any experience at Wilderness Camp at Disney???

[luvmydogs]

Hello all, curious if anyone has every camped in the Wilderness campground with pets?? Dogs or Cats?? In trying to get info about how much they want to screw me for on top of there already ridiculous rates, I'm told I pay 5.00 a night extra for each dog each night and told that I cannot have a cat. A cat that stays IN my rv and does not come out. Just curious if anyone has every been with with cats before. Right now I'm going to tell them where they can stick there campground, but wanted to see if anyone else has had a problem with this.

[Lantley]

Hey Pirate I got your point even if others did not understand your sarcasm!

[Pirate1]

LarryJM wrote:

Pirate wrote:
I am happy to see so many people that would prefer to stay elsewhere.

WOW talk about misreading what has been posted ... 15 positives and 4 negatives out of 30 responses thus far is IMO hardly "so many people":S:E

Our typical stay there for the last 10 years has been is 40 to 70 days once a year!!! Before that it was generally 2 to 4 weeks. This year will be our 21th in the last 33 years and our total nights at FW just over 650.

Larry

My hard to decipher point I was trying to make was more people away from Disney, makes it easier for people like me to get in to the Fort. Stay away I say, it is horrible and overpriced. You won't enjoy it at all (as I take a short walk from my camp site to the boat launch for a quick 10 minute trip back to MK after a nap).

[Pirate1]

I would actually like to see them expand the fort. Lots of undeveloped land around the lake.

[Lantley]

I hear you guys making the ROI argument. But does Disney need another hotel? FW gives disney a unique CG that attracts a different type of traveler.
I love the Fort. But I have no desire to stay at the Grand Floridian or any other resort hotel. Diversity becomes part of the game and the attraction.
One of the reasons I don't even consider Universal is they do not have an on site CG.
Sure Disney could close the Fort,as the will always be room for a better mousetrap. On the other hand if it isn't broke don't fix it.

[soren]

Interesting but I can't imagine FW is losing money at those rates.

There is a good chance that this property is one of the most profitable RV resorts in N.A. To a global corporate titan,like Disney, that is may not be a particularly relevant metric. The issue is "lost opportunity cost". As in, if this property was bulldozed, what could this patch of dirt be doing for the bottom line?

No different than being the landlord of a small, paid off, multi-unit apartment rental. It's zoned commercial and located on the main street of a small town. Not a particularly desirable building, and your tenants aren't cream of the crop either, since better tenants want nicer places to live. It's putting a grand or two in your pocket on a good month. Sadly, When a sewer pipe breaks, or the roof is shot, it many be costing you money for a while. You had a vulture investor offer you $250K in cash for it the other day.

OTOH, if you borrow $300K from your bank, demo the old apartment building, and put a new car wash up, you are in a whole other game. Your monthly take doubled, the place is new and reasonably trouble free, and it's worth $850K as a profitable business. By keeping the apartments, you are missing the opportunity to double your income, and/or sell it as a highly profitable car wash and put an additional $350K in your pocket.

Doesn't matter if you are playing with a few hundred thousand, or are the biggest mega-corp in the business, the concept is the same. As a decades long guest, I'm pretty safe in guessing that Fort Wilderness is not the "highest and best use" of their prime waterfront.

[dodge_guy]

FW is over hyped. I wasn’t impressed.

Cedar Point in OH impressed me more. Maybe because it’s on a smaller scale? Either way I don’t think I would go back to the Fort.

[nancyjerry]

Good point on the campground ROI. Disney will find a way to capitalize on anything it can, so I could see this being 'on the table' ?
Disney has just started charging $20 a day for you to PARK at your hotel!! This is. It an issue of not enough space, just another source of $$.
For as much as I do not like Disney because of its rates, it does it completely right and am hard pressed to find fault in their parks operations.

[dedmiston]

Lantley wrote:
Interesting but I can't imagine FW is losing money at those rates.

With many large corporations like this one, the business itself can be profitable on its own, but the company has a whole level of charge-backs that go into the business's P&L, like Legal, Finance, HR, Admin, rent, etc. These charges move the target and redefine profitability. I've heard similar group's leadership say, "oh yeah, we were definitely making money, but not after Corporate adds all their charges."

I don't know any of the particulars for this park though.

[LarryJM]

Lantley wrote:

soren wrote:

suprz wrote:
Too expensive, does NOT live up to the hype

Disney runs perhaps the most successful entertainment enterprise on the planet. They own what is regarded as one of the best RV parks in North America. It is 100% full, for much of the year. For ever potential client with your attitude, there are several that are disappointed that they failed to even get in. The fact that anybody is not impressed with Fort Wilderness, is of little concern to them.

The average family of four now spends $7500 for a five day Disney vacation. Obviously, that figure would cause many here to faint, as many are tighter than a frog's butt, and have moths flying out of their wallets when they get cracked open, every few months.

Here on the forum there is a long history of those that bitterly whine that FW is a "rip-off" since it's fifty bucks more that the local KOA. The same people who drop over $100 per person a day,for park tickets, are horrified that a high end RV resort on the property isn't as cheap as the one ten miles away in Kissimmee. (in one of the highest crime cities, in one of the highest crime states, BTW) Having been a loyal customer at FW for the last two decades, I occasionally wonder when Disney leadership is going to pull the plug on the whole place. It's located on prime property, and I doubt it generates the return of other high end lodging located on the lake. It's a valid concern, with the long abandoned water park, immediately adjacent, being replaced with a huge timeshare facility. I can see the day when some executive asks, " If Fort wilderness brings such a poor ROI, and our internal data shows that our camping guests spend much less on their vacation experience as those who stay in our high end properties, why are we wasting prime property on them?"

Interesting but I can't imagine FW is losing money at those rates.

It's not that they are "LOSING $$" but that their ROI is probably down in the fraction of what their other resorts located as close to the MK are making. It wouldn't surprise me that FW is down in the 25% to 50% ROI as compared to it's closest resort the Wilderness Lodge.

Larry

[Lantley]

soren wrote:

suprz wrote:
Too expensive, does NOT live up to the hype

Disney runs perhaps the most successful entertainment enterprise on the planet. They own what is regarded as one of the best RV parks in North America. It is 100% full, for much of the year. For ever potential client with your attitude, there are several that are disappointed that they failed to even get in. The fact that anybody is not impressed with Fort Wilderness, is of little concern to them.

The average family of four now spends $7500 for a five day Disney vacation. Obviously, that figure would cause many here to faint, as many are tighter than a frog's butt, and have moths flying out of their wallets when they get cracked open, every few months.

Here on the forum there is a long history of those that bitterly whine that FW is a "rip-off" since it's fifty bucks more that the local KOA. The same people who drop over $100 per person a day,for park tickets, are horrified that a high end RV resort on the property isn't as cheap as the one ten miles away in Kissimmee. (in one of the highest crime cities, in one of the highest crime states, BTW) Having been a loyal customer at FW for the last two decades, I occasionally wonder when Disney leadership is going to pull the plug on the whole place. It's located on prime property, and I doubt it generates the return of other high end lodging located on the lake. It's a valid concern, with the long abandoned water park, immediately adjacent, being replaced with a huge timeshare facility. I can see the day when some executive asks, " If Fort wilderness brings such a poor ROI, and our internal data shows that our camping guests spend much less on their vacation experience as those who stay in our high end properties, why are we wasting prime property on them?"

Interesting but I can't imagine FW is losing money at those rates.

[soren]

suprz wrote:
Too expensive, does NOT live up to the hype

Disney runs perhaps the most successful entertainment enterprise on the planet. They own what is regarded as one of the best RV parks in North America. It is 100% full, for much of the year. For ever potential client with your attitude, there are several that are disappointed that they failed to even get in. The fact that anybody is not impressed with Fort Wilderness, is of little concern to them.

The average family of four now spends $7500 for a five day Disney vacation. Obviously, that figure would cause many here to faint, as many are tighter than a frog's butt, and have moths flying out of their wallets when they get cracked open, every few months.

Here on the forum there is a long history of those that bitterly whine that FW is a "rip-off" since it's fifty bucks more that the local KOA. The same people who drop over $100 per person a day,for park tickets, are horrified that a high end RV resort on the property isn't as cheap as the one ten miles away in Kissimmee. (in one of the highest crime cities, in one of the highest crime states, BTW) Having been a loyal customer at FW for the last two decades, I occasionally wonder when Disney leadership is going to pull the plug on the whole place. It's located on prime property, and I doubt it generates the return of other high end lodging located on the lake. It's a valid concern, with the long abandoned water park, immediately adjacent, being replaced with a huge timeshare facility. I can see the day when some executive asks, " If Fort wilderness brings such a poor ROI, and our internal data shows that our camping guests spend much less on their vacation experience as those who stay in our high end properties, why are we wasting prime property on them?"

[LarryJM]

Pirate wrote:
I am happy to see so many people that would prefer to stay elsewhere.

WOW talk about misreading what has been posted ... 15 positives and 4 negatives out of 30 responses thus far is IMO hardly "so many people":S:E

Our typical stay there for the last 10 years has been is 40 to 70 days once a year!!! Before that it was generally 2 to 4 weeks. This year will be our 21th in the last 33 years and our total nights at FW just over 650.

Larry

[Pirate1]

I am happy to see so many people that would prefer to stay elsewhere.

[isy450]

We love the park and will go back as much as possible. We were never charged for a pet,

[luvmydogs]

WAY to expensive. We did find a place that was 55.00 a night that was nicer, closer and cheaper than the 65.00 a night we spent at a koa. Wish I'd had found that place first. No extra charge for the dog to walk on there ground either. It was about 5-7 minutes from the gate. I doubt taking on site transportaion would have been so fast. But as one op said, to each his own. I'd rather save the money. And yes parking was 20.00 for the whole day, but you can leave and come back when you want.