and one I even had to look for help in answering, but even just scraping the surface like we did here, it starts to make sense...or at least help us understand why things are done the way they are.

I think the park thing is often the same way. We have no idea what goes on. We like to think we do, but we don't. The people making these decisions aren't clueless - much thought and consideration on multiple levels are put into it and they play the odds.

It's not like the simple 'retail plan' we all know as kids with a lemonade stand.

I guess it depends on what kind of property it is. A hotel on the shore probably knows by 8:00 in the evening that someone isn't coming, but a hotel by an airport would be wise to hold that room until 3:00 in the morning because of the nature of air travel. Like you said, it's part art and part science ;)

I'll pretty much agree with you on everything you said about hotels so to keep myself from feeling too dirty, I have to disagree when it comes to amusement parks. Unlike hotels that have a number of rooms to be sold in one night, amusement parks can pretty much absorb as many guests as they can (Disneyland seems to be the occasional exception, as I hear that park sometimes reaches capacity around certain holidays and guests have to be turned away). Why wouldn't an amusement park want to find a balance between making the most money it can from each guest (the Gonch/Jaime business plan) and getting as many guests as possible inside the gates? Seems to me it makes sense to want it all, not just the people that don't flinch when you tell them a VIP ticket costs $250.

---

Why wouldn't an amusement park want to find a balance between making the most money it can from each guest (the Gonch/Jaime business plan) and getting as many guests as possible inside the gates?

---

But that's what I've been arguing that they ARE doing all along - finding the point where they can get the most people at the highest prices.

Hell, that's my point in all of these pricing discussions - raising the price and losing customers can actually pay off better. I know you know this, but I'm going to run through the theoretic example again for the sake of my argument:

1000 customers at $10. We're making $10,000!

But what if we just raised the price to $15? Ohh we lost 25% of our customer base but we're still ahead. (750 x $15 = $11250)

Hmmm, can we raise it more? Let's go to $20.

Man we lost another 30% of our remaining customers. That didn't pay off. (525 x 20 = $10,500)

Which made the most sense? In scenario one they left money on the table. In scenario three they turned too many people off with the pricing. Clearly the right answer is the second scenario and then you fine tune from there.

Finding the optimal balance between margin and volume has been my defense all along.

---

Seems to me it makes sense to want it all, not just the people that don't flinch when you tell them a VIP ticket costs $250.

---

But perhaps the number of people who don't flinch pays off better than not offering the option at all?

That's the credit I'm giving these parks. I think they ARE finding the balance - and that means VIP programs, reduced hours, virtual queue systems, price increase and the such pay off better than no upgrades, serving the largest base for the least amount and longer hours.

*** Edited 5/2/2007 9:46:43 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

---

Gone off the deep end? It doesn't help that the original post gave incorrect information.

---

Sure, but that doesn't mean that you have to believe it.

---

Jeff said:
No one has a right to smoke on private property.

---

Really? Not even the owner of said private property?

I realize it doesn't apply to what the park is doing, but it's happening with increasing regularity all over the country. Bar owners all over are being told that not even they can smoke in their establishment, how long until they can't smoke in their house?

Sooner or later the thing they regulate WILL be something you care about.

A few years back I heard about a law that would prohibit people from smoking in their own houses a certain number of days before a deliveryman/repairman was scheduled to visit. Now that is taking things a bit too far.

I think if we're getting rid of all smokers, we should go after fat people next. I hate fat people. They smell bad, eat up all our food (which increases demand, which increases prices, which is bad for all of us), and tend to have a snotty attitude towards me, the smoker, as if I'm the only person with a disgusting, self-destructive habit.

If fatties aren't next then all this anti-smoking stuff is unfair.

Huh?

I can't speak for fat people but I don't know of many that look down on smokers... at least not any more that "non-fat" people look down on smokers. And in the defense of fat people, they don't do much to make life miserable for other people, aside from maybe taking up too much room on a park bench or a seat on the train. As for smokers, the clouds of brown smoke they create cause people to cough, choke and gag while leaving their hair and clothes refreshed with the smell of nicotine.

I'm not anti-smoker but it can't be denied that the smoking habit negatively affects non-smokers.

^Im sorry I must have missed where obese people by eating more cause the same bad effects to happen to those around them.

Seriously why is there always people who try to shift the arguement. This "anti-smoking stuff" is not a crusade against you personally, or any other smoker out there. It is not up to me nor anyone else to stop you from slowly poisioning yourself. The problem with public smoking is that you endanger those around you.

If you dont want to go outside your room to get your nicotine fix there are a bunch of other methods to get it including the patch, gum, chewing tobacco, etc.

You're right, this isn't a crusade against smokers, but... why is it that smokers seem to expect special treatment? I have worked numerous jobs and the smokers always expect cigarette breaks every hour or two, as if it's something they're entitled to because they have an addiction. Alcoholics don't take shot breaks and overweight people don't run to McDonalds every hour, so why are smokers more or less allowed to take all the time they want to smoke their cigarettes?

I heard about this on the radio this morning. Apparently the penalty for violating the rule is a $500 cleaning fee.

On the contrary Rob, it *is* a crusade against smokers/smoking. Even though I am a former smoker who now constantly pressures (encourages ;)) his friends/family to quit, I hate this whole "militant non-smoker" thing. Waaa! Your smoke is killing me. Waaa! This room smells funny. Waa! Waaa! Waaa! It gets on my freaking nerves.

I dont doubt that some ppl get affected by smoke (I have many friends/famil with asthma). However, far more people (self included) are affected by pollen from all this beautiful landscaping around. This time of year is miserable for folks like us, but there is no movement to get ppl to ban flowers, oak trees, and cheey blossoms!

Most smokers that I know, dont want special treatment. Most just want breaks just like other ppl want coffee breaks. What they are pissed off about is that things that they've grown accustomed to doing: having a smoke out on a balcony, a smoke wit dinner, a smoke in a park, are being removed from them with almost reckless abandon. I havent seen a large smoker contingent that is asking to smoke in Intensive Care (unless they're the patient :)), in a pre-school, or in a commercial kitchen. They just hate that their smoking spaces are shrinking rapidly.

Ummm, pollen? Take a pill.

See....everyone that disagrees with this trys to shift the argument. Happens every time.

Coffee break?

At no place that I have ever worked, has there been a coffee break. Everyone just drank coffee at there desk, not take a 10-15 min break several times a day like smokers do.

People are crying about smokers because "gasp" They actually care about themselfs and what they and there children breath in.

2Hostyl said " I hate this whole "militant non-smoker" thing. Waaa! Your smoke is killing me. Waaa! This room smells funny. Waa! Waaa! Waaa! It gets on my freaking nerves. "

Maybe you feel that way because the majority of people are against smoking. And what part of all that complaining that you say people are doing is not true?