Annual Pass Rumors??

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

. I don't think Disney on implementation could have allowed AP holders to just reserve whatever they wanted for how many days they wanted throughout the year (whether they went or not)

Which is why a no-blackout AP shouldn't have been sold.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[john7994]

Which is why a no-blackout AP shouldn't have been sold.

Don't disagree, but wasn't responding to the merits of the lawsuit - that's Disney's problem not mine

 

[john7994]

The “you knew about unavailability before you bought it” is a false argument. Unavailability meant something different in the past. Today Disney has decided that despite the express blockout dates of each tier of passes they have the power to unilaterally decide to sell a spot I paid for to a guy buying a ticket while blocking me out. Before it was something beyond Disney’s control. That is what changed without warning. That is the breach of contract.

From your previous posts, I realize you dont like it and feel its personal and vicious, but it doesn't change what it is from a purchase/renewal decision as of June/July 2020 going forward when the park reservation system was implemented - which I have been clear to state repeatedly.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Don't disagree, but wasn't responding to the merits of the lawsuit - that's Disney's problem not mine

I responded because you said:

All that being said, I know this before I make my vacation decisions - in the end - it's on me.

Regardless of the end result of the lawsuit many tend to agree it's Disney who created this problem in the first place. In other words while it may seem like you could claim blame on an inability to get a park pass for 4th of july because you didn't plan effectively that's a red herring and if you stayed on site there could be availability and there could be normal park tickets where that's available when you bought your AP was that in the T&C? Presently that is not the case where there are any reservations available for 4th of July but we know the system isn't updated in real time as people cancel or shift, but the point is that info isn't disclosed that there are different buckets of availability and there are times where that issue presents itself with availability one area and not in another which is what caused the lawsuit. I think it was November where the issues were there with something like half the month unavailable only for the AP bucket for DL.

In the case of this park reservation system the argument isn't the system itself, it's how it was designed in its function with APs (and even hotel availability bucket) and it's not on the consumer there, they didn't create it, they didn't implement it. That's sorta the going thought why Disney hasn't restarted the program yet because the answer "we've paused it for the Holidays" is 5 months past..

You're only barred from APs right now because they are paused that's not because you live in GA.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[john7994]

Thanks for clarifying, but again, I have no interest in the lawsuit -

Regardless of the end result of the lawsuit many tend to agree it's Disney who created this problem in the first place. In other words while it may seem like you could claim blame on an inability to get a park pass for 4th of july because you didn't plan effectively that's a red herring and if you stayed on site there could be availability and there could be normal park tickets where that's available when you bought your AP was that in the T&C?

Honestly, no idea what you are trying to say. I gave my personal example in response to another poster's situation related to reservation system availability on holidays and where I don't necessarily have it better as an non AP / non local either. So not sure what the red-herring is here.

Presently that is not the case where there are any reservations available for 4th of July but we know the system isn't updated in real time as people cancel or shift, but the point is that info isn't disclosed that there are different buckets of availability and there are times where that issue presents itself with availability one area and not in another which is what caused the lawsuit. I think it was November where the issues were there with something like half the month unavailable only for the AP bucket for DL.

Again, lawsuit or not, why would I go out of pocket and drive 14 hours round trip (as a non local) knowing that the system is already hovering on closed out right now on the hope that it might be available later? Not sure what all these buckets of availability that aren't disclosed you reference - are you going to guarantee anything here as it pertains to a potential trip?

In the case of this park reservation system the argument isn't the system itself, it's how it was designed in its function with APs (and even hotel availability bucket) and it's not on the consumer there, they didn't create it, they didn't implement it. That's sorta the going thought why Disney hasn't restarted the program yet because the answer "we've paused it for the Holidays" is 5 months past..

Repeatedly stated that the park reservation system sucks and I dont like it. But, I know the rules that I have to deal with on the current design - so yes - if I decided to purchase an AP - it is with the current design in mind. Why wouldn't this decision be on me as the Consumer - who else's decision is it.

You're only barred from APs right now because they are paused that's not because you live in GA.

The only comments made (separately) is that I live in Georgia (for my proximity in the situation I provided) and I couldn't buy an AP if I wanted too - I never suggested or said that I am barred from buying AP because I live in Georgia

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[john7994]

You misunderstand. Your argument about scheduling your vacation too late is not the issue. This is not about scheduling a vacation far enough in advance. This is about when Disney has open spots in a park and denies a valid passholder who has a right to book that date — in favor of Disney choosing to sell those spots to later come ticket buyers. They have availability. Disney chooses to deny reservations/block/close the doors whatever you call it so they can sell tickets for cash. There is availability and the passholder was first in line paid up and ready.

Ok. I rent a house. I am supposed to be able to have access to that house 365 days a year or whatever my calendar says. During my rental period for which I paid my rent in full in advance, I try to turn the key to enter my rented house and the landlord changed the key and will not let me in. Landlord has an AirB&B client for a few days. I sleep under a bridge and the landlord pockets the AirB&B money. Then the Landlord let’s me back into the house. A few weeks later Landlord does it again … and again … and again.

You can believe what you want about my level of understanding ...

But the part that seems to be missing here in this very intentionally extreme and labored example - you know what the landlord can do - so why would you purchase/renew an AP if you aren't cool with those terms? Because, those are the terms ... and again ... I am not talking about the lawsuit ... I am talking about the terms as they exist since the introduction of the park reservations system as of June/July 2020.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It is about their split buckets and control of the buckets. If there was a reservation system but only one bucket for everyone that would work.

Correct. It's that the "subject to availability" is not understood to those who purchase it that it means you can and will be unable to get a reservation strictly due to what ticket media you are trying to use due to the bucket system.

In many cases many companies use vague phrases because it benefits them the most. Sometimes there's too much vagueness such that it causes problems.

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit Disney paid attention very quickly to it halting sales quickly enough after for both DL and WDW and have not yet restarted. Originally Disney could use the "it's for the holidays" meaning Thanksgiving and Christmas and NYE/New Year's but that time period has long since passed. Most of the time Disney keeps on trekking with things despite lawsuits being filed. This one perked people's interests because they did act on it and have not resumed the program.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Jrb1979]

Correct. It's that the "subject to availability" is not understood to those who purchase it that it means you can and will be unable to get a reservation strictly due to what ticket media you are trying to use due to the bucket system.

In many cases many companies use vague phrases because it benefits them the most. Sometimes there's too much vagueness such that it causes problems.

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit Disney paid attention very quickly to it halting sales quickly enough after for both DL and WDW and have not yet restarted. Originally Disney could use the "it's for the holidays" meaning Thanksgiving and Christmas and NYE/New Year's but that time period has long since passed. Most of the time Disney keeps on trekking with things despite lawsuits being filed. This one perked people's interests because they did act on it and have not resumed the program.

That's part of it why they stopped sales. The other part is I think they are looking at major changes to how it works. My guess is the first thing is they will limit sales. I wouldn't be surprised they do what they just did and cancel all passes and start over.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That's part of it why they stopped sales. The other part is I think they are looking at major changes to how it works. My guess is the first thing is they will limit sales. I wouldn't be surprised they do what they just did and cancel all passes and start over.

That's why I think everyone is sorta watching what they announce (or I guess don't announce) for these August renewals, like will the program stay the same, will there be adjustments towards the dates or just an explicit explanation, will they stop one or more options, etc.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[john7994]

Because the landlord cannot legally do that. It is a breach of contract and more.

Again, you keep trying to bring me back to the lawsuit - I am not arguing that the plaintiff doesn't have a case or AP holders didn't have a reason to complain. My position from the beginning, as it is now, was in response to a poster on the go-forward rule-set from June/July 2020 and those who have made purchases/renewals decisions (or contemplating them in the future) with the current park reservation system in place.

 

[john7994]

Oh. I understand why you are saying your points. You do not understand the bucket system that goes along with the park reservation system. That was the undisclosed part that Disney was controlling behind the scenes. They have one bucket of park reservations for those who buy tickets or stay in on-site resort properties. Those are the high profit guests. They have another bucket of park reservations for passholders who do not stay in Disney resort properties. By Disney resort properties I mean Disney owned or Disney good neighbor resorts like the Swan, Dolphin etc. So in bucket 1, tickets staying anywhere and guests in on-site properties. Bucket 2 is all off-site passholders. Disney controls the allocation of reservations and sometimes that means people in bucket 2 get shut out while bucket 1 is still available.

In relation to this bucket system, is this conjecture or stated Disney policy? For example, have they have said the park reservation system bucket has multiple buckets with one prioritized over the other?