MGM Resorts to start charging for LV Strip parking

Absolutely. People who go to LA, NYC, SF, Chicago, SD, and plenty of other cities aren't staying at their hotel for the duration. And honestly, $10/day is practically nothing compared to what I've seen in some of those cities for daily parking, in some instances without even including in/out privileges (I distinctly remember an LA hotel where they wanted $40/day for parking, and if you took your car out the timer started over). I'm definitely not defending this, because I think free parking is as much a part of Vegas as free drinks are, but this is not some crazy outlier.

 

I know a lot of people feel that when the CET parking garages fill up, CET will start with their own parking fees. What if, CET see a revenue jump from all the people going through their properties after parking there. When I park and bounce around the strip, I always start with the place I park at. Either I gamble there, or I eat there. I also doubt, it will be people staying at an Mlife hotel who will be parking at CET. Who wants to drag luggage through at least Two casinos and potentially across LVB? I am Really hoping that the crowd that stays off strip, but drives there to casino hops gives CET a nice revenue bump, and this backfires on MGM. Sadly... I doubt it.

I also heavily disagree with the folks that say, well most cities charge for parking so get over it. That doesn't make it right, good for customers, or good for business. I assume these are the same people who would be ok with their, bank, grocery store, or doctors office charging for parking too? I mean if everyone else does it, why not? Hell why not add it as a clause into the ACA to cover the costs of the non-insured. Great news!!! Now you can pay a $25 copay and $20 to park. HA HA HA.

Resort fees work because people will stay at a hotel based on the overall price. Will I pay a resort fee of $20 to stay at what I feel is a $20/night better hotel? Sure, but I certainly won't pay to park at a casino, that offers the same games at lower pay tables then other properties I can drive to. There is a difference. I don't know if it will be enough of one to stop this idea quickly.

Just my 2 cents.

 

I agree with your premise around xxx who wants to drag their luggage around but I think it's probably the people bitching about the $10 parking that would do it.. And if they don't have $10 for parking, they're probably not going to be lollygagging and gaming on their way through wherever does offer them free parking.

Regarding the excuse that it's normal to pay for parking, that may be the case but I'm not usually parking at a casino that will get much more money out of me.. Shopping mall or something fine.no might just be browsing. Casino, I go to gamble.

 

I've heard that it's not only self parking, but also valet that will have a fee.

 

I'm not saying folks are staying only in their hotels in these other cities. I'm saying travelers there don't leave one hotel, where they paid a fee, to another hotel, which charges them another fee, then again to another hotel, with yet another fee. Then back to their home hotel with a whole new fee. That only happens in Vegas. On average in Vegas I'll drive to 2-3 other hotels a day. With a car I rarely have to walk. And with this new plan all but the Wynn will charge me for parking(although I'm sure they'll fall in line, too). So I'll pay a parking fee with each stop, then again at the hotel where I'm staying. So it won't be $10 a day, but instead 3-4 times that(remember, too, a $10 fee at each stop would only be the opening price and sure to increase from there).

When I'm in San Fran or Chicago, etc., I rarely visit spots with required fees for parking. The hotel where I'm staying has that charge, but rarely anywhere else I visit during my stay will I pay some sort of parking fee in other major cities. There are no other major cities where visitors leave one hotel to visit 2-3 other hotels(with required parking fees) each day. Vegas is a whole other animal and can't be compared, imo.

 

I'll be shocked if there isn't some sort of validating of parking. Most tourist areas with resteraunts, shopping, etc offer parking validation.

Also this is to me like a bridge toll. They need to improv there parking lots. So they are passing this on to the consumer.

And lastly where is anyone visiting in SF and not paying to park?

 

Ha....I think the Fairmont in SF charges $70/day.

 

In Chicago, we still have hotels built in the horse and buggy era. They don't have enough parking and may not even have it on-site. Many newer hotels are in conversions from other business types. There isn't enough parking available for all the potential car traffic. Yes, parking is a profit center but the fees are about supply and demand. Also, you can visit Chicago, take the train downtown and also take a train to outlying neighborhoods or suburbs. You don't have to rely on expensive car rentals, car rentals or time consuming bus rides. You have more public transportation options.
Vegas on the other hand is built around the car. Many guests drive in and the ones who don't are long dissatisfied by the transportation options. In the coverage of all this, words like spoiled and entitled have been thrown out callously. I guess it's directed at locals but it's still a shitty way to speak to or about a potential customer. Even if you can come to accept the fee, I don't know how to accept the attitude of casino execs and county officials when it comes to us and our wallets.

 

Even though this doesn't affect me bc I don't rent cars I'll root for it to blow up in MGMs face

 

At Disney, you pay to park however once you pay that one part you are free to go to any of the other three parks and park on that same payment. You don't need to pay or start the clock again at each park. Hopefully they will at least use some of that logic and generate you a key card that you can insert at the next parking ramp which retains the hours left and recalculates when you exit how much additional is due if you go over. I also fear an overrun on CETs parking facilities.

 

CET will have to start charging to reduce all the MGM freeloaders from parking at CET properties and walking over to the MGM properties.

 

VegasTripping did an interesting expose on who profits from the profit growth plan, of which this parking thing is a part. Short version is that if certain targets are met, Murren personally gets an extra $4 million, and a cadre of other execs make lower amounts, totaling more than $10 million. Depending on their personal financial circumstances, I suppose it's possible that they would make this parking debacle and other decisions that will piss off most of their customers in pursuit of short-term revenue gains that will trigger these bonuses.

 

I can see Cosmo's parking garage getting hit up a lot, but almost all CET hotels are across the street from MGM properties. To walk from your room in a MGM hotel to a parking garage at a CET property would be like a 20-30 minute walk probably. I can see a few people doing this/trying it out, but to save $10 a day?

 

Overnight guests won't use another hotel but despite the lack of clarity, everyone who needs to park at an MGM hotel will pay some sort of fee. If someone is coming for dinner or a show, parking or valeting at PH or Paris would be easy. The monorail connects several hotels to MGM so I can see people using it to park farther away and ride in closer. No it's not free. Yes it would take a lot of time. But spite makes people do odd things. I hope other hotels that add fees are sensible and add steps to validate for hotel guests and actual customers.

 

It doesn't take much to send half the board into a tizzy... just ride the bus like the other half does and you'll be fine. 42 million visitors (a record) arrived in Las Vegas this past year, despite 6/5 BJ, resort-fees and even all the racket those pesky people out by the pool constantly make. Now I'm not silly enough to think Vegas veterans would be thrilled about yet another fee, just realistic enough to acknowledge the property's need to keep tweaking things in an effort to stay profitable. Maybe this is a "deal-breaker" bad move... I think not.

 

Look, any sane person thinks paying more for something tomorrow than he/she did today is a bad idea. That's just common sense, and practical. Now will it change behaviors ... I think not. Sure, some aggrieved party might swap MGM for another, but the bottom line is that they still have you, folks still are flocking to Vegas and even if a good-sized hunk of VMB folks now say never again, it won't impact Vegas.

Vegas simply has decided it is a destination spot like any other and it is monetizing accordingly. That might not be a good thing from the perspective of consumers, but it's only newsworthy since Vegas is so late to the game in this regard. All this stuff at play is standard fare in travel, and from the perspective of an ardent gambler, I'd say erosion on the casino floor and lessening comps is the more deleterious circumstance. Yet people still gamble and gamble and grumble but they don't stop gambling.

Again, lots of tree-of-liberty talk will result in nada. Vegas wins. Vegas always wins. And even if someone boldly walks away from MGM for another house, Vegas still wins.

I'm not in favor of paying more simply to pay more. I'm not advocating in favor of this stuff. Vegas ain't gonna wither and blow away, however.

 

I very much agree with this, although I can only relay my own end game in response to the nickle and dime onslaught. And that is, despite that I'll keep showing up at Vegas' doorstep, my gambling budget will always be dictated by the depth of my pocket. If I'm having to shell out an extra hundred or two for parking my gambling will only become a hundred or two lighter.

If it ever gets to the point that my bankroll becomes too small to enjoy the casino end of Vegas because its ancillary charges have nicked it to death, I'll probably lose some interest in visits to Vegas altogether. Can't say at all whether this is the kind of response they'll get out of other gamblers, but it's mine.

I would think, though, sometime in the future they'll reach the breaking point that they not only won't find enough entertainment junkies to capture the void of the gamblers dollars they are driving away, but they'll also eventually push aside enough of the gamblers to the point that Vegas won't look like a gambling mecca, but rather only a party town on steroids. And much of the appeal of the town would be lost for everyone simply because the bling of gambling won't be there. In other words despite that non-gamblers now come to Vegas in droves for other entertainment, I think they'll be less inclined to travel there without the aura of gambling and chance and risk all around them.

My opinion, anyway.

 

Even Hasbro has to revamp their Las Vegas version of Monopoly now... No Free Parking!!!

http://vitalvegas.com/hasbro-announces-las-vegas-monopoly-edition-will-no-longer-have-free-parking

 

We will see stories in the people being cheap thread lol

"Went to Vegas with a friend and we were staying at MGM. He decided to park at Hooters and lug all his shit to MGM to avoid the parking fee"

 

That's hilarious. I like how there's no delay in public mocking.