WDW to prevent AP holders from visiting parks many mornings

[New Mouse]

I think there are some major differences between Disney World and Disneyland at play here:
3. There was practically a culture of APs making nearly nightly pilgrimages to the park to experience said entertainment. They would camp out in viewing areas with blankets and provisions, blocking walkways and purchasing nothing. Some families used to send a family member in advance to hold spots literally all day long. Every. Single. Day.

This here is a self created issue by the billionaire ceos of the world. If it didn't cost over $100 for a family of 4 to get a McDonald's quality meal in the park, less people would feel the need to buy nothing and bring everything.

If $1 Mickey ears didn't cost $25 people would buy something every trip.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So, if you get 5 park reservations outside an onsite stay, you can now get an additional x number of visits that start later.

I may have missed it so you think this will be like a "bonus" reservation that doesn't count towards their reservation limit associated with their level of AP?

I'm not sure how that helps out Disney in dispersing the crowds because wouldn't an AP holder who primarily goes in the evenings after work just do those reservations and save their other ones for later? Wouldn't that just make it easier for APs to take up space in the parks?

Unless you're thinking these park opening, noon and 5pm reservation slots would be on a block-out schedule that only works for certain days rather than available whenever? If the goal is to fill in available space in the parks not reserved by other ticket media the only way I can think of doing that is by tailoring a park opening, noon or 5pm park reservation only for those specific days reflecting gaps

 

[Marionnette]

I agree Disney will do what is best for them which is why I see this potential way to address the issues with the lawsuit in a way that allows them to still prioritize day guests.

It could be good for APs in the sense that they are getting to reserve spots.

In reality it isn’t anything more than hopping but just guaranteed access to that option…even though hopping has never been an issue.

I'm not understanding how this potentially mitigates the issues that were brought forth in the lawsuit. The crux of the lawsuit is that Disney basically throttled AP holders. They capped AP admission to the parks when they had not reached capacity while continuing to sell day tickets to other, more profitable guests up to and including the very day of admission.

So how does this proposed idea change the point of the lawsuit? If I have an AP but can't get a morning park reservation for the MK while Disney allows regular guests to purchase park tickets and to make park reservations, isn't that still effectively throttling me? Simply "allowing" me to enter at noon (for the hottest hours of the day) or after 5 (when the park only has as little as 1 hour until closing) is not a substitute for a full day's admission to the park.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not understanding how this potentially mitigates the issues that were brought forth in the lawsuit. The crux of the lawsuit is that Disney basically throttled AP holders. They capped AP admission to the parks when they had not reached capacity while continuing to sell day tickets to other, more profitable guests up to and including the very day of admission.

So how does this proposed idea change the point of the lawsuit? If I have an AP but can't get a morning park reservation for the MK while Disney allows regular guests to purchase park tickets and to make park reservations, isn't that still effectively throttling me? Simply "allowing" me to enter at noon (for the hottest hours of the day) or after 5 (when the park only has as little as 1 hour until closing) is not a substitute for a full day's admission to the park.

Because they basically won’t need to ever block an AP holder from a day because they will always have the option to enter one of the parks, even if not in the morning. So you can get in.

And that means no day is blocked out except published days, which is the crux of the lawsuit. They couldn’t enter. Now they can..and I am sure the terms will be updated to account for this if it goes into effect. You get to enter each day, subject to availability at open, noon or 5 pm.

Multi day ticket holders won’t have this option is they will have to rely on park hopping for going someplace if they can’t get in.

So I do see it being a way forward that allows both things ti happen.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[DCLMP]

They wouldn't be offering evening only reservations if they didn't plan on making them available on days where you otherwise wouldn't have been able to visit in the morning.

I suppose one could argue that this is Disney taking away mornings with no upside. But there have been days that I couldn't get reservations for the park I truly wanted to visit and maybe an evening reservation would have been an option.

I'm hopeful that Disney is going to make more evenings available to passholders than they otherwise would have been able to get. I guess we'll all have to wait and see how this plays out. But, again, this is not something that would likely be at all helpful for Disneyland for the reasons I mentioned, and perhaps not for Magic Kingdom, either, for the same reasons? We'll see.

I haven’t an annual pass since 2018.. back when they actually valued their annual pass holders.

 

[Sandisw]

You are assuming that if they do afternoon entry that that will bypass the issues of the lawsuit. I understand your point and the argument will sound logical to many. Unfortunately only partial day blockouts while allowing afternoon entries will not avoid the issues in the lawsuit. Breach of contract, deceptive business practices or other legal causes of action can include a partial day block-out.

I didn’t say anything in regards to it bypassing the lawsuit. I said it could be in response to the fact that is happening. Those those passes were sold with certain terms.

I think this could be a move forward that would prevent future issues in having APs, and the park reservation system that allows them to do what they want. New APs would come with these new rules.

So this type of program would come about because of the lawsuit.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[tjkraz]

If there's any truth to this after-5 admission, my guess is that they'll change the Pixie Dust pass to be all (or mostly) after 5pm entry. Or create a similar pass that is after-5 only. That accomplishes two things:

1) You're not counting locals arriving in the evening as part of the normal full-day Park Pass capacity limits

2) For people who do want full day admission, you're bumping them up to a more expensive pass

When we currently see "slow" days where a park is listed as being at capacity, I'd speculate that there is a greater percentage of locals registered who arrive later in the day, stay for short periods or just decide not to come. Identifying those people as after-5 admissions would create more capacity for the full day guests.

That does put Disney in the position of having to monitor park capacity at multiple check points (early morning and after 5pm). So maybe that's where the "need a Park Pass to hop" aspect comes into play. Rules can get convoluted fast so I'm not sure the lengths Disney will go.

 

[Sandisw]

Oh, I am reading your comment a different way now. At first I thought a partial day would be offered when APs were not given an opportunity to reserve a whole day (blocked from reserving the day because Disney was prioritizing ticketed or resort guests for the whole day spaces. But, if you are suggesting it is a separate tier of AP; like the Epcot after 4, then it would work just fine. But if the AP bucket is empty except for the afternoon hours while they are still offering whole day entry to the ticketed and resort guests, then it would not fly.
Also, if the AP bucket had whole day spaces available and also offered afternoon entry -- like additional holds -- that might work too.

It could be a new tier or it could be that the incredi pass..or a new name for it.. is no longer an unlimited pass for every day entering each time in the morning.

So, terms and conditions are updated that there is no longer an AP that guarantees you park entry from open to close and that your unlimited days are defined as full or partial.

But this is such a wild rumor that we are all just guessing.

My point was more that if it’s between no APs and modified APs this is a good idea. Nothing requires them to offer an AP that is valid every day from open to close, as long as they are clear in what it involves.

If you want an AP, then you buy under the terms that you could end up being restricted to partial days. Then no one can claim anything if multi ticket bucket is still open as long as the partial bucket is open.
Basically there are full block out days and the rest could end up as potential partial block out days, subject to availability
Again, not related to the lawsuit but for new APs

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[dzorn]

Or a class action suit lol

I believe there is already a class action for Disneyland.

 

[Sandisw]

I guess we will have to disagree. Although the California lawsuit just happens to be suing over the highest tier (no block-out dates) the same legal causes of action could also apply to ALL tiers of passes.
Any DAY that Disney has zero availability for the AP bucket for any particular park AND they are still selling ticketed guests spots for the same park, that is an actionable violation. IF a PIXIE pass is blocked out on the block-out date calendar -- so be it. That is what they agreed to. BUT, if the same PIXIE cannot go because they cannot get a reservation and that same day and park are still available to new ticket sales -- that is a problem. So, the argument that if they just got rid of Dream Keys or Incredi-passes they would be alright is not correct. Sorry.

Only if the terms and conditions did not tell you that is how it works. That is the whole point.

They can make APs that are not blocked out but limited in use. If someone doesn’t like that then they don’t buy.

So I don’t agree an AP has to be all or nothing. I do agree that whatever rules they have must be clear so that someone buying doesn’t assume x and Disney does Y

That is why the lawsuit happened because Disney and the guest interpret subject to availability differently.

So I definitely think they can create a system that has openings for certain tickets and not others. They just have to advertise them that way.

I certainly would have no issue with a pass that has limits to it as long as it is more cost effective for me than a multi day pass.

So yes, they can get rid of the Incredi pass and replace it with something different..or even keep it as the incredit pass and update terms. All they need to do is owners refunds if they don’t like new terms since the passes say terms and conditions can change.

What they can’t do is sell you something that can’t be used the way it was advertised. That is they lawsuit. Beyond that? They can create any pass with any rules they want as long as the buyer knows them before the purchase.

I mean if they say that the Incredi pass is good for full or partial entry every day of the year, subject to availability, then they can do what they want for the full day entry.

Now, they can’t keep the bucket open for ticket holders and not allow even partial entry..that then creates a block out day. But nothing prevents them from creating a product like defined above.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[808blessing]

Japan offered a twilight (late afternoon) pass for a long time. It was a way to split the day for those wanting a bite of Disney. I wonder if that is in the works. Reservations system has been in place there for a long while too.

 

[Sandisw]

First, it is a fairly substantial rumor when they are posting pics of the advance pages that have already been mocked up for a sale. But, it had not happened yet. I understand your point.

I also want to say there is no harshness in my voice when discussing this. None at all. It is just conversation. But, I am repeating some things and once in a while emphasize a word because it is important for meaning and focus -- as I would if I were speaking.

Your point about being between no APs and a modified AP is understood and it is a beautiful idea, but it would be a compromise. This is not a situation describing compromise. Passholders have no ability to negotiate terms and conditions. It is a unilateral contract written entirely by Disney. Any ambiguity is legally held against the drafter. In order to draft and disclosure such a complex entry system and make sure passholders understood it was a major change from prior terms and conditions there would have to be enlarged type and extremely precise wording. At this point with 40 years of history, that would be very, very difficult to draft and make sure it is "out there" and understood. The block-out calendars scream the terms and conditions and are clearly part of the contract. Anything else is going to compete with that.

Somebody else said, "what contract." This is a unilateral contract. You buy the pass, you enter into the contract. Bi-lateral contracts require both parties to agree to the terms. Those are often negotiated. If written by one side only with no option to negotiate there is a whole body of laws that govern the enforceability of such terms and conditions, no matter how pretty the contract on paper with signatures and seals.

Of course Disney sets the rules and you can’t change them after the fact without compensating someone or getting yourself in trouble.

But the notion that the pass can’t have limitations is simply not something I think is accurate. It can because Disney gets to decide what to sell and we as consumers get to choose it.

Take the lawsuit out of it for a second. I think we both agree that Disney is in hot water for that.

Moving forward, they can certainly decide to create a new program that no longer has a product that defines non block out days as open to close. It’s like the old after 4 pm Epcot pass..it was a partial day pass

And I do not take any of your posts as anything but a great discussion!! We just don’t see things exactly the same way

I am all for a compromise program as long as they advertise and market the terms and conditions clearly.

Now I get there are some who want an unlimited pass that works like it did before the park system was in place. I just don’t think that will continue long term.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Sandisw]

I understood that. But ... (went through that already)

I agree -- and wish it would always work that way.

Not quite. That is what some posters have been arguing -- about the different interpretation of the word "unavailable." But, it doesn't hinge on that alone. The block-out calendars are part of the contract. The main source of the problem is that while they blocked Ms. Nielsen, they were also offering new sales of the same spots to ticketed guests. That defeats any "unavailability" dispute. (I know -- darn lawyers -- they always make an issue of every little word.) The problem was not the word "unavailable" or "unavailability" -- of park reservations. Forget that. It was about the bucket system. Disney was manipulating the strings on the buckets to throttle passholder attendance and give preference to ticketed guests and resort guests. That throttling breached the AP contracts based on block-out days calendars. It added block-out days that were not there. The same would happen if they blocked hours.

They are the drafters of the AP contracts -- so they rule -- until some court says otherwise. It will be tough to draft something complex after 40 years of history. The history of past business practices becomes part of the rules on interpreting the contracts too.

I am interested to see what they do. I think we all are.

Just to clarify, I am not talking about the current situation and the way Ms Neilson was sold her pass.

I am talking more about moving forward and what Disney does with the AP product. And I believe it will end up being a product that no longer will guarantee that days that are not blocked out means you have the right to go open to close.

I think block out days will be defined as no entry at all…and the rest of the days will be classified as limited access.. with limited access being defined as all day, or a partial day, subject to capacity.

This way, the ticket holder bucket can only stay open as long as APs have access to some level of entry.

Again, this is only my speculation on how it could go.