Anyone else miss the challenge of the old fast passes?

[Angel Ariel]

That in itself is not a loophole. If I misread his post, I apologize. My example was accumulating fast passes with only he intention of using them long after the return time. Yes, you could accumulate 3 passes with return times of much later without it being considered a loophole.

Thank you.

 

[BugsDaddy]

Theme parks institute queue management systems because they need to reduce the negative impact that long lines can have.

They don't do it so that ride distribution is more equitable regardless of individual circumstances such as when guest A arrived at the park or what guest B would like to do or how many times guest C got to ride but guest D didn't.

If anyone thinks that Disney "envisioned" FP to be some sort of guest equalizer in terms of ride access, they're wrong. It was Disney's initial foray into queue management with the sole purpose of suppressing extreme wait times, and the only vision they had was the one they wished to avoid - chronic 180 minute wait times at certain attractions.

FP 2.0 is a continuation of that utilizing technology to squeeze capacity out of lesser utilized attractions, something FP 1.0 was not able to accomplish.

It had absolutely nothing to do with Susie not being able to ride TSMM because Johnny rode it twice.


.

I don't think anyone has a clear insight on why Disney makes certain decisions. I would doubt that anyone on this board is in those rooms when those decisions are made. Myself, I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the Disney execs.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I haven't seen anyone say there weren't any loopholes.

I did--or inferred as such and responded accordingly to the posted that brought it up.

 

[minniemous]

Maybe this is the problem. Perhaps people never actually read the words on the ticket. It clearly states that you can get another FP when your window opens. So at 1:15, one could walk (not run) over to Everest and get another FP without first using their Dinosaur FP. Hence, they would have two in hand without exploiting a "loophole". As for having a third, that would entail not using your first during its window. Disney specifically allowed that practice. It was their policy. Ask any CM. They would tell you: "You can come back any time". Until they changed that rule. So if you went during a time when you could return "whenever", you weren't exploiting a loophole. You were following the CM's instructions.

It says "not able to accommodate late arrivals". Was that the practice that they would allow you to use that pass at any time?? I would not know...because I read what is clearly states on the pass and as and it would never occur to me to go pander to a CM to let me ride outside of that window. 15 minutes late perhaps..but I do not think we are talking about a slight delay here. Most people would not have thought for a second that I could take a pass that expired way outside of the intended window and present it to the CM and ride. I find that to be a unintended loophole. Othehrwise the ticket would clearly say come back whenever your little heart desires.

I apologize if this ticket is not representative of the time in which you said this was the CM's practice to allow admission. Everything I have seen has this written.

 

[wisblue]

Hi Wisblue, I question this assertion only because I have seen many posts from people who are using multiple Magic Bands to get more FP+s. They are not playing by the "rules" of using their first 3 FP's before getting their 4th, 5th, or 6th..... So I don't know if the system is any more equitable than Legacy was.

I'm not talking about something like that which is clearly outside the intended bounds of the program. And, I have no idea how widespread that practice is and how much it affects the availability and distribution of FPs.

I am talking about the difference in distribution between the paper FP system when used as designed and advertised and the FP+ system when used as designed and advertised. I intentionally avoid using the words "fair and equitable" in these discussions because they have proven to be a lightning rod for disagreement. But, I don't think there's any question that the result of FP+ is a more even or level distribution of FPs.

 

[Laketravis]

I don't think anyone has a clear insight on why Disney makes certain decisions. I would doubt that anyone on this board is in those rooms when those decisions are made. Myself, I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the Disney execs.

Yet they are a business and there are common business practices at play when a decision needs to be made. Why that decision is necessary and the criteria used to reach the "right" decision isn't just speculation. Nor do they operate in a vacuum - they have fiduciary responsibility to stockholders and must provide transparency in all decisions, which are economically motivated as opposed to emotionally motivated.

For instance:

Hi Wisblue, I question this assertion only because I have seen many posts from people who are using multiple Magic Bands to get more FP+s. They are not playing by the "rules" of using their first 3 FP's before getting their 4th, 5th, or 6th..... So I don't know if the system is any more equitable than Legacy was.

That's a very good point. If Disney was even only partially motivated to implement FP 1.0 and then FP 2.0 to establish or restore some sort of equitable ride share among guests (or a more even distribution among guests to the benefit of guests, as Wisblue has proposed rather than a more even distribution among attractions to the benefit of Disney, as I have proposed), then they certainly didn't need to spend a billion dollars or more to "fix" it.

Why didn't they just go for the easy fixes with FP 1.0 rather than implement FP 2.0? And now with FP 2.0 why not prevent throwaway rooms via policy and multiple band use in the parks via simple code? Fixing "the loopholes" certainly would have been cheaper, quicker, and effective IF the objective was for a ride queuing system that was "fair". Obviously, that was not and continues to not be the objective.


.

 

[lauradis]

You are saying that Disney is allocating 70% of their total ride capacity to FP?? Where are you coming up with that number? My guess would be much lower. Otherwise, standby lines would be 4 hours long instead of 10 to 45 minutes.

Just because they are allocating what ever number doesnt mean the quest are using that number.

 

[wisblue]

Yet they are a business and there are common business practices at play when a decision needs to be made. Why that decision is necessary and the criteria used to reach the "right" decision isn't just speculation.

For instance:



That's a very good point. If Disney was even only partially motivated to implement FP 1.0 and then FP 2.0 to establish or restore some sort of equitable ride share among guests (or a more even distribution among guests to the benefit of guests, as Wisblue has proposed rather than a more even distribution among attractions to the benefit of Disney, as I have proposed), then they certainly didn't need to spend a billion dollars or more to "fix" it.

Why didn't they just go for the easy fixes with FP 1.0 rather than implement FP 2.0? And now with FP 2.0 why not prevent throwaway rooms via policy and multiple band use in the parks via simple code? Fixing "the loopholes" certainly would have been cheaper, quicker, and effective IF the objective was for a ride queuing system that was "fair". Obviously, that was not and continues to not be the objective.


.

I really don't want to chase too far down the rabbit hole of discussing Disney's motives, but if I did I would start by questioning your assumption that Disney spent a billion dollars to fix the paper FP system.

I also don't think that even distribution of guests among attractions and even distribution of FPs among guests are incompatible and mutually exclusive objectives.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It says "not able to accommodate late arrivals". Was that the practice that they would allow you to use that pass at any time?? I would not know...because I read what is clearly states on the pass and as and it would never occur to me to go pander to a CM to let me ride outside of that window. 15 minutes late perhaps..but I do not think we are talking about a slight delay here. Most people would not have thought for a second that I could take a pass that expired way outside of the intended window and present it to the CM and ride. I find that to be a unintended loophole. Othehrwise the ticket would clearly say come back whenever your little heart desires.

I apologize if this ticket is not representative of the time in which you said this was the CM's practice to allow admission. Everything I have seen has this written.

The tickets were unchanged. It was discovered and we admittedly used it ourselves. We discovered it when events behind our control would make us late and CMs told is not to worry.

So at some point, they did it for guest services. Which was nice given we has no control over the scheduling.

The written rule was never ever modified
ETA: and to be clear, there was no deception with the CMs. They saw the times on the pass and would admit anyone after the start time. It was a permitted loophole--just to make that clear.

 

[cakebaker]

Nope. Back in the days of yore, I could get a FP for TSM at 10:00a with a return time of, I don't know, around 5:00p-6:00p. That FP says I can get another at 12:00p. I get a FP for TOT at 12:30p with a return time of 6:30p-7:30p. I could get another FP at 2:30p for Star Tours at, say, 4:30p-5:30p. From 2:30p to 4:30p I have 3 sets of FPs and golly I'm planning on using them all. I am exploiting a loophole where exactly?

Having nothing to do with loopholes- but more to do with the claims I read that FP's did not run out by early afternoon-

If you pulled a return time like these examples, it's pretty much a sure thing they would've been out early in the afternoon. A different issue, but a return time of 6pm, when it's pulled at 10am doesn't bode well for availability after noon in HS.

 

[wisblue]

Having nothing to do with loopholes- but more to do with the claims I read that FP's did not run out by early afternoon-

If you pulled a return time like these examples, it's pretty much a sure thing they would've been out early in the afternoon. A different issue, but a return time of 6pm, when it's pulled at 10am doesn't bode well for availability after noon in HS.

Yes, I have no doubt that if the tickets and signs had said "Return anytime after 10:00 AM" instead of "Return Between 10 AM and 11 AM, they would have gone much more quickly."

 

[DisneyFive]

For those saying that using FP's past the stated window was somehow gaming the system, or not using the FP system as intended, or being sneaky, I need to find the multiple youtube vidoes showing the Disney cast members telling people to use them that way! If I can find the old links to them, I'll be sure to post them.

It wasn't hidden, in fact it was promoted by Disney in cases. It wasn't well known, I'll grant you that, and we only were able to do it in 2010 and maybe 2011, but surely not 2012 or 2013. They did start to enforce the window a few years before FP+ fully rolled out, which I think was to get guests used to the fact that the new system would have no give.

Edit: Found a couple
Start at 6:05

Start at 1:55

Dan

 

[Laketravis]

I really don't want to chase too far down the rabbit hole of discussing Disney's motives....

Yet those supposed motives have been and continue to be used to defend various opinions and theories and that motive was to make FP more fair or evenly distributed because guests took advantage of loopholes.

As far as the rabbit hole, maybe you should at least explore it a little. What you find might change your mind about a few things.


.

 

[lauradis]

Nope. Back in the days of yore, I could get a FP for TSM at 10:00a with a return time of, I don't know, around 5:00p-6:00p. That FP says I can get another at 12:00p. I get a FP for TOT at 12:30p with a return time of 6:30p-7:30p. I could get another FP at 2:30p for Star Tours at, say, 4:30p-5:30p. From 2:30p to 4:30p I have 3 sets of FPs and golly I'm planning on using them all. I am exploiting a loophole where exactly?

And all of this without having to decide what park to go to before I rolled out of bed that morning.

This is where FP- lovers aren't being honest.. Most of us use crowd calendars to avoid parks with larger crowds so we where always picking which park which day in advance. Most of the time we where picking which park which day when the disney released the times schedule.

So im calling shenanigans on not deciding what park before rolling out of bed.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

For those saying that using FP's past the stated window was somehow gaming the system, or not using the FP system as intended, or being sneaky, I need to find the multiple youtube vidoes showing the Disney cast members telling people to use them that way! If I can find the old links to them, I'll be sure to post them.

It wasn't hidden, in fact it was promoted by Disney in cases. It wasn't well known, I'll grant you that, and we only were able to do it in 2010 and maybe 2011, but surely not 2012 or 2013. They did start to enforce the window a few years before FP+ fully rolled out, which I think was to get guests used to the fact that the new system would have no give.

Dan

A loophole need not be sneaky or "gaming" to be a loophole. It was indeed one. It was not publicly advertised. But we already know the CMs allowed it, so your videos don't prove anything.

Kind of like knowing about extra buns.

 

[mesaboy2]

This is where FP- lovers aren't being honest.. Most of us use crowd calendars to avoid parks with larger crowds so we where always picking which park which day in advance. Most of the time we where picking which park which day when the disney released the times schedule.

So im calling shenanigans on not deciding what park before rolling out of bed.

Care to reword that? You have no clue how I chose to do the parks.

 

[DisneyFive]

A loophole need not be sneaky or "gaming" to be a loophole. It was indeed one. It was not publicly advertised. But we already know the CMs allowed it, so your videos don't prove anything.

Kind of like knowing about extra buns.

Not only allowed it, promoted it. I edited my post to include a couple of videos

...and what's this you speak of extra buns!

Dan

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is where FP- lovers aren't being honest.. Most of us use crowd calendars to avoid parks with larger crowds so we where always picking which park which day in advance. Most of the time we where picking which park which day when the disney released the times schedule.

So im calling shenanigans on not deciding what park before rolling out of bed.

I don't think Mesaboy was implying such planning did not occur. Just that he personally may not have decided until that morning. Or maybe he changed his mind from the day before.

I know we never used crowd calendars.
The shenanigans is claims that planning is new, necessary, and more than before. It is purely a YMMV. Show me one person who plans more now with FP+, and I can find an example of someone who planned more then. (Not literally though I do have a thread handy if an example.)

For me personally, nothing much different going on. A few minutes planning FP+ now may have been spent pre-planning other aspects of my day in the old system.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not only allowed it, promoted it. I edited my post to include a couple of videos

...and what's this you speak of extra buns!

Dan

Buy a double burger, ask for an extra bun--one meal now feeds two people. Not sure if this is still the case, but lots of tips and tricks in these boards.

 

[Angel Ariel]

This is where FP- lovers aren't being honest.. Most of us use crowd calendars to avoid parks with larger crowds so we where always picking which park which day in advance. Most of the time we where picking which park which day when the disney released the times schedule.

So im calling shenanigans on not deciding what park before rolling out of bed.

No shenanigans here. I'm honest about the fact that we used crowd calendars and chose parks per day. That was, then, mostly due to booking ADRs. We did not, however, do any kind of "these rides in this order" type of plan like those Touring Plans/Unofficial Guide has. We did not decide what direction to go in a park until we were in the park.