Disney , please don't do this...

[Planogirl]

Either way RP was priced much lower than HRH and HRH much lower than PFB, so if you take the original highest priced (over priced then?) resort to see how much it has increased is not being accurate IMO.

As a matter of fact-then why not just use RP increases and leave out PFB?

From my admittedly limited experience, the prices vary widely likely mostly due to demand. I've priced them at various times over the years and sometimes the Portofino has the lowest price and the Hard Rock costs the most. Like you, I would like to see if all three resorts have had a similar history as Portofino but I couldn't even begin to guess due to the consistent price fluctuations.

 

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

Really? Almost everyone I know has been to Disney World at least once in their life.

Now I am the one that's surprised. Just because I'm curious, are you a Florida resident? (I am thinking maybe it must seem that just about everyone in the state of Florida has been to Disney, simply because its reasonably central to most of the state).

I come from a family of 3 children, all of whom are married with kids (and some of those kids are now adults). DH has 7 adult siblings, all but one is married with children. And out of the whole whack of us, we have been to Disney World and DH's sister and her family have been to Disneyland (when they lived on the west coast).

I would guess that of all of my friends, maybe one in 20 have been to Disney (World or Land....doesn't matter). And that might be an optimistic number.

 

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

As a matter of fact-then why not just use RP increases and leave out PFB?

Considering it is a Disney-focused site that was listing the information, I kind of assumed that maybe PFB had the greatest increase percentage, and that's why they used that property vs. HRH or RP. If it were me preparing the data, and Disney was my passion (as I am assuming is the case for Micechat), then that's what I would do.

 

[middlebill]

It is absolutely appropriate to provide additional perks to guests who pay more, whether it's a bigger room, a nicer pool, or more fast passes. A Disney trip costs money and Disney may change their pricing, or package conditions or ticket options as they see fit. Guests on the other hand are absolutely free to spend their money where they will. If a particular pricing scheme or policy doesn't win favor with the public, money won't be made. Essentially if a company, Disney included, fails to provide a product at a price the consumer finds acceptable, they will suffer. Disney apparently has done a pretty good job of providing what the customer wants, since people choose to spend their money there and I don't see that changing. And one point to remember, attractions aren't developed and built for free. Since I started going to WDW in 2003 any number of attractions have opened. Soarin, Finding Nemo, Journey of the Little Mermaid, New Fantasyland, Lights Motors Stunts, Toy Story Mania, Expedition Everest. These all in the past 10 years and I'm sure I missed a few. The people who object to Disney trying to increase revenue don't seem to mind the new attractions though.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Planogirl]

It is absolutely appropriate to provide additional perks to guests who pay more, whether it's a bigger room, a nicer pool, or more fast passes. A Disney trip costs money and Disney may change their pricing, or package conditions or ticket options as they see fit. Guests on the other hand are absolutely free to spend their money where they will. If a particular pricing scheme or policy doesn't win favor with the public, money won't be made. Essentially if a company, Disney included, fails to provide a product at a price the consumer finds acceptable, they will suffer. Disney apparently has done a pretty good job of providing what the customer wants, since people choose to spend their money there and I don't see that changing. And one point to remember, attractions aren't developed and built for free. Since I started going to WDW in 2003 any number of attractions have opened. Soarin, Finding Nemo, Journey of the Little Mermaid, New Fantasyland, Lights Motors Stunts, Toy Story Mania, Expedition Everest. These all in the past 10 years and I'm sure I missed a few. The people who object to Disney trying to increase revenue don't seem to mind the new attractions though.
Just my 2 cents.

I won't comment on the quality of the listed attractions specifically because my opinion is subjective. I will only say that some are very good and some not so much.

I don't think that that is as important as the worry that some will not be able to enjoy all of these attractions with the new limitations. Plus others (not me) have suggested that the huge sum of money spent on the new system could have been used for additional rides. That could have been possibly well spent in ailing areas such as DHS and Epcot Future World.

As for spending more money, would that be money on anything at WDW? Could someone who stays offsite but spends a lot for dining throughout the week also possibly earn perks? Just a thought.

 

[Networth]

Lol @ the OP. You can't be serious. Ever heard of the saying you get what you pay for? Or how about capitalism, you know that economic thing that our country runs on. I personally hope Disney does charge, perk, and give benefits to those that earn them.

 

[Planogirl]

Lol @ the OP. You can't be serious. Ever heard of the saying you get what you pay for? Or how about capitalism, you know that economic thing that our country runs on. I personally hope Disney does charge, perk, and give benefits to those that earn them.

You would say that considering your name.

I just wonder how people could earn them. I expect there to be a pay for play option but I'm still not sure about the perks side of the argument.

 

[Networth]

Like say for instance you buy a tour, or rent a boat, or stay on club level/deluxe hotel. Maybe give an extra FP+ tier for one day. Nothing that would destroy ride capacity but a "thank you" for spending large amounts of money on our products when you have many many many other choices in the greater Orlando area".

When I stay 65 nights at the Hyatt or Ritz they give me late check out, free internet, spa credit etc. Yes that is a loyalty program but it's also a "thank you for choosing us"(spending your money here vs our competitors) Don't get me wrong I enjoy free as much as the next guy but Disney will monetize the system some how and I would rather it be sooner and let the chips fall. Than be in limbo mode. And nice catch on the name lol.

 

[Rebekkap]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Every customer who buys any non-essential product believes it's a fair exchange. It's just that simple. Disney sells classes of accommodations and the value guest and luxury guest both believe they're getting a fair trade. If Disney thinks the majority of its park guests would think FP+ should be an onsite perk, they'll do it.

You said people who sell non-essential goods have to be seen as fair, or people won't buy from them. I reckon that's not true. Life's not fair, and everyone over the age of about 15 realises that. Thus my point about airlines - do people cramped up the back in economy class feel it's fair that the people in the front of the plane have big leather seats, champagne and a steak dinner? Probably not, but we can all recognise that they paid for something more, so they get something more.

Just as at Disney, if they start selling fastpasses, people might think it's not fair if they can't afford them, but I doubt very much Disney's going to go out of business or even see fewer guests. Fairness has nothing to do with (a) life or (b) capitalism. Most people recognise that it's the best system there is, and if they can't afford to travel up the front of the plane their discount airfare will still get them from point A to point B - and so will the greyhound bus. And if people can't afford unlimited fastpass, if Disney was to start selling them, well then their park hopper ticket will still give them access to ride Space Mountain, it's just going to take them longer. It's not fair, but that's life.

 

[OtherScott]

You said people who sell non-essential goods have to be seen as fair, or people won't buy from them. I reckon that's not true. Life's not fair, and everyone over the age of about 15 realises that. Thus my point about airlines - do people cramped up the back in economy class feel it's fair that the people in the front of the plane have big leather seats, champagne and a steak dinner? Probably not, but we can all recognise that they paid for something more, so they get something more. Just as at Disney, if they start selling fastpasses, people might think it's not fair if they can't afford them, but I doubt very much Disney's going to go out of business or even see fewer guests. Fairness has nothing to do with (a) life or (b) capitalism. Most people recognise that it's the best system there is, and if they can't afford to travel up the front of the plane their discount airfare will still get them from point A to point B - and so will the greyhound bus. And if people can't afford unlimited fastpass, if Disney was to start selling them, well then their park hopper ticket will still give them access to ride Space Mountain, it's just going to take them longer. It's not fair, but that's life.

Yes, people cramped in coach think it's fair...otherwise, they wouldn't trade something of value to get it. The ones who don't think it's fair aren't on the plane.

Magic Kingdom has 17 million visitors per year, in a country of 300 million. Did you really think I meant that for Disney to be successful, every person had to believe what they offered is a fair trade?

My point isn't what I think is fair, it's what I think Disney thinks it's customers regard as fair. I base that on what they've done in the past.

 

[Planogirl]

You said people who sell non-essential goods have to be seen as fair, or people won't buy from them. I reckon that's not true. Life's not fair, and everyone over the age of about 15 realises that. Thus my point about airlines - do people cramped up the back in economy class feel it's fair that the people in the front of the plane have big leather seats, champagne and a steak dinner? Probably not, but we can all recognise that they paid for something more, so they get something more.

Just as at Disney, if they start selling fastpasses, people might think it's not fair if they can't afford them, but I doubt very much Disney's going to go out of business or even see fewer guests. Fairness has nothing to do with (a) life or (b) capitalism. Most people recognise that it's the best system there is, and if they can't afford to travel up the front of the plane their discount airfare will still get them from point A to point B - and so will the greyhound bus. And if people can't afford unlimited fastpass, if Disney was to start selling them, well then their park hopper ticket will still give them access to ride Space Mountain, it's just going to take them longer. It's not fair, but that's life.

My problem with your logic is that Disney giving away fastpasses to the big spenders or even selling them has the potential to make my experience worse. Since there is a limited number of fastpasses then the more they distribute through such means, the harder it is to get fastpasses or perhaps the longer the wait in standby lines if Disney decides to distribute more.

In the case of the airline seats, the economy seats stay just as uncomfortable as before and I know that going in. I think that a better comparison might be if travelers paid extra for their seats and continually bumped others into later flights, in essence causing a standby line. THAT would be unfair.

 

[CinqueTerre]

My problem with your logic is that Disney giving away fastpasses to the big spenders or even selling them has the potential to make my experience worse. Since there is a limited number of fastpasses then the more they distribute through such means, the harder it is to get fastpasses or perhaps the longer the wait in standby lines if Disney decides to distribute more.

In the case of the airline seats, the economy seats stay just as uncomfortable as before and I know that going in. I think that a better comparison might be if travelers paid extra for their seats and continually bumped others into later flights, in essence causing a standby line. THAT would be unfair.

What about people who enjoyed touring the parks "commando" style? With FP-, they were able to do so grabbing a good chunk of FP for headline attractions each day. Now Disney has switched to FP+ which diminished their park experience. Those folks are certainly going to consider the new change unfair. So really, fairness has nothing to do with it. Life isn't fair.

 

[Planogirl]

What about people who enjoyed touring the parks "commando" style? With FP-, they were able to do so grabbing a good chunk of FP for headline attractions each day. Now Disney has switched to FP+ which diminished their park experience. Those folks are certainly going to consider the new change unfair. So really, fairness has nothing to do with it. Life isn't fair.

I'm not saying that life is fair. Of course it isn't.

However where people cry out about the unfairness of it all varies from person to person. In the case of Disney, I don't see the current or past systems as unfair. Maybe a bit of a pain but that's another issue.

In the case of the airline seats, that would likely cause that outcry of things being unfair. When people are pushed enough to become uncomfortable then that might go too far. It wouldn't matter to them whether life should be fair or not, they could just get to the point where they would discontinue use of the product. Would giving away or selling fastpasses cause that? That's a harder call.

 

[OtherScott]

My problem with your logic is that Disney giving away fastpasses to the big spenders or even selling them has the potential to make my experience worse. Since there is a limited number of fastpasses then the more they distribute through such means, the harder it is to get fastpasses OR the longer the wait in standby lines if Disney decides to distribute more. In the case of the airline seats, the economy seats stay just as uncomfortable as before and I know that going in. I think that a better comparison might be if travelers paid extra for their seats and continually bumped others into later flights, in essence causing a standby line. THAT would be unfair.

The airplane analogy is fraught with problems, the main one being that nobody pays $100s to board a 757 just to fly around for a few hours before landing where you boarded. The value is that you get on at A and get off at B, which is where you'd rather be. If this was analogous, visiting Disney parks would just be something we endure between leaving a Disney resort and returning at night.

The key to success in the Disney model is the parks. It's the one thing that appeals to every customer. Whether you sleep at the No-Tell Motel on 192 or the club level at The Grand Floridian, you're there to go to the parks.

 

[OtherScott]

What about people who enjoyed touring the parks "commando" style? With FP-, they were able to do so grabbing a good chunk of FP for headline attractions each day. Now Disney has switched to FP+ which diminished their park experience. Those folks are certainly going to consider the new change unfair. So really, fairness has nothing to do with it. Life isn't fair.

The commandos may stay home and the late sleepers may show up in greater numbers.

 

[Planogirl]

The airplane analogy is fraught with problems, the main one being that nobody pays $100s to board a 757 just to fly around for a few hours before landing where you boarded. The value is that you get on at A and get off at B, which is where you'd rather be. If this was analogous, visiting Disney parks would just be something we endure between leaving a Disney resort and returning at night.

The key to success in the Disney model is the parks. It's the one thing that appeals to every customer. Whether you sleep at the No-Tell Motel on 192 or the club level at The Grand Floridian, you're there to go to the parks.

The airplane example really doesn't fit does it? I'm trying to stuff that square peg in the round hole but it's not so easy.

Would a better example be dining at a restaurant? If I go to the local diner and order I expect to receive decent food and to get it in a reasonable amount of time. If Joe Smith came in and ordered food and then slipped the server some extra money, should Joe Smith's order come out before mine? What if several Joe Smith's came in and did the same and my order took longer and longer....

Still not an exact example but fun to think about. I believe that offering extras to good customers or for money is fine but shouldn't be at the obvious expense of someone else's experience.

 

[Love Tink]

In the case of the airline seats, the economy seats stay just as uncomfortable as before and I know that going in. I think that a better comparison might be if travelers paid extra for their seats and continually bumped others into later flights, in essence causing a standby line. THAT would be unfair.

There is also the fact that travel was set up with "classes" long before airplane travel was common. The system of classes in travel seemed normal and unsurprising - it met expectations.

If Disney sets up classes among park visitors, it won't be the established way of doing things. It will, in fact, be a disturbance to the status quo. It is much harder to get people to accept a changed, diminished experience than to accept the way things have always been.

 

[OtherScott]

The airplane example really doesn't fit does it? I'm trying to stuff that square peg in the round hole but it's not so easy. Would a better example be dining at a restaurant? If I go to the local diner and order I expect to receive decent food and to get it in a reasonable amount of time. If Joe Smith came in and ordered food and then slipped the server some extra money, should Joe Smith's order come out before mine? What if several Joe Smith's came in and did the same and my order took longer and longer.... Still not an exact example but fun to think about. I believe that offering extras to good customers or for money is fine but shouldn't be at the obvious of someone else's experience.

The hard part with any analogy is we don't differentiate between "what's fair to me" and "what's fair to the class."

 

[OtherScott]

There is also the fact that travel was set up with "classes" long before airplane travel was common. The system of classes in travel seemed normal and unsurprising - it met expectations. If Disney sets up classes among park visitors, it won't be the established way of doing things. It will, in fact, be a disturbance to the status quo. It is much harder to get people to accept a changed, diminished experience than to accept the way things have always been.

Bingo, which is why I said that keeping the name signals how Disney plans to use it.

 

[Vickilynn42]

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.

THIS!! Not everyone is in the same financial situation to be able to afford all the perks. It was always nice to know you could go, and have the same opportunities as others in the parks.