Boooo! 30 Fastpass +

[cakebaker]

You do realize that on-site guests are not enough to fill up the parks even if the resorts are at 100% capacity?

In regards to FP+ it has been a negative for many off-site guests (not all). Will that eventually translate into lower attendance? Remains to be seen.

Yes, I do realize that. I'm guessing Disney is confident what they **may** lose will be more than made up with in what they gain.

Perhaps lower attendance in the parks with higher per person spending is what they're after. Lower attendance would solve an awful lot of problems. It's the bargain hunter (whether off site or on site) that is most costly to them.

Btw- no insult intended with "bargain hunter"- we hunt too and always have a room discount of some kind. That's not to say we'd stop going if the discounts stopped- we wouldn't- but we're not turning them down either.

 

[disneyfav4ever]

I agree the new system favors resort guests, but I'm days of leaving for my trip and keep on switching around a bunch of my Fast Passes with no problem, so rides and times are available.

 

[ArwenMarie]

You do realize that on-site guests are not enough to fill up the parks even if the resorts are at 100% capacity?

In regards to FP+ it has been a negative for many off-site guests (not all). Will that eventually translate into lower attendance? Remains to be seen.

I think there are a lot of things that could happen.

One of them is that we could see a lot less onsite discounts if occupancy goes up.

These boards should be interesting then!

 

[saskdw]

I'm not sure that this is smart business for the average first timer.

I have friends that recently cancelled their first DW trip because they were shut out of A&E, and the parade at day 60. They could get a Mine Train for really late at night, but with two young children, they opted out. The experience was a bit overwhelming for them. Because they were shut out of what they wanted 60 days out, all they could envision were hoards of crowds everywhere during their time frame. Since they booked a package, they were able to cancel without penalty before the 45 day mark. As soon as they cancelled, they were relieved.

Actually, I picture most family's being the opposite.

They are going after the upper-middle class people with these changes. Most of which do not want to get out of bed at 6am on their vacation to hit rope drop and run around like commando's grabbing Fastpass and running from ride to ride in a panic. They want to know that when they get to DHS at 1pm they can ride TSM with no worry of a 120 min line or Fastpass run out already. They want to know that they will get to ride at least some headliners and get to eat at the TS of their choice.

One possible outcome maybe for some of these people to get a Travel Agent to book all this for them, if they don't like to plan themselves.

 

[saskdw]

I'm actually kind of hoping that just the advance booking isn't quite getting them where they want to be- it translates into more perks for on site guests!

I think they're firmly dedicated to increasing on site stays and are willing to do what it takes to get them there. I'm more than willing to take what they want to give.

I agree!

If they were smart they would have more perks as you go up in resort level. Right now we always stay at a Mod resort because I don't see enough value for us to pay the extra for a Deluxe. From what I can see the Mod and Value resorts are full most of the time, it's the Deluxe resorts they are having trouble filling. So they obviously need to lower the price or add "value" to the deluxe resort stays to entice people like myself to spend the extra money.

 

[DVCkidsMOM]

OP - did you try splitting up your party? You photo implies that a large group may be the issue...
Regardless of where you stand on FP+, experiences relevant to other travelers are valuable here. We need as much information as possible to choose whether to stay on-site for the perks at a higher cost or not. What FP+s are available at 30days for which sized groups (and not) is helpful info.

 

[saskdw]

You do realize that on-site guests are not enough to fill up the parks even if the resorts are at 100% capacity?

In regards to FP+ it has been a negative for many off-site guests (not all). Will that eventually translate into lower attendance? Remains to be seen.

I understand your point.

Question is how much more money do they make from and onsite guest compared to offsite? Double? Triple? Quadruple?

Even if the offsite traffic dropped off slightly would they still be further ahead? I think they would be, but you and I don't have the actual numbers to really say.

Example:
Our trip this december:

14 nights onsite with FD and 10 night park hoppers & more. When the smoke clear WDW will get about $8,000 of our money with 95% of our time spent on WDW property somewhere. This is myself, DW, and adult son.

Someone else stays offsite for the same amount of time they probably don't buy 10 day passes, but lets say they do.

10 day park hoppers & more: $1450

With most meals and souvenirs bought offsite if WDW is lucky they get another $500 out of that family. So At most they get $2000 from family B and we both know that number is probably high.

So when you look at the numbers like that you can see how important it is to fill those resorts first. Yes they need offsite traffic too, but I don't believe it will drop off enough to matter if they can increase the onsite traffic.

 

[JimmyV]

What do you think is more important to them the few hundred they make on your park tickets or the thousands they make from my tickets, resort room, food purchases and every other dime of my vacation money because I never leave property during my stay? It really is simple smart business.

Question is how much more money do they make from and onsite guest compared to offsite? Double? Triple? Quadruple?

The delta between on and off site guests isn't as much as you might think. With so many rooms sold at the "Value" rate, a family of 4 staying in a room costing $120 per day is netting $30 extra per day per person. Their 6 day pass costs the same as the off site guests'. Their food costs the same. (And with all the people who claim to save hundreds by getting a meal plan, then we can assume that the off site people are spending more for food unless they go back to their off-site condo for lunch, which is certainly not the norm). Souvenirs cost the same. And the off site people pay $17 per day to park. So the $30 extra per person per day may actually shrink down to about $23-$25 per person per day with parking and food added in. Does this add up over the total number of on site guests? Of course. And are the numbers higher for people who stay at the Grand Floridian? Sure. (But keep in mind that perhaps the people paying $600 per night for a room stay fewer days than the people staying at the $125 three-bedroom condo. So the people who stay longer pay more for their tickets, more for food, and more for parking. It won't ever equate to what a room at the GF costs, but it does add up.) Bottom line is that on site people give more of their money to WDW, but it is not the "thousands" that many people assume it to be.

The thing is the parks couldn't survive without the off-site people. Their parks would be empty.

In the end, this is all that matters. There is a "biting the hand that feeds them" mentality that never existed before, which is sad. Total number of rooms at WDW = roughly 30,000. Assume 85% occupancy (which would be historically high) and an average of 3.2 people per room and that equates to 81,600 people. Spread them out among the 4 parks and you would have crowd levels of 1-3. When the crowd calendar says that the levels are 4-10, it is because of off-site people. Now, factor in that resort rooms have been booked at the 75%-85% rate for years, and ask yourself what is Disney doing. If it can drive occupancy up to 90%, well, that is an increase of 5%-15%. Which is 1,500-4,500 rooms, which is 4,800-14,400 guests. Is it really worth ticking off 100,000 guests at a time just so that you can get 10,000 more people into your resort rooms? No matter how many perks they throw at on site guests, Disney cannot convert every off site guest to an on site guest. There simply aren't enough rooms. Which means that there will always be tens of thousands (and upwards of 100,000+ guests) with chips on their shoulders because they are getting treated as second class guests. Disney has every right to do this. But it has never done it in the past (with the minor exceptions of the 180+10 benefit for ADRs and EMHs). But the FP+ system takes this disparate treatment up to a whole other level.

 

[saskdw]

I think there are a lot of things that could happen.

One of them is that we could see a lot less onsite discounts if occupancy goes up.

These boards should be interesting then!

Agreed. Disney is definately walking a fine line with what they can charge.

 

[lugnut33]

I understand your point.

Question is how much more money do they make from and onsite guest compared to offsite? Double? Triple? Quadruple?

Even if the offsite traffic dropped off slightly would they still be further ahead? I think they would be, but you and I don't have the actual numbers to really say.

Example:
Our trip this december:

14 nights onsite with FD and 10 night park hoppers & more. When the smoke clear WDW will get about $8,000 of our money with 95% of our time spent on WDW property somewhere. This is myself, DW, and adult son.

Someone else stays offsite for the same amount of time they probably don't buy 10 day passes, but lets say they do.

10 day park hoppers & more: $1450

With most meals and souvenirs bought offsite if WDW is lucky they get another $500 out of that family. So At most they get $2000 from family B and we both know that number is probably high.

So when you look at the numbers like that you can see how important it is to fill those resorts first. Yes they need offsite traffic too, but I don't believe it will drop off enough to matter if they can increase the onsite traffic.

The math may add up, but I really don't think Disney wants to lose one customer. They know that every dollar of revenue from any guest is a good thing. Parks running at max. capacity for 365 days a year would be the ultimate money maker for Disney and that's just not going to happen with on-site guests only. While they may fiddle with things to entice guests into spending more for rooms, they are not going to erode their customer base.

 

[saskdw]

The math may add up, but I really don't think Disney wants to lose one customer. They know that every dollar of revenue from any guest is a good thing. Parks running at max. capacity for 365 days a year would be the ultimate money maker for Disney and that's just not going to happen with on-site guests only. While they may fiddle with things to entice guests into spending more for rooms, they are not going to erode their customer base.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you just offering a different point of view.

For us, we have no interest in staying offsite. However WDW does need to make it worth while for us to stay onsite. They risk losing our business if they don't offer us enough value to justify staying onsite. Right now they need FD, combined with the convenience of the Magic Bands and the FP+ advantage to just barely keep our interest. Even at that I'm not sure it's enough to get us back again next year.

 

[lugnut33]

Agreed. Disney is definately walking a fine line with what they can charge.

You know it. I cancelled two DCL bookings once I found out I can go to Sweden for two weeks for less than the cost of one of the 7 day cruises I had booked.

I'll also say this, it's a darn good thing I'm a DVC member because I would have a really hard time booking rooms at the value and moderate resorts due the cost of those rooms. Ouch. I still remember booking POR for under $100 per night just a few years ago.

 

[carrie1626]

This 30 day time for guests staying off site really stinks. All of the days between Dec 1st and 4th only have late times available at all parks (3:30 is the earliest). No fast passes available any day for 7DMT! We are early risers and are generally at the parks at rope drop and out of the parks around 3pm. Every year I find one more thing to tick me off at Disney.

I wouldn't change the Rope Drop plans

 

[Woobie]

FP+ is new to me. I've been staying up past midnight all week to book. So now that I have 3 FPs booked at one park, how can I look to see if what I want at another park is available instead. I'd switch to 7D Mine Train (for example) if it's available, but I don't want to give up what I have first. Seems like I have to give up FPs before seeing if the grass is greener so to speak. TIA

 

[Tarheel girl 1975]

You can think what you want, but it's filling resorts. This isn't a government funded service it's private business. They are using the tools at their disposal to fill their resorts.

What do you think is more important to them the few hundred they make on your park tickets or the thousands they make from my tickets, resort room, food purchases and every other dime of my vacation money because I never leave property during my stay? It really is simple smart business.

I thought it was free dining and room discounts that were filling the rooms. If Disney was able to rely on the perks of FP+ and EMH, they would have given up discounts long ago. And they are much more likely to fill up the values and the mods. That's why there is so much talk of expanding DVC. Taking those rooms out of circulation, makes your occupancy record look better.

Actually, I picture most family's being the opposite.

They are going after the upper-middle class people with these changes. Most of which do not want to get out of bed at 6am on their vacation to hit rope drop and run around like commando's grabbing Fastpass and running from ride to ride in a panic. They want to know that when they get to DHS at 1pm they can ride TSM with no worry of a 120 min line or Fastpass run out already. They want to know that they will get to ride at least some headliners and get to eat at the TS of their choice.

One possible outcome maybe for some of these people to get a Travel Agent to book all this for them, if they don't like to plan themselves.

So what they're really looking for are families who will be happy to experience 6 to 8 attractions a day.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I thought it was free dining and room discoounts that were filling the rooms. If Disney was able to rely on the perks of FP+ and EMH, they would have given up discounts long ago. And they are much more likely to fill up the values and the mods. That's why there is so much talk of expanding DVC. Taking those rooms out of circulation, makes your occupancy record look better.

Good point. The DVC conversions that are coming, along with FP+ differences (assuming FP+ can get even some people to move back onsite) could be enough to raise the occupancy rate enough to lower the discounting.

 

[itchin2go]

I understand your point.

Question is how much more money do they make from and onsite guest compared to offsite? Double? Triple? Quadruple?

Even if the offsite traffic dropped off slightly would they still be further ahead? I think they would be, but you and I don't have the actual numbers to really say.

Example:
Our trip this december:

14 nights onsite with FD and 10 night park hoppers & more. When the smoke clear WDW will get about $8,000 of our money with 95% of our time spent on WDW property somewhere. This is myself, DW, and adult son.

Someone else stays offsite for the same amount of time they probably don't buy 10 day passes, but lets say they do.

10 day park hoppers & more: $1450

With most meals and souvenirs bought offsite if WDW is lucky they get another $500 out of that family. So At most they get $2000 from family B and we both know that number is probably high.

So when you look at the numbers like that you can see how important it is to fill those resorts first. Yes they need offsite traffic too, but I don't believe it will drop off enough to matter if they can increase the onsite traffic.

I see your point, but you lose me in several places.

The crux of all of my quibbles with your argument is that there are no cookie cutter customers. You can't say every onsite family drops $8,000, and you can't say every offsite guest only drops $500.

I have friends who stay onsite, but only for 3 or 4 days. By the same token, my family stays offsite, but we drop MOST of our money at Disney. We eat MOST of our meals at Disney World. We buy MOST (if not all) our souvenirs at Disney World.

I don't know what the stereotype is for offsite people, but we stay offsite because we will not cram our family into one bedroom. We have become accustomed to staying in properties where we have more than one room and we don't really like to do it any other way. We have stayed in 1 BR villas at Wilderness Lodge and Beach Club, and we stayed in adjoining rooms at AKL once (love AKL, but a villa is WAY better than adjoining rooms). Those places were amazing, but easily 5 times more expensive (even with great discounts) than the 2 BR villa we stay at offsite ... right around corner. We go to Orlando to visit Disney World, and really for no other reason. We drop the lion's share of our money there. Maybe we're not typical, but really, what IS typical? Is there such a thing?

I just don't think it's wise for Disney to write off all the offsite visitors. The truth is, I think they know this, or they wouldn't have given 30 day advance FP privileges to offsiters. Remember when this first started, and all you could get was "day of" FPs? I think Disney knew this wasn't good business.

Now, is giving onsite people a 30 day head start good business? Time (and Disney) will tell, I guess.

 

[saskdw]

I thought it was free dining and room discoounts that were filling the rooms. If Disney was able to rely on the perks of FP+ and EMH, they would have given up discounts long ago. And they are much more likely to fill up the values and the mods. That's why there is so much talk of expanding DVC. Taking those rooms out of circulation, makes your occupancy record look better.




So what they're really looking for are families who will be happy to experience 6 to 8 attractions a day.

It's a combination of all the tools at their disposal that is filling the resorts. Yes, FD and discounts are a big part of that right now. If they ever want to get away with smaller discounts or no discounts they have to build value in staying onsite which they are attempting to do.

In response to your second question: Sort of. They are looking to accommodate those people. Most people are not like the DIS Commandos! They don't show up at rope drop and stay until close. They spend a max of 4-6 hours in a park in one day. They want to be able to be at MK from noon-4pm and experience 6-8 attractions. They don't show up at 8 am like a pack of Navy Seals and run wild from ride to ride grabbing Fastpasses like crazy and staying until 11pm using 6 or more Fastpasses. That is the stuff "some" DIS people do.

 

[saskdw]

I see your point, but you lose me in several places.

The crux of all of my quibbles with your argument is that there are no cookie cutter customers. You can't say every onsite family drops $8,000, and you can't say every offsite guest only drops $500.

I have friends who stay onsite, but only for 3 or 4 days. By the same token, my family stays offsite, but we drop MOST of our money at Disney. We eat MOST of our meals at Disney World. We buy MOST (if not all) our souvenirs at Disney World.

I don't know what the stereotype is for offsite people, but we stay offsite because we will not cram our family into one bedroom. We have become accustomed to staying in properties where we have more than one room and we don't really like to do it any other way. We have stayed in 1 BR villas at Wilderness Lodge and Beach Club, and we stayed in adjoining rooms at AKL once (love AKL, but a villa is WAY better than adjoining rooms). Those places were amazing, but easily 5 times more expensive (even with great discounts) than the 2 BR villa we stay at offsite ... right around corner. We go to Orlando to visit Disney World, and really for no other reason. We drop the lion's share of our money there. Maybe we're not typical, but really, what IS typical? Is there such a thing?

I just don't think it's wise for Disney to write off all the offsite visitors. The truth is, I think they know this, or they wouldn't have given 30 day advance FP privileges to offsiters. Remember when this first started, and all you could get was "day of" FPs? I think Disney knew this wasn't good business.

Now, is giving onsite people a 30 day head start good business? Time (and Disney) will tell, I guess.

You are correct. We can't group all onsite or offsite people into one category. I can't say for sure obviously, but it would seem more common for offsite people to eat most of their meals away from WDW property and shop for their souvenirs at surrounding malls where similar things can be found for cheaper prices.

What would be even more common is for someone staying offsite for 2 weeks to only spend a few of those days at WDW, where we would spend 95% of our time there.

I think we both understand each others point. Only Disney has the real numbers to look at.

 

[cakebaker]

I agree!

If they were smart they would have more perks as you go up in resort level. Right now we always stay at a Mod resort because I don't see enough value for us to pay the extra for a Deluxe. From what I can see the Mod and Value resorts are full most of the time, it's the Deluxe resorts they are having trouble filling. So they obviously need to lower the price or add "value" to the deluxe resort stays to entice people like myself to spend the extra money.

Our situation is similar to yours.

We always stayed either Deluxe or the villas. This year, we tried the AOA suites and really liked them. For the price difference, we can't justify staying at the villas anymore. We don't cook on vacation and we definitely do not do laundry so while the villas offered that ability, the reason we were there was strictly for the separate bedrooms, space and the feel of the villas. We get the bedrooms and space for a fraction what a villa would cost.

We'd love to have a reason to be at the villas again. They're just much nicer and we love them. But WDW will have to up the perks to justify it for us.

We're satisfied to continue booking the AOA suites but should Disney want to sweeten the pot, we'll jump back to the villas in a heartbeat.