Disney , please don't do this...

[RayRay13]

After our trip in May, we're going one more time in November before our AP's expire. We have had a great time so far. Last year we did AP's at Universal and it was a lot of fun but it's not the same as Disney. I love the express passes but I will say that it creates a "haves and have nots" vibe. I heard EP holders making snarky comments to the guest in stand by and vice-versa. It wasn't nice. The standby lines are ridiculous sometimes but you can do everything in both parks in 2 days with the EP. It a completely different experience. That being said, I really do want every little girl to see a princess and for all the kids to get a chance at the rides. Some people only get to go once in a lifetime. For us, staying on site is the way to go and I would not refuse an extra FP+ but as someone suggested earlier, I'd much rather park hop with FP+. MK has plenty to do and Epcot is great but if we pick between the only 2 rides we like that need FP+ and our others are 2 are wasted for the day. Of course we love Toy Story so we FP+ but we don't need FP+ for anything else so we waste those too. We don't go to AK too often because there's no "must do" for us so we'd rather use our FP+ for MK where are the lines are. Ideally, we would do 1/2 days at AK and HS which would be better for us and maybe thin the crowds a little. I'm not sure why people would pay the extra fee for the Park Hopper add on if they could only get FP+ in one park. Next year, while both Disney and Universal go through their changes, the kids and I have decided to hit the big wide world and head for one long trip to Europe. Hopefully thing will iron out with the crowds or some new rides will pop up inside AK & HS.

 

[poeticdiabetic]

Actually, I would like to see an extra one or two FP+s for those on who are onsite and bought a park-hopper. And they need to eliminate the restriction of one park.

 

[OtherScott]

It's not that onsite guests pay more so they deserve more. It's that Disney wants as many guests as possible to pay more so they give them incentives beyond the room and location. It's not about guests getting their money's worth. It's about Disney getting the most they can out of their guests. Increasing onsite perks only makes sense, even if these weren't traditionally onsite perks. I mean, EMH started somewhere didn't it? As did the dining plan, which was a perk way back in the day (mid 2000s ), believe it or not. I mean, people could have said "That's so unfair! Why should onsite guests get better deals at the restaurants??? They're already getting Disney rooms and EMH!" Well, they should get better deals because in the long run it increases profits for Disney. All the perks have to start somewhere.

Law of Diminishing Returns.

How many current off site guest would move on site to access FP+ versus those who would simply not visit all?

Of those who move on site, how many adjust downward the number of park days (less significant for longer overall visits)?

Of those who move on site, how many adjust downward the amount of money spent on concessions and merchandise?

What happens to room rates if demand goes up/down?

Disney has no doubt considered all of this and it's practices show what it knows. FP+ won't become an on site perk because Disney already knows the value, in and of itself, is negligible, and limiting its availability would undercut the bottom line. FP+ is merely an anchor and management tool, and a part of Disney's data mining operation.

 

[*disgal*]

And if anybody even considers booking a campsite to get access to those stalls, well, I'm just glad I was raised better than that .

I didn't even think that far!! I don't know, it'd be pretty tempting.

sorry, back to the thread.....

last year my kids and DH went to US because the kids wanted to see HP world. It was one day and I wasn't going so I knew that was about $95 I could give toward the purchase of Express passes. I didn't want them waiting in line all day. (remember, we were FP- people). Being that it was Easter week, each pass cost an extra $65 on top of the ticket. Yep. in.sane. But again, I thought one day, it will probably be yearsssssss before we'll be back, so I sprung for it. Now they couldn't use it for that one HP ride so they still waited in line an hour and a half(mostly because they didn't listen to me when I told them to go straight there after RD. See what happens children when you don't listen to mom? )

They were very glad they had them though, lets just say that. Saved a lot of time in line for a lot of other rides.

Would I ever do that for Disney? Would I ever want them to do that? Of course I wouldn't WANT to have to pay for something like that. I guess it depends on a lot of things but obviously I've done it some other place.

 

[LilyWDW]

Law of Diminishing Returns.

How many current off site guest would move on site to access FP+ versus those who would simply not visit all?

Of those who move on site, how many adjust downward the number of park days (less significant for longer overall visits)?

Of those who move on site, how many adjust downward the amount of money spent on concessions and merchandise?

What happens to room rates if demand goes up/down?

Disney has no doubt considered all of this and it's practices show what it knows. FP+ won't become an on site perk because Disney already knows the value, in and of itself, is negligible, and limiting its availability would undercut the bottom line. FP+ is merely an anchor and management tool, and a part of Disney's data mining operation.

Actually, while it may or may not have thought the original FP wouldn't be worth it as an onsite perk, NONE of that has anything to do with FP+. Totally different system with different rules. So Disney would need to look at the numbers again and decide what is best.

 

[OtherScott]

Actually, while it may or may not have thought the original FP wouldn't be worth it as an onsite perk, NONE of that has anything to do with FP+. Totally different system with different rules. So Disney would need to look at the numbers again and decide what is best.

They have.

 

[kandb]

I think people who stay on-site at Disney overpriced hotels should get some extra fp's. Most of Disney deluxe hotels are $400+/night. I know their location is good but they really are not "worth" what they charge per night.

 

[OtherScott]

I think people who stay on-site at Disney overpriced hotels should get some extra fp's. Most of Disney deluxe hotels are $400+/night. I know their location is good but they really are not "worth" what they charge per night.

How can you put a price on "magic?"

 

[HMANSION LOVER]

I know when it comes to it Disney is a company and its ultimate goal is to make money, and this may come from me growing up poor, but I always thought there was something magical about once you entered the parks everyone was the same. Everyone had the same shot at meeting a princess, riding a ride or seeing the fireworks no matter how much money they had. We usually stay on property and can probably learn to live with just three fastpasses but somehow knowing some people can buy more "magic" will just make the place seem less special.

Unfortunately and sadly Walt Disney is no longer with us. All that is left to run the company is a bunch of corporate dirtbags (can't use the word I want to out of respect for the board) who's annual salary is largely dependant upon the value of the stock. That is how top executives make most of their money, value of the stock they own and potential value of the stock options they are given every year. They don't care about your experience at the parks, they don't care about your experience at the resort. All they care about is how much the company stock is worth, and if that means creating new and inventive ways of seperating you from your money while they offer you less and less in service then in their ( greedy corporate) minds they have done a great job. Unfortunately the customer comes very far behind the bottom line

 

[oliviaik]

Don't get me wrong. I am not necessarily against "perks" for onsite guests as long as they do not worsen the experience of the off-site guests. For example, EMH provide a perk to onsite guests that do not significantly harm off-site guests. They might add a few more crowds to that park for that day, but with some scheduling an offsiter can avoid that. I am not convinced yet that giving onsite guests more FastPasses than off-site guests won't hurt the experience of offsite guests. I worry that if we increase the number of FastPasses then they will all get booked up before offsite guests ever even get a chance to book. Especially compared to FP-, this would significantly decrease the quality of the experience for offsite guests. Now, maybe they will find a way to manage it so that off-site guests will not be harmed by this. If that is the case, then I am okay with it. I just am not convinced that they will be able to achieve that yet.

 

[Disneychick75]

They would have to charge an arm and a leg for unlimited FP. You're likely looking at $100 per person per day (AT A MINIMUM) (adults and children). Family of 4 staying 7 nights and that's an extra $2,800.

They do charge an enormous amount for unlimited FP. It's called the VIP tour.
The tours are a minimum of 6 hours. The rates are good for up to 10 people.

Hourly Rate per Guide:
Resort Hotel
(regular)$315 (holiday)$355
Non-Resort Hotel
(regular)$340 (holiday) $380

 

[CinqueTerre]

They do charge an enormous amount for unlimited FP. It's called the VIP tour.
The tours are a minimum of 6 hours. The rates are good for up to 10 people.

Hourly Rate per Guide:
Resort Hotel
(regular)$315 (holiday)$355
Non-Resort Hotel
(regular)$340 (holiday) $380

Right but there is other stuff with that. An unlimited FP card (similar to Universal) wouldn't cost the rates you posted above.

 

[Disneychick75]

Right but there is other stuff with that. An unlimited FP card (similar to Universal) wouldn't cost the rates you posted above.

The only other thing is transportation in a van to the parks and a guide.

 

[CinqueTerre]

The only other thing is transportation in a van to the parks and a guide.

Sure but I can't imagine a couple paying the rates you posted. I can only imagine large groups doing it and splitting up the cost.

 

[LBIJim]

That's capitalism for you - if you can pay more, you get more. I don't see why the in park experience "should" be the same for all guests. It's not some sort of moral imperative.

Onsite guests aren't paying more than offsite guests for park admission, though. If additional FPs become available, I'd like to see them offered to ANYONE who buys a park ticket. Either free or extra cost, but not just to onsite guests.

But since you (sorta) asked: I would love for Value hotels to have one extra FP, two for Mods and three for Deluxes and Villas.

No problem, as long as Value guests pay 133% of the base ticket price, Mods 167%, and Deluxes 200%. Hey, if you're paying $1000+ a night for a suite at the Grand Floridian, you shouldn't bat an eye at double ticket prices for double the FPs.

Apologies if this has already been asked/discussed, but I'm curious about the history of admission costs. When Disneyland opened, was there both an admission charge plus a charge for tickets? I know that, at some time, it changed to admission only. Was a reason given for that change? Was it due to guest demand or was it just because it was a better model for Disney? Just curious.

The admission charge included a booklet of about 8 to 10 ride tickets. As far as I know, you couldn't just pay a modest 25c admission fee and then just wander around or pay for one or two rides.

Free or modest admission and then paying for however few or many rides you wanted was the practice at every amusement park prior to Disneyland. Disney didn't want people just hanging out and doing little, or possibly causing trouble, which started to become a problem at many other amusement parks. So they intentionally made the admission charge relatively expensive for the times, hoping to maintain a family atmosphere and discourage "undesirables" from visiting.

Disney went to the Pay One Price (POP) admission about the time Epcot opened. They were one of the last major theme park operators to do so. Six Flags and others had POP for many years. The reason Disney finally joined the crowd? It was more efficient and profitable. They no longer had to deal with the individual ride tickets and Grandma was charged a higher price even though she rode few or no rides.

Jim

 

[CinqueTerre]

Onsite guests aren't paying more than offsite guests for park admission, though. If additional FPs become available, I'd like to see them offered to ANYONE who buys a park ticket. Either free or extra cost, but not just to onsite guests.

Tricky situation.

Say a Family of 4 is paying $400/night for Beach Club and another family of 4 is paying $100/night for some offsite hotel.

If Disney offers Unlimited FP for $100/day per person, then the family of 4 at the offsite hotel stands a better chance of having the funds to pay it. In fact, I would suspect that a lot of families (the ones working within a budget which is most people) may decide they'd rather stay at a lesser hotel and have unlimited FP. This means that Disney might experience lower than normal occupancy at its premium resorts. Obviously Disney does NOT want that.

So they would have to devise a solution to prevent that.

 

[sheetz]

No problem, as long as Value guests pay 133% of the base ticket price, Mods 167%, and Deluxes 200%.

While it wouldn't be itemized on the hotel bill, rates at the Disney resorts would probably go up to reflect the extra FPs. They would not stay where they are now.

You'd be looking at $2-300 for values, $5-600 for moderates, and $1000+ for even basic rooms at the deluxes.

 

[DisneyFive]

O.k, I'm trying to understand the sentiment of some of the folks on this thread. Here is my question:

Do you WANT Disney to start charging for FP's? If so, why?

Dan

 

[Reddog1134]

Onsite guests aren't paying more than offsite guests for park admission, though.

This has probably been mentioned earlier in the thread (I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing) but onsite guests are already getting an "in-park" perk in the form of EMH.

I don't see how extra FP+ would really be that much different.

 

[LilyWDW]

O.k, I'm trying to understand the sentiment of some of the folks on this thread. Here is my question:

Do you WANT Disney to start charging for FP's? If so, why?

Dan

Do I want them to start charging as a whole? No.

Would I be perfectly fine with them charging for more or for them to add them as a perk for staying onsite? Yes. Because I think the option should be there and then people can decide if there is a value to THEM in it. I also believe that Disney should reward those who stay onsite with more then they do now. EMH is a joke most of the time (especially since they reduced hours of it). ME is a decent service, but not ground breaking. Other transportation options are not resort exclusive. Free parking at the parks is not a perk that is really worth anything due to the fact that Disney offers other transportation methods.

I just believe that adding some sort of perk with the FP+ for those staying onsite would be worthwhile for Disney to look into. They already are giving those staying onsite the ability to book before others. Add in a specific number of FP+ per resort level or even something simple like no tiers for those at the resorts would make staying on property (more) worth it in the future.