AP sales…

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Logically I'm a little confused as to the thought that the CA lawsuit is keeping AP's from being sold. Initial stoppage I could understand but not the continuation because of the fact that they continue to renew AP's which could encounter the same reservation issues. I can't quite believe they'd ignore the lawsuit for part of the AP population simply because they want the income and are willing to take the risk on some but not all.

Again and we have went over this if they remove something they are to replace it.

They haven't removed it because it's temporarily not available but if that changes you would expect a replacement.

Disney doesn't reserve the right to cancel items of its choosing, it states they reserve the right to replace a benefit if it becomes unavailable.

This is the 1st time I believe I've ever seen this argument. I have never noticed that language in any legal or even promotional DVC document. Where have you seen that?

Also, I do not believe this has been brought up but a DVC AP has not always been available for owners. Nor even has a discount off of AP's. Discounts started just before we purchased in the mid-2000's. Prior to that there had been no park admission discounts since the original sales perk for OKW buyers other than a few special ticket offers here and there which has continued periodically. The more discounted DVC Gold AP which matched the FL resident Gold AP only started in 2015. And of course DL AP's received a whole $20. So it's not like special AP's or even discounted AP's have been part of the equation the entire life of DVC. If you also considered that the documents also state that the parks themselves even existing are not a guaranteed part of DVC then expecting that park admission discounts are somehow a required perk is contradictory.

But that's just the legal. I tend to side with pushback on the removal of many things over the years because once it starts it rarely stops. Required though? I don't believe so.

Without something like the AP benefit the perks have little financial aspect to draw people to purchase directly. Emotionally though they will still do that.

 

[Sandisw]

Logically I'm a little confused as to the thought that the CA lawsuit is keeping AP's from being sold. Initial stoppage I could understand but not the continuation because of the fact that they continue to renew AP's which could encounter the same reservation issues. I can't quite believe they'd ignore the lawsuit for part of the AP population simply because they want the income and are willing to take the risk on some but not all.



This is the 1st time I believe I've ever seen this argument. I have never noticed that language in any legal or even promotional DVC document. Where have you seen that?

Also, I do not believe this has been brought up but a DVC AP has not always been available for owners. Nor even has a discount off of AP's. Discounts started just before we purchased in the mid-2000's. Prior to that there had been no park admission discounts since the original sales perk for OKW buyers other than a few special ticket offers here and there which has continued periodically. The more discounted DVC Gold AP which matched the FL resident Gold AP only started in 2015. And of course DL AP's received a whole $20. So it's not like special AP's or even discounted AP's have been part of the equation the entire life of DVC. If you also considered that the documents also state that the parks themselves even existing are not a guaranteed part of DVC then expecting that park admission discounts are somehow a required perk is contradictory.

But that's just the legal. I tend to side with pushback on the removal of many things over the years because once it starts it rarely stops. Required though? I don't believe so.

Without something like the AP benefit the perks have little financial aspect to draw people to purchase directly. Emotionally though they will still do that.

One reason could be they renew but not sell is because they know how to control the buckets as the current number of AP holders is at its max without new sales other than pixie pass.

That bucket system is at the heart of the lawsuit and whether the way it is use is an indirect way to add blockout dates to passes when there are not supposed to be any…or not many…when they were still allowing day or resort guests to buy tickets. It now makes sense to me that for every AP that is sold, they have in essence given those pass holders a spot on a first come first serve bases.

I do think the idea that we may see a different AP product seems more likely now and maybe we will see something unique!

Here is the actual language from the Membership extra documents being referenced, just in case you wanted it.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Agree with that. Additionally, the pre-booking aspect of FastPass+ did a lot to stagger arrivals at the theme parks. If I could line-up my 3 rides at 2pm, 3pm and 4pm, I had no reason to get to the park earlier. I could show up at the MK after lunch, ride BTMR, Space and Splash, while peppering with a few other short-wait attractions, and consider it a very worthwhile visit.

Now, whether you're buying Genie+ or not, the uncertainty over wait times forces everyone into the park early. If you're buying G+, you're probably up at 7am in the interest of getting your money's worth. If you aren't buying, you probably still arrive at the park early rather than risk waltzing in mid-day and finding hour-long lines for everything.

I am wondering if the park reservation system could be contributing to the issues too. After all it's not like Orlando suddenly doubled their room capacity during the pandemic so that there are that many more people visiting. And I doubt that people suddenly are driving in for the day from miles and miles away. Previously another segment of park visitor could decide on the park to go to and show up when they got there. Now you have to get to that original park you have a reservation for before you can go to another for the evening if your second park was "sold out" for the day. Psychologically having a reservation can change actions too. And then there's the shortened time to use a ticket from 14 days down to a couple days past the length of the ticket. Neither would be a main factor but perhaps contributing to the perfect storm being seen.

 

[lowlight]

Here is the actual language from the Membership extra documents being referenced, just in case you wanted it.

I'm more inclined to side with your understanding of that language Sandi, but I see where Seth is coming from. Why wouldn't they just say, "We reserve the right to remove or change any incidental benefit at any time without notice and without offering a replacement"? We have a few people who play lawyer on TV here, maybe they will chime in.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm more inclined to side with your understanding of that language Sandi, but I see where Seth is coming from. Why wouldn't they just say, "We reserve the right to remove or change any incidental benefit at any time without notice and without offering a replacement"? We have a few people who play lawyer on TV here, maybe they will chime in.

It does say something like that in the POS that they can be removed or ended at any time. I don’t want to derail the thread again but plenty of language out there which supports it.

Here is another clause that does just that:



Of course, I still believe it benefits them to have membership extras…even though we are not entitled to them as part of what we bought…because it is what is used to differentiate the resale vs direct contracts.

It is why I am confident DPEP will continue offering guests some level of ticket option that allows multiple visits in a year that is less expensive then having to pay for multi day passes every time,

 

[cheryl.UK]

MCO is a major airport. Just because you fly into there doesn't mean you have to stay there. There are lots of North American destinations an easy flight from Orlando that aren't Disney.

We don't only stay in WDW. In 2019 we also visited New York, Washington, Charleston, Richmond and Gettysberg but as DVC owners, our accommodation is 'paid for'. We would not be able to pay for alternative accommodation or a car this year. We booked our flights just before they suspended APs and I was only waiting for my next pay check to buy our passes. I've wracked my brain for different affordable alternatives but everything I think of seems to add at least $1500 to our overall cost. With home fuel costs in the UK now going up by 60% and diesel costing more than $10 per gallon, finances are stretched.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It does say something like that in the POS that they can be removed or ended at any time. I don’t want to derail the thread again but plenty of language out there which supports it.

Here is another clause that does just that:

View attachment 656576

Of course, I still believe it benefits them to have membership extras…even though we are not entitled to them as part of what we bought…because it is what is used to differentiate the resale vs direct contracts.

It is why I am confident DPEP will continue offering guests some level of ticket option that allows multiple visits in a year that is less expensive then having to pay for multi day passes every time,

I don't recall the "period of three (3) years or less" being included a decade or so ago but would have to pull out paperwork. But that "or less" would seem to be saying "or gone next week" doesn't it?

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

,

 

[Sandisw]

I don't recall the "period of three (3) years or less" being included a decade or so ago but would have to pull out paperwork. But that "or less" would seem to be saying "or gone next week" doesn't it?

It does to me and IIRC, that “and less” was added after the pandemic as the entire document was updated to account for changes that could occur.

They even added the words “from time to time, a discounted pass could be offered, which seems to go even further to define this as a come and go benefit now.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Madame]

They are selling new passes to families whose children age up from 2-3

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

September 4, 2021 to November 20/21, 2021 Disney is selling and renewing annual passes. In the background, they are shorting park positions to the passholder buckets for park reservations. The effect is annual passholders cannot make reservations for dates their passes do allow. Because park reservations are made in advance, basically from about October 2021 to at least the end of December 2021, passholders (with pre-paid gate admission) are being denied entry while at the same time there is available space for people still purchasing tickets. This unilateral addition of blockout dates creates a class of injured passholders among the group of people who were already active passholders at that time.

November 20/21. New pass sales are halted in both Florida and (the next day) California. This act prevents the class of possibly injured passholders from growing larger.

November 22, 2021. Renewals are still allowed. Why? Because if they were an active passholder they are already in the possibly damaged class that probably will be covered in the class action suit. So, why not let them renew. Again, they do not want to sell NEW annual passes because that would add to the class action plaintiff class.

Shortly after November 22, 2021. Disney suddenly adds a lot of park reservation availability to the passholder bucket. The reason or effect are not clear yet.

January/February/March 2022. It becomes clear that now guests buying new tickets are running into park reservation unavailability on the same dates that passholders - not in a blockout date - are all green lighted for park availability. This is a reversal from the September to December period. Disney gave up the tool of using park reservations and buckets to whittle down passholder attendance and prioritize ticket holders. At present, only when a park appears to be completely sold out because it is really at capacity does it appear there is unavailability for a passholder. In short, Disney is currently honoring the blockout calendars for passholders. But they still cannot restart new annual pass sales because they do not yet have the data on what the mix is between ticketed guests and passholder usage. They want to get that mix right because they have new information that ticketed guests are more profitable per individual per park day. We know that in Disneyland and Disney California Adventure that there are approximately a million passholders and park attendance averages 50% passholders.

One reason they want to offer renewals to existing passholders is because of that three year incidental benefit rule just posted above. Another is that the language posted by SandiSW "beyond the control of the developer." A unilateral change by Disney (if Disney was the developer) to control existing passholders and deny park reservation availability via shorted buckets for passholders did not comply with that language. Now DVC owners who would buy one year on and one year off might have found themselves with expired and non-renewable passes when new sales were halted. They were not damaged. That was their choice.

The risk has been very well corralled here by their tactics, but it also left a footprint that they were indeed reacting to the lawsuit upon the advice of their lawyers. It does make sense for the present.

Got it - thanks!

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

because it is what is used to differentiate the resale vs direct contracts.

For the first 25 years of it’s existence there was no difference between resale and direct contracts, and direct contracts sold just fine. They don’t seem to need to offer exclusive member benefits to sell DVC, and they seem to be realizing that.

 

[Sandisw]

For the first 25 years of it’s existence there was no difference between resale and direct contracts, and direct contracts sold just fine. They don’t seem to need to offer exclusive member benefits to sell DVC, and they seem to be realizing that.

Correct but they decided they wanted to make it a tiered system and until they eliminate it..which they can…they do use it as a difference and why I think they will always offer something.

Again, people don’t buy nor should they buy for the benefits, but as long as they can offer buyers something resale can’t, they will include it.

It is the same thing for DPEP. APs make them a lot of money from all the different guests and they will find a way to bring something like it back.

 

[mlayton14]

I think you are getting close to the reason for suspending the AP sales in Disney World when you said, "Now, the lawsuit in CA regarding the AP there has merit in my book because while it did say it was subject to park availability, it did not say that was based on Disney deciding to offer those spots to others, IMO, that was and is deceptive." I've been looking at the lawsuit and despite the unavailability language, I too think it might have traction.

If we can discover why Disney suspended sales, it might shed some light on when sales will return, if at all, and if there might be changes.

California has a fairly unique business practices law and that is one of the basis of this lawsuit that was filed as a putative class action lawsuit. In this fairly unique business practices law, it allows for multiples in damages and the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs should the Plaintiff prevail. Disney gave notice of removal and it was removed to federal court. I am thinking the judge they drew is probably not considered favorable for Disney by court watchers.

I know when sales of new passes was halted, the media was full of articles saying they did it to control crowds during the busy holiday season. The media made up the reason. No person from Disney, who had authority to speak, ever said that. So, strike that from the analysis.

The first significant event in the applicable timeline was Disney gave about 6 weeks notice that they would restart annual pass sales. They gave notice on about August 4th for sales starting on September 8, 2021. It is not like them to take action without notice. But, when they stopped new sales it was without notice. Something significant happened.

The second significant circumstance was when they started selling new annual passes again on September 8, 2021, it came with some different terms and conditions. The park availability language was not new. Maybe they strengthened the language, but it was not entirely new. But, in the past, when admission was denied to a passholder it was due to reaching park capacity -- as defined by the Fire Marshall, serious storms, like Hurricane Irma. or other significant closure mandated by someone other than Disney's management preferences. Past practices is an important legal concept when interpreting contracts.

Also, this time, there was something significant; passholders needed to have a park reservation to access the parks. (That may have started earlier upon re-opening after the first big covid surge, but it was really significant when coupled with new annual passes going on sale.) So, to recap, notice of new annual pass sales, and the park reservation system. (The separate pricing of the water parks and photos was just so they didn't bundle and raise the prices even higher. I'm okay with allowing annual passholders to customize their passes by breaking them out in line item pricing. That is not reducing benefits. That is allowing individual choice in line item pricing.)

The impact of park reservations is how they got into trouble. Disney apparently did make statements about managing park experience with reference to crowds. They talked about quality of experience. Remember, they were just coming off of historically low park attendance due to covid restrictions and park attendance caps apparently set by governmental authorities. But, this is Florida and the Governor DeSantis administration removed restrictions of that kind from businesses.

If any of you have ever been to a Disney park when it was closed to further admissions due orders of the Fire Marshall (wall to wall people), I can tell you, it is not just an inconvenience and long lines, it is downright scary. This is when people pick up their children out of the strollers and carry them above their heads. You can't see anywhere. The crowd presses in on you and you cannot move forwards or in any direction. You try to get to the side up against a wall or building. Panic is a real possibility and trampling is a very high risk. Every Disney employee was there trying to move the massive crowd and I could see the fear on their faces. I have been in that more than once in Disneyland and a crowd too big, but not that scary at Disney World. For high risk of litigation purposes, this would be a situation that the highest level of management at any of the Disney parks would do just about anything to prevent. One of the things they have done -- and rightfully so -- is to lower the cap. We should all be very grateful for that. So, interpreting the Disney-speak, when they say they are trying to manage a quality experience, that's why the park capacities have been lowered. Also factor in 2 years of covid lock-downs and the biggest travel surge in history that shows no signs of letting up yet -- and they are so very right to control the capacity in their parks.

When Disney started selling new passes last September, they were using the "bucket" system of allocated spaces. One bucket for tickets, one bucket for resorts and one bucket for all of the types of passholders. Now, Disney has always seen annual passholders as sort of a "space available" guest to fill in the gaps. But, lately, they had new data that indicated the ticket holders or resort guests spent more per individual per park day. Whether we like that characterization or not, it is a fact that motivates Disney top management, who are accountable to shareholders. So, for the first time, Disney tried to keep annual passholders in the space available slots by controlling the allocations in the passholder bucket. What Ms. Neilsen discovered, in California is that her no-blockout annual pass could not get a park reservation when the ticketed and resort guests (the higher spenders) could! Disney had prioritized the highest profit guest over their (space - available) passholder guests. Lower caps on park maximum attendance meant thousands and tens of thousands of few spaces for passholders.

Ms. Nielsen filed a he lawsuit was filed on November 9, 2021. Less than a week later, Disney filed a Notice of Removal to federal court. So, we know Disney's attorneys were into this immediately and considered it serious. Disney then, on November 21, 2021, just five days after removal, gave notice that their Incredi-pass, Sorcerer and Pirate were "unavailable" to new sales, but kept the right of renewal for existing passholders and still allowed the Pixie Dust pass.

By allowing the right of renewal for existing passholders, it limited the pool of possible plaintiffs in the class action suit. They were already there. The lawsuit focuses on the AP blockout dates vs the park reservation system. So, since the new passes were only on sale from September 8, 2021 to November 20, 2021, it shut off adding additional people to the group of people that might have been damaged by their sale of annual passes with various levels of blockout dates. What Disney did was sell passes with defined blockout dates and then due solely to their own authority -- added additional blockout dates by having too few spaces in the passholder bucket. What their lawyers told them is, Mr. Chapek, when you sell an annual pass with blockout dates, you are telling that person they can come on the days not blocked out. Not every passholder will come on every date that is not blocked out, but maybe 20% of them will. So, you have already sold those dates to 20% of your eligible passholders. You cannot therefore sell those spaces again to new ticket buyers or prioritize resort guests. That was what was deceptive; the blockout date availability was being given to ticket holders or resort guests simply because Disney preferred them. It was solely within the control and discretion of Disney and against the express terms of the passholder contract that listed specific blockout dates. In law, the specific governs the general. The unavailability language is a general clause and the calendar of blockout dates per pass type is the specific language. So the blockout dates governs the unavailability language. Otherwise Disney could sell passes and tell us there is no availability until 2025.

One of the things Disney is doing right now with the reservation system is gathering data on how many passholders attend their parks on which days. They will find out if it is 20% or as in California 50% of the crowd consists of passholders.

The reason Disney decided to keep the Pixie Pass is because it blocks out the high attendance days -- every major and minor holiday, spring break and every weekend. It forces those passholders into the "space available" days; as Disney intended passholders to use. (It also may have been a condition of their development permits that they had to provide some kind of park access privilege to Florida residents. That is not an uncommon conditions on high entertainment land use decisions by local government to offset impacts of quality of life for locals. So, that may be why Disney keeps the lower prices passes to locals in both Florida and California.)

Now, litigation like this can generally take years. The person who said park passes may come back next year may or may not have had official Disney information. I suspect not. They did have the reservation system and the annual passes in existence together only from September 8, 2021 to November 20, 2021, so that is a short time. They reduced their risk that way.

So, why the renewals of current passholders? Because since they had to cap the park capacity numbers (due to the post covid travel surge) and cannot control through their bucket system (the litigation), then the only other way to control is to control the actual number of annual passes sold! Yes. I have seen other bloggers pick up on this. The indicators are out there that the actual number of annual passes are limited. They use the word "unavailable" for Disney World and "sold out" for Disneyland. Disneyland has over a million outstanding APs! They will be sold out for years to reduce that number through attrition. Disney World has fewer, but I suspect that with every angry person who will not renew - another annual pass goes back on the shelf. When they have enough, they will re-open sales again -- for a short time -- until those are gone -- and then they will stop again. Disney does not want to be oversold on annual passes so the best time to cut it off was now. They tried to use the reservation system to close the gates, but it failed. So, now they will close the doors another way.

Another thing that supports my observations and theories is that after the Christmas holiday crowds, there have been some crowded times. During all of those, there was park pass unavailability for ticket holders and resort guests, but not for the annual passholders. That tells me their lawyers have advised Disney in the strongest possible terms that they cannot use the park reservation system to reduce the number of passholders in the parks. Passholders have already bought and paid for that availability. So, that's the good news for passholders. But, trust me, you do not want those parks so crowded they are at Fire Marshall capacity caps ever again!

What about DVC members? You are important to them or they would not have started selling new properties as DVC. They will come up with something for you. I do think, however that they will continue to have some Florida resident access as well. I would have to wade through their original local government permitting docs to be certain and I am not going to get that deep into it.

So, those are my thoughts. When will they do it? Probably when they figure out what percentage of passholders attend the parks and when. Pass sales may become seasonal or annual. For my planning, I am going to budget for tickets during the holiday seasons no matter what pass tier I have. Focus on this and you will see where they are going: (1) Limits on the number of annual passes outstanding at any time, (2) Reduced park capacities for safety reasons and (3) Passholders were always meant to be space available guests.

question for those lawyers out there .. will these civil proceeding be public information? Most notably , Disney’s data on the percentage of APs vs day tickets and packages. THAT would be fascinating info to find out

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Correct but they decided they wanted to make it a tiered system and until they eliminate it..which they can…they do use it as a difference and why I think they will always offer something.

Again, people don’t buy nor should they buy for the benefits, but as long as they can offer buyers something resale can’t, they will include it.

It is the same thing for DPEP. APs make them a lot of money from all the different guests and they will find a way to bring something like it back.

The only reason to make a tiered system was to encourage direct sales.

I too think it makes little difference in the grand scheme. Just adjusting their sales tactics would probably do as much or maybe more.

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

We just bought UOR AP's and everything was great at Universal. We still prefer WDW but at least we have somewhere to go in August and January now. Also, Universal had character meets and shows when we were there. The Mardi Gras parade was great and staffing didn't seem to be an issue.

I don't like that Florida residents currently have an AP available at WDW and had the ticket offer. DVC members are spending large amounts of money for their timeshares and should at least have access to some ticketing promotion.

 

[RoseGold]

I've wracked my brain for different affordable alternatives but everything I think of seems to add at least $1500 to our overall cost. With home fuel costs in the UK now going up by 60% and diesel costing more than $10 per gallon, finances are stretched.

You are talking about thousands of dollars in park tickets, plus the income you could get from renting out your points (or selling your contract). That easily covers going anywhere in the Caribbean or Mexico. Keep the MCO flights and book flights somewhere else.