All FP machines to be removed from Animal Kingdom by next week and....

[dwheaton]

Yes, 80% is considered a pretty darn good occupancy rate.

But despite offers and discounts, the occupancy rate at WDW resorts is declining rather than growing (it is now down to 78% YTD) and that could be concerning to the bean counters.

I still wonder if FP+ will really help with people choosing on-site hotels. I believe that's part of the goal, but the price for staying with Disney is still much higher than off-site, and often with fewer benefits. It's not going to hurt their case, but I don't expect it jumping much higher than 80% because of this change.

 

[Tozer]

Yes, 80% is considered a pretty darn good occupancy rate.

But despite offers and discounts, the occupancy rate at WDW resorts is declining rather than growing (it is now down to 78% YTD) and that could be concerning to the bean counters.

I would be interested to see where you are getting your data from. I saw this 78% figure being mentioned for 2012 but I have yet to see anything YTD from 2013.

Care to share?

 

[rebbyparker]

As an "off site" guest most of the time (off site in quotes due to staying at the Dolphin), I would be perfectly happy with the current FP+ set up, IF they reserve a large number of FP+ reservations for same day distributions. For example, if over 50% of the park population are day guest, reserve half the FP+ reservations for same day reservations.

What I will not agree to, and what I would cancel my current reservation for, is if they open all reservations early for on site guests, and there is very slim pickings for same day reservations. The details on HOW this is implemented is more important than the actual ability to pre-plan fast passes, IMHO.

Yep, yep.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Sure, but every hotel company would want a higher occupancy rate if they could get it.

Which I said as well.

Clearly a lot of people don't find the onsite perks to be enough as evidenced by the bustling offsite hotel industry in Orlando.

Even with every hotel room filled, the offsite industry would still be bustling b/c Disney doesn't have enough capacity for every guest that goes through the gates. I disagree that the perks (or perceived lack thereof) are the only (or even main) reason why people are staying offsite.

Disney resorts are expensive. Even the values are expensive for what you get. We paid less/night to stay at Shades of Green and got a larger room (seriously it feels like double the size of an all star room). That alone (completely forgetting the EMH perk that SoG guests do get) is enough for me to stay there as opposed to a value resort. My brother/SIL/nephews stayed at All Star Sports (there isn't a good acronym for that ) in March, and I felt like a sardine in their room. I would not have stayed there having to have a pack n play for DD in the room, it was just so tightly packed. I've been in $60/night rooms that are bigger than those rooms are.

Personally, I don't find the onsite perks to be enough versus the prices, which is why we were looking into finding offsite places to stay in the future.

See, and for me we do stay offsite, but it's not because of the lack of perks. It's pretty much because of price. Now, if SoG didn't have the location it did, I might change my mind - but again, that's strictly location not any other perks. I just don't know that I'd want to go out to International Drive every night...I like being close to the parks. So if we couldn't stay at Shades, we'd likely stay at a moderate resort rather than go further away. I mean, I'd love to stay at the GF or Poly instead, but I can't justify the cost...it's 3-4x more expensive to stay there (depending on time of year) than Shades of Green. They're beautiful hotels, and we have stayed deluxe before, but we can't afford to do that every year.

Regardless, FP+ is expected to raise profits. How they do that is the question.

I still contend than a 10 day advantage would be quite a sizeable advantage when this is all rolled out, just as it is for ADRs.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I also find it a bit interesting that many of the proponents of FP+ have been talking about how the system is more fair..that it allows late sleepers to get to the parks and still have the opportunity to do things, and how great it is that Disney is leveling the playing field....and then seeing that many of those same posters are also saying that they want prebooking to be an onsite only perk.

I guess it's ok to have an uneven playing field as long as you're on the favored side.

*note- this is not directed to Arwen or anyone specific..just an observation from reading so many of these threads.

 

[WillAustin]

I guess it's ok to have an uneven playing field as long as you're on the favored side.

A harsh reality is that playing fields are never level, no matter how hard people might try to get them that way. "Fair" is always subjective.

 

[wisblue]

I also find it a bit interesting that many of the proponents of FP+ have been talking about how the system is more fair..that it allows late sleepers to get to the parks and still have the opportunity to do things, and how great it is that Disney is leveling the playing field....and then seeing that many of those same posters are also saying that they want prebooking to be an onsite only perk.

I guess it's ok to have an uneven playing field as long as you're on the favored side.

*note- this is not directed to Arwen or anyone specific..just an observation from reading so many of these threads.

I think if you tallied all of the posts, more of the opponents of FP+ are saying that FP- is more fair because it rewards people who plan and get to the park early.

Speaking for myself, I don't think FP+ is MORE fair, but I do think it is EQUALLY fair. It just rewards a different group, with the end result that more guests are likely to be able to ride a popular attraction once, at the expense of people who used FP- to ride them multiple times.

 

[clsteve]

A harsh reality is that playing fields are never level, no matter how hard people might try to get them that way. "Fair" is always subjective.

“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.”
― Groucho Marx

 

[Angel Ariel]

I think if you tallied all of the posts, more of the opponents of FP+ are saying that FP- is more fair because it rewards people who plan and get to the park early.

The majority of the time I have seen that response has been in response to those saying fp+ is more "fair.". I'm not saying others havent taken that opinion separately, just commenting on what I have personally observed.

 

[Angel Ariel]

A harsh reality is that playing fields are never level, no matter how hard people might try to get them that way. "Fair" is always subjective.

Oh I agree. I just find it interesting that so many have used that argument and then turn around and embrace it when it goes in their favor.

 

[jade1]

to be able to ride a popular attraction once, at the expense of people who used FP- to ride them multiple times.

It will still depend on time of year IMO.

You could have rode EE stand by 15 times before noon yesterday-and there was no FP-

And even if the argument is all offsite folks were in Kiosk lines all morning-EE and Safari were only 20 minutes at 3PM.

At a minimum with yesterdays test, we learned FP+ did not "ruin" riding AK headliners multiple times if someone wants to, at least midweek-mid dec.

Certainly not the, well we can only ride EE one time with FP+ anyway.

 

[Sammie]

I think if you tallied all of the posts, more of the opponents of FP+ are saying that FP- is more fair because it rewards people who plan and get to the park early.

Speaking for myself, I don't think FP+ is MORE fair, but I do think it is EQUALLY fair. It just rewards a different group, with the end result that more guests are likely to be able to ride a popular attraction once, at the expense of people who used FP- to ride them multiple times.

Very true, the thing for all to remember is Disney is looking at numbers. If the new group that is pleased is larger than the group that is unhappy with the change, then to them it will be a huge success.

 

[clsteve]

Very true, the thing for all to remember is Disney is looking at numbers. If the new group that is pleased is larger than the group that is unhappy with the change, then to them it will be a huge success.

No matter where this goes in the future, I think Disney deserves props for how yesterday went. It was very much the smoothest part of this rollout, so far. They picked a good day and had massive amounts of CM's manning the kiosks and spread out in the park to help guests.

And, the pre-select features seemed to really work for those without advance reservations.

It was a landmark day for them with FP: yesterday was the very first day they actually knew everyone who had FP's - no matter what type of guest they were, and the first time they actually knew who used them (and who didn't). Real data.

That's a huge milestone.

 

[WillAustin]

It will still depend on time of year IMO.

You could have rode EE stand by 15 times before noon yesterday-and there was no FP-

And even if the argument is all offsite folks were in Kiosk lines all morning-EE and Safari were only 20 minutes at 3PM.

At a minimum with yesterdays test, we learned FP+ did not "ruin" riding AK headliners multiple times if someone wants to, at least midweek-mid dec.

Certainly not the, well we can only ride EE one time with FP+ anyway.

I agree with you, but I don't really think anyone expected a problem during lower crowds. At least I didn't.

 

[dwheaton]

I think if you tallied all of the posts, more of the opponents of FP+ are saying that FP- is more fair because it rewards people who plan and get to the park early.

Speaking for myself, I don't think FP+ is MORE fair, but I do think it is EQUALLY fair. It just rewards a different group, with the end result that more guests are likely to be able to ride a popular attraction once, at the expense of people who used FP- to ride them multiple times.

I might agree with you if the limit wasn't three and there wasn't tiering. In that case, it's not an equal comparison since they're introducing new restrictions along with the reservations. The more I think about it, I'd probably be okay with the reservations if they didn't have the restrictions and tiering at that level.

 

[Laketravis]

I would be interested to see where you are getting your data from. I saw this 78% figure being mentioned for 2012 but I have yet to see anything YTD from 2013.

Care to share?

Sure - check out Disney's SEC Form 10K filing for FY2013. Page 33.

Looking back to confirm, occupancy rates for FY2012 were 81% and then dropped to 79% for FY2013. (They rounded up in the filing, but still a two point drop)

 

[jade1]

I agree with you, but I don't really think anyone expected a problem during lower crowds. At least I didn't.

I guess the T-minus countdowns where to what a great success Wed would be

 

[Laketravis]

I guess the T-minus countdowns where to what a great success Wed would be

I guess you didn't understand those were tongue-in-cheek

 

[ArwenMarie]

Which I said as well.

Even with every hotel room filled, the offsite industry would still be bustling b/c Disney doesn't have enough capacity for every guest that goes through the gates. I disagree that the perks (or perceived lack thereof) are the only (or even main) reason why people are staying offsite.

Disney resorts are expensive. Even the values are expensive for what you get. We paid less/night to stay at Shades of Green and got a larger room (seriously it feels like double the size of an all star room). That alone (completely forgetting the EMH perk that SoG guests do get) is enough for me to stay there as opposed to a value resort. My brother/SIL/nephews stayed at All Star Sports (there isn't a good acronym for that ) in March, and I felt like a sardine in their room. I would not have stayed there having to have a pack n play for DD in the room, it was just so tightly packed. I've been in $60/night rooms that are bigger than those rooms are.


See, and for me we do stay offsite, but it's not because of the lack of perks. It's pretty much because of price. Now, if SoG didn't have the location it did, I might change my mind - but again, that's strictly location not any other perks. I just don't know that I'd want to go out to International Drive every night...I like being close to the parks. So if we couldn't stay at Shades, we'd likely stay at a moderate resort rather than go further away. I mean, I'd love to stay at the GF or Poly instead, but I can't justify the cost...it's 3-4x more expensive to stay there (depending on time of year) than Shades of Green. They're beautiful hotels, and we have stayed deluxe before, but we can't afford to do that every year.

I still contend than a 10 day advantage would be quite a sizeable advantage when this is all rolled out, just as it is for ADRs.

I agree it's not about perks, which is just a Disney marketing term. It's about the Disney hotels on the whole competing with the offsite hotels. Disney charges a huge premium to stay onsite, and many people, including myself, don't think it's worth it. If they can make it more worth it using FP, some people will choose to stay onsite versus offsite hence more $ for Disney. Maybe the +10 will be enough to do that, maybe not, then they have to balance alienating offsite customers too much. It will be interesting to see what they do to say the least. I thought there wasn't going to be a huge difference between offsite and onsite until the DAK test. Now I'm wondering otherwise.

(I don't want there to be any difference between onsite and offsite when it comes to FP, for my own reasons, mainly wanting to start staying offsite.)

 

[WillAustin]

I guess the T-minus countdowns where to what a great success Wed would be

I'll admit I haven't been following the thread, so I must have missed that. I am pleasantly surprised they didn't have more technical issues though.