Can we talk about how bad FastPass+ is?

[Shaden]

Disney doesn't have to provide the best possible experience (as if that could be quantified), and never has. They just need to give you something that you value more than the cash you're willing to trade for it.

Disney is not a sports franchise, and it's fans are not analogous. The commitment level for a sports fan in terms of time and treasure are relatively small, and the vast majority of fans interact with the team in ways that don't require a direct financial exchange.

I've been a Bengals fan since expansion, and I've been to exactly 2 games (Playoff and AFC championship) and have never bought a jersey. I've been a Buckeye fan since birth and have only been to one game but our basement is a shrine of memorabilia.

Disney's customers will demonstrate that what's good for Disney is not good for them when they stop coming. There is no other measure.

You wrote:

For anything to be good for Disney, it has to be good for Disney's customers. The aren't selling fuel, groceries or medicine.

Then that they don't have to give you the best experience, just enough that you are willing to part with your cash for it ...

Therefore you original premise is false.

It is quite possible that Disney can do something good for Disney, and Bad for its guests, so long as they continue to come back. It can still be bad for the guests, like cutting back on the snacks on the dining plan. That's no way good for the guest, but its good for Disney, but it isn't enough to make me stop going.

And your description of sports fans is hilarious, and completely based on your own lack of dedication to a sports team. The fans between Disney and Sports teams are quite analogous.

While YOU might not invest much in your sports teams, many of my friends spend more on their sports teams every year than we spend on our family vacation to Disney every year. Millions of people do this, every year.
The NFL, alone, is aiming to bring in $25 Billion per year over the next few years.

People invest a ton of time and treasure into their sports teams, even when the don't win, when they don't seem to get much return on their investment. The same could very well be true of Disney. I have even heard as much here on the boards. Basically, "Disney is our thing" so we keep going, despite the fact that the quality or value of their vacation has been diminished.

 

[OtherScott]

I'm not sure I understand your argument. If an attraction is a hit with most of their guests, that's a problem? They would prefer to have a park full of mediocre attractions, so that each has the same short lines full of less than enthusiastic guests? Would those guests ever come back?

New rides are cheap by comparison to NexGen. They are also fairly permanent. So, which rides/attractions would be built, and where, and how would you manage guest access to them? How do they not become the next dud, or the next unmanageable success?

And what becomes of all the rides that you consider mediocre?

Maybe, but losing a chunk of your most loyal customers is never good (as per the 80/20 rule). With more and stronger competition than ever, Disney's position as industry leader is not as secure as it once was. When you take your customers for granted, that is when the competition starts making serious inroads. We are seeing the beginning of that.

I'm not saying that the company is in trouble anytime soon. But maybe the reaction to FP+ is the proverbial canary in a coal mine.

WDW faces bigger issues than how to get people in Orlando to the parks. Competition is far greater from options that keep people from even getting to Orlando.

WDW needs US, and vice versa.

 

[mom2rtk]

When I enter a line with a posted wait time of 70 minutes, I've made a ride appointment that I have to keep. I also have to do a specified thing for that entire 70 minute.

A virtual queue used to be called FastPass. Now it's an abomination.

But they're not giving you a return time equal to the current wait time. And if your return time is several hours away, you have to decide whether you will be back in that area of the park when it comes up. And if they do this on all rides like you propose, you would need to coordinate multiple return times with dining times.

If a person wants to wait for 70 minutes, what the heck is wrong with just letting them wait?

 

[OtherScott]

You wrote:

Then that they don't have to give you the best experience, just enough that you are willing to part with your cash for it ...

Therefore you original premise is false.

It is quite possible that Disney can do something good for Disney, and Bad for its guests, so long as they continue to come back. It can still be bad for the guests, like cutting back on the snacks on the dining plan. That's no way good for the guest, but its good for Disney, but it isn't enough to make me stop going.

And your description of sports fans is hilarious, and completely based on your own lack of dedication to a sports team. The fans between Disney and Sports teams are quite analogous.

While YOU might not invest much in your sports teams, many of my friends spend more on their sports teams every year than we spend on our family vacation to Disney every year. Millions of people do this, every year.
The NFL, alone, is aiming to bring in $25 Billion per year over the next few years.

People invest a ton of time and treasure into their sports teams, even when the don't win, when they don't seem to get much return on their investment. The same could very well be true of Disney. I have even heard as much here on the boards. Basically, "Disney is our thing" so we keep going, despite the fact that the quality or value of their vacation has been diminished.

If you are going to Disney, you view it as a net good for you. You like some things, don't like others, but on balance, the good outweighs the bad.

If not, seek help.

Going to a football game to watch the Bengals lose is a net gain for a lot of people. Tailgating, beer, food, atmosphere, camaraderie. These factors outweigh the lousy performance of the team - and in some cases, the lousy performance of the team is something that is endearing (just ask Browns fans).

Disney is a restaurant that took one of your favorites off the menu, or started preparing it a different way.

Disney might not be as good for you as it was, but it's still good enough.

 

[OtherScott]

But they're not giving you a return time equal to the current wait time. And if your return time is several hours away, you have to decide whether you will be back in that area of the park when it comes up.

Certainly true. I've often used this as a weakness to FP legacy.

And if they do this on all rides like you propose, you would need to coordinate multiple return times with dining times.

I didn't propose it for all rides, or even this ride. The PP expressed an opinion of what would happen if they went exclusively to this and I asked how they would feel if Disney used "more virtual" lines (not all).

If a person wants to wait for 70 minutes, what the heck is wrong with just letting them wait?

Nothing, individually. But if a majority are negatively affected by giving a minority exactly what they want, a pro/con analysis is probably a smart way to go.

 

[Davey Jones II]

New rides are cheap by comparison to NexGen.

Actually, they could have invested the same dollars into a number of lands and/or attractions. And it would have been an investment, not a sinkhole.

They are also fairly permanent. So, which rides/attractions would be built, and where, and how would you manage guest access to them? How do they not become the next dud, or the next unmanageable success?

Some attractions become unmanageable because there is a shortage of other headliners in the park to soak up the crowds.

At DCA, TSMM became more manageable when Cars Land opened. RSR gave the park another much-needed superstar attraction.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Actually, they could have invested the same dollars into a number of lands and/or attractions. And it would have been an investment, not a sinkhole.

Some attractions become unmanageable because there is a shortage of other headliners in the park to soak up the crowds.

At DCA, TSMM became more manageable when Cars Land opened. RSR gave the park another much-needed superstar attraction.

Fwiw, tsmm was manageable at dca before Carsland. As you can see in ny signature, we went to DLR a few years in a row before carsland opened. Even during a spring break trip, the longest we waited there was 45 mins. I've seen much longer waits at dhs more frequently. There has never been fp on tsmm there, which also helps the line move faster.

But there have always been more rides at dca than at dhs, which I understand is the main point of your post, so from that aspect I agree.

 

[OtherScott]

Actually, they could have invested the same dollars into a number of lands and/or attractions. And it would have been an investment, not a sinkhole.

Some attractions become unmanageable because there is a shortage of other headliners in the park to soak up the crowds.

At DCA, TSMM became more manageable when Cars Land opened. RSR gave the park another much-needed superstar attraction.

So which lands and/or attractions do they build? What will be the cannibalization effect of these new lands/attractions? What do you do with unused capacity?

You're proposing a solution to a problem that you feel exists but Disney does not think exists.

If my park is full, my focus is on managing crowd/assets. Adding new capacity by way of rides ignores existing unused capacity. If reports are accurate, rides that used to have no lines now do.

If WDW was a restaurant, they would be examining turnover rate of tables, maximizing seating configuration, offering special pricing for slower times, and trying to get every customer to order an appetizer - before they blew out a wall and took over the business next door, or opened a new location.

People would love new rides. I would. But we focus on answers, when I'm not sure we even know the questions.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Fwiw, tsmm was manageable at dca before Carsland. As you can see in ny signature, we went to DLR a few years in a row before carsland opened. Even during a spring break trip, the longest we waited there was 45 mins. I've seen much longer waits at dhs more frequently. There has never been fp on tsmm there, which also helps the line move faster.

But there have always been more rides at dca than at dhs, which I understand is the main point of your post, so from that aspect I agree.

Yes, and at rope drop, everyone used to bolt for TSMM. Now, at least, the crowds are split between that ride and Cars Land, or the RSR Fast Pass dispensers.

 

[tmosier]

It's been horrible for us since dd20 is a cp and she cannot do fp+ ahead of time with her pass. What's the point of the rest of our party making fp+ selections when one person who will be with us cannot do it as well?!

 

[Davey Jones II]

So which lands and/or attractions do they build? What will be the cannibalization effect of these new lands/attractions? What do you do with unused capacity?

You're proposing a solution to a problem that you feel exists but Disney does not think exists.

If my park is full, my focus is on managing crowd/assets. Adding new capacity by way of rides ignores existing unused capacity. If reports are accurate, rides that used to have no lines now do.

If WDW was a restaurant, they would be examining turnover rate of tables, maximizing seating configuration, offering special pricing for slower times, and trying to get every customer to order an appetizer - before they blew out a wall and took over the business next door, or opened a new location.

People would love new rides. I would. But we focus on answers, when I'm not sure we even know the questions.

If there is some "unused capacity" because rides are unpopular, those rides should be replaced. Dispersing crowds by fooling them into getting in line for mediocre attractions (by making them FP+ selections) is only a short term solution.

Headliners have that status for a reason; they are exceptional, or people just like them. Conning more people into spending a lot of time riding your weakest attractions won't do much for customer loyalty.

Finally, if Disney doesn't think there's a capacity problem in a park like DHS, then they would be seriously out to lunch. I don't believe that is the case, considering that they are (finally) closing the so-called Studio Tour and AI. Presumably, much better stuff is on the horizon.

They've never been in a hurry, though. This is a company that kept Sounds Dangerous running, to a snoozing handfull of people, for years and years.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Yes, and at rope drop, everyone used to bolt for TSMM. Now, at least, the crowds are split between that ride and Cars Land, or the RSR Fast Pass dispensers.

Oh, i completely agree that rope drop itself is more manageable with cars land, but the post i responded to seemed to come across as saying TSMM was unmanageable all day at DCA. That's all i was responding to...while we would do RD for TSMM, it was so that we could get multiple rides as the waits the rest of the day were never as long as they are consistently at DHS (where we rarely get in multiple rides).

 

[Laketravis]

Interesting how the principles of yield management can be discussed a million different ways and that continues to be so here on these boards.

The argument that more capacity should be added is one I like to make. But the argument that does nothing to utilize unused capacity is just as valid.

I've got some books on yield management left over from my post grad days and every couple of months when I visit these threads and read about the latest developments and everyone's opinion of them, I go back to those books and sure enough I can find a chapter that is relevant.

Can those concepts predict what Disney's next moves are and why? Will they help to indicate whether those moves will succeed or fail? I'm not going to arrogantly suggest they will, because I also consider Disney to be large enough with sufficient talent and resources to be able to rewrite the rules.

The question is, will they? And that is what keeps folks like me interested in these discussions.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Interesting how the principles of yield management can be discussed a million different ways and that continues to be so here on these boards.

The argument that more capacity should be added is one I like to make. But the argument that does nothing to utilize unused capacity is just as valid.

I've got some books on yield management left over from my post grad days and every couple of months when I visit these threads and read about the latest developments and everyone's opinion of them, I go back to those books and sure enough I can find a chapter that is relevant.

Can those concepts predict what Disney's next moves are and why? Will they help to indicate whether those moves will succeed or fail? I'm not going to arrogantly suggest they will, because I also consider Disney to be large enough with sufficient talent and resources to be able to rewrite the rules.

The question is, will they? And that is what keeps folks like me interested in these discussions.

I think they should have kept Sounds Dangerous, because that was a case of unused capacity. They could have added it on as an FP+ selection, thereby fooling a lot of first-timers into trying it, and it might have become popular as a dark, air conditioned spot to take an afternoon nap!

 

[soniam]

I think they should have kept Sounds Dangerous, because that was a case of unused capacity. They could have added it on as an FP+ selection, thereby fooling a lot of first-timers into trying it, and it might have become popular as a dark, air conditioned spot to take an afternoon nap!

I think a 4th FP+ for naps would be great Really. Or maybe even a chair massage.

 

[OtherScott]

If there is some "unused capacity" because rides are unpopular, those rides should be replaced. Dispersing crowds by fooling them into getting in line for mediocre attractions (by making them FP+ selections) is only a short term solution.

Headliners have that status for a reason; they are exceptional, or people just like them. Conning more people into spending a lot of time riding your weakest attractions won't do much for customer loyalty.

Finally, if Disney doesn't think there's a capacity problem in a park like DHS, then they would be seriously out to lunch. I don't believe that is the case, considering that they are (finally) closing the so-called Studio Tour and AI. Presumably, much better stuff is on the horizon.

They've never been in a hurry, though. This is a company that kept Sounds Dangerous running, to a snoozing handfull of people, for years and years.

1. There will always be "weakest attractions."

2. Weakest for some is first priority for others. They built a second Dumbo for some reason.

3. They don't need to con you to ride the weakest rides. They allow you to ride them by getting you out of lines for the 3 things you like to do more. The argument here has not been "I don't want to ride IASW or POTC." The argument has been "I used to be able to walk on IASW and POTC and now I have to wait/burn FP to ride them."

BTW, imagine the reaction to nuking either of these attractions. Not your reaction, but the entire ear wearing population.

4. Nobody is saying Disney doesn't believe they have capacity issues. I'm saying that they view management of capacity as a priority.

Everyone would like newer/better attractions, or more precisely, what they personally consider newer/better. Me too.

 

[Shaden]

If there is some "unused capacity" because rides are unpopular, those rides should be replaced. Dispersing crowds by fooling them into getting in line for mediocre attractions (by making them FP+ selections) is only a short term solution.

Headliners have that status for a reason; they are exceptional, or people just like them. Conning more people into spending a lot of time riding your weakest attractions won't do much for customer loyalty.

Finally, if Disney doesn't think there's a capacity problem in a park like DHS, then they would be seriously out to lunch. I don't believe that is the case, considering that they are (finally) closing the so-called Studio Tour and AI. Presumably, much better stuff is on the horizon.

They've never been in a hurry, though. This is a company that kept Sounds Dangerous running, to a snoozing handfull of people, for years and years.

Still keeps Captain Eo running. Disney should be fricken ashamed of that attraction ...

 

[Laketravis]

Still keeps Captain Eo running. Disney should be fricken ashamed of that attraction ...

 

[Davey Jones II]

1. There will always be "weakest attractions."

2. Weakest for some is first priority for others. They built a second Dumbo for some reason.

3. They don't need to con you to ride the weakest rides. They allow you to ride them by getting you out of lines for the 3 things you like to do more. The argument here has not been "I don't want to ride IASW or POTC." The argument has been "I used to be able to walk on IASW and POTC and now I have to wait/burn FP to ride them."

BTW, imagine the reaction to nuking either of these attractions. Not your reaction, but the entire ear wearing population.

4. Nobody is saying Disney doesn't believe they have capacity issues. I'm saying that they view management of capacity as a priority.

Everyone would like newer/better attractions, or more precisely, what they personally consider newer/better. Me too.

I would never suggest that they replace attractions which are classics and which have stood the test of time (such as POTC and IASW). Nor would I advocate getting rid of attractions which are popular with children (e.g. Dumbo). But they stubbornly keep crap like Stitch and Tiki Room Under New Management (until the tiki gods got fed up and started a fire in the room), despite universal (no pun intended) loathing and non-existent wait times. A more popular ride, a headliner to compete with existing headliners, would do wonders for capacity.

Of course, the MK is not the park with the biggest capacity issues. At least they're closing some of the duds at DHS, but it will be years before they are replaced.

Attempts to manage capacity amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Adding real capacity, with E Tickets or other attractions which are well executed and likely to be popular for many years to come, is the real solution.

Again, the best recent example is RSR. They poured a lot of money and resources into making that ride a major E Ticket, and it even helped to reduce crowding at Disneyland! As the lynchpin of Cars Land, it helped to redistribute DLR guests more evenly between the two parks. In the past, Disneyland was getting most of the crowds, and sometimes DCA was almost a ghost town by comparison.

Of course there are never any guarantees. The public can be fickle. But when they go all out to create something amazing, doing whatever it takes to pull it off, they rarely fail. Disney has enormous resources and a huge talent pool from which to draw. What is sometimes missing is the willingness to give a project the green light, or to resist cutting costs.

 

[SydneyFalco]

Slide rule vs. rattle!

"This time it's theoretically personal..."