End of Fast Pass...

[Samdari]

And perhaps most importantly, giving an extra FP+ bonus to onsite guests costs them absolutely nothing.

It does if that choice impacts the revenue they get from non-resort guests, for example selling less annual and other passes to locals.

 

[beer dave]

It does if that choice impacts the revenue they get from non-resort guests, for example selling less annual and other passes to locals.

or having more people upgrade from offsite to stay on property.

 

[beer dave]

Why is that appropriate? Tell me why people staying on site deserve something extra that completely alters the experience.

Because a larger chunk of their vacation dollars are going to disney instead of some offsite accomodations. A little thank you for spending even more of your hard earned dollars with the mouse would be quite appropriate.

 

[Lucky'sMom]

or having more people upgrade from offsite to stay on property.

Upgrade from offsite? I have a 5 bedroom pool home reserved. If I have to move onsite for FP+, it will definitely be a downgrade!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Gotta disagree there. In Disney's quarterly earnings reports, they claim to be around 78% average occupancy. If they can increase that occupancy...even a few ticks...and possibly even lessen discounting during certain times of the year, there's definitely money to be made.

And perhaps most importantly, giving an extra FP+ bonus to onsite guests costs them absolutely nothing.

And you know that 80% for a hotel as a 365 year average is off the charts. The hotel business just isn't and wasnt ever designed on full occupancy... It's not realistic... Travel is too much of a servant to a whole range of issues and conditions that have nothing to do with the magic kingdom.

Come on...you have to be realistic even at Disney. We are at the LOW point at 78%. If the ducktape holds on the economy - there's a boom that will come from some new made up crap... And they're right there back to 90%+

I'm not an amateur at the hotel thing... I don't want to bring that up... But it needs to be brought up. Lets not ignore some things while harping on details that are overblown. 3 years ago...free dining was wide spread and absolutely necessary. Now it is nothing but margins...worst days and highly selective to fill it out. Come on now. And perhaps the 78% is a function of two things (at least in the US):
Lost wages/ purchasing power over time that are never coming back... Loss of clientele ( that's not a theory... It's a tracked fact... Just not advertised enough or comprehended by fools)
And...Disney's huge price bumps relative to conditions that they've continued and are starting to hold to... Just as they promised for several years ( actually more like whined). And they are convinced to go in for the kill... Even if the deer is already dead. Prices now are measurably higher than five years ago... Across the board. You can feel it...it's not "market forces" or "inflation". And as an FYI...I usually downplay price bumps...they used to result in little in the aggregate because it wasn't across the board. No longer.

Anyway...back to square...Reserving fast pass to "sell rooms" would have limited value. BUsing it as a for sale perk might have better potential. I could see them charging for a program and then using it as a replacement for free dining in soft times. But that would be an increase in take and profits... Pay for the food now but get "white glove" ride reservations in September...a huge advantage for 50 year old dark rides.

This system is not to address the "horrid room problem". There isn't one... Disney knows no matter what they say. Not at wdw... Swing by the 7 hotels at Paris and take a look...the bump isn't needed in Florida rooms. The indicator of trouble in Florida is steep Florida resident discounts and expanded military/cast member rate availability. There's your canary in the coal mine. I haven't kept track but that doesn't seem to be ground conditions now.

Just opinion with some common sense/factoids sprinkled in.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Why is that appropriate? Tell me why people staying on site deserve something extra that completely alters the experience.

It actually pretty primal/simple...
Each cent you bring...and most people wing it on vacation... Goes right directly back to them.

Almost every single penny. It's not about the cost of the room - it's everything else.
That's why they would prioritize or incentive the fastpass... If they were to choose too.

 

[Planogirl]

Again, it wouldn't make sense to keep offsite visitors stuck in long lines rather than in restaurants and gift shops. I'm sure that Disney makes a lot of money from offsite guests and it would seem odd if they wouldn't want to make as much as possible from everyone who enters the property.

As for incentive, I would argue that offsite probably buy as much "stuff" as people staying onsite. That is hard to quantify though. Also, depending on deals that are available, offsite visitors might just spend even more on meals than onsite visitors. Offsite gets no "free" dining for example.

I can see Disney charging for FP+ eventually for offsite visitors but totally locking them out seems illogical. And us staying offsite this December has no bearing on my opinion.

 

[Planogirl]

By the way, it is interesting that people with reservations that start in December are reporting being unable to make FP+ even though their 60 day window has passed. I wonder what Disney is up to now...

 

[Silock]

It would be like any other rewards loyalty program. You don't get loyalty points from hotel company A if you're staying at hotel company B.

But they don't deny you the ability to dine in the restaurant of hotel A just because you stayed at hotel B one night.

Because a larger chunk of their vacation dollars are going to disney instead of some offsite accomodations. A little thank you for spending even more of your hard earned dollars with the mouse would be quite appropriate.

I don't know if that really works out mathematically. Many guests are able to stay at WDW for longer periods of time because they DON'T stay on property. For instance, my wife and I stay at Bonnet Creek, and we do so for two weeks at a time, once a year. We're in the parks for at least 10 of those days, spending money. So, Disney might make more money upfront with their own hotel room rentals, but less IN the actual park because people don't stay there as long.

I'm just wondering why a guest that stays on site for fewer days than we do, and overall spends less money at Disney, somehow "deserves" more because of their hotel choice.

That's not even the only consideration. I don't know what percentage of guests stay off-site, but it's gotta be fairly high. Many do so because they simply can't afford to stay on property and be there for an appreciable amount of time, given how expensive a Disney trip is. So, now you're talking about denying these people, who are already stretching their budgets to even MAKE it to Disney, easy access to attractions that they pay the same amount to see.

It's not like onsite guests don't already have EMH, but now you want exclusive FP use, too? I think this is short-sighted and greedy.

It actually pretty primal/simple...
Each cent you bring...and most people wing it on vacation... Goes right directly back to them.

Almost every single penny. It's not about the cost of the room - it's everything else.
That's why they would prioritize or incentive the fastpass... If they were to choose too.

Except 1) Disney doesn't have nearly the capacity to accommodate the influx of guests that would want to book rooms, especially during peak seasons. Then you run into a situation of 2) where people are being turned away, and choose to simply not go to Disney at all because they will have far longer waits than the other guests. Certainly 2 won't apply to everyone, but that's a huge risk. Universal makes it work because they don't have nearly the same traffic that Disney does.

 

[beer dave]

Upgrade from offsite? I have a 5 bedroom pool home reserved. If I have to move onsite for FP+, it will definitely be a downgrade!

Its an upgrade as far as disney is concerned. It doesn't matter where you stay off site-- the money for the room only goes to disney if you stay in one of their resorts.

 

[beer dave]

It's not like onsite guests don't already have EMH, but now you want exclusive FP use, too? I think this is short-sighted and greedy.

EMH has already been greatly reduced, and some feel they are going to go away altogether in the not so distant future.

 

[beer dave]

I don't know if that really works out mathematically. Many guests are able to stay at WDW for longer periods of time because they DON'T stay on property. For instance, my wife and I stay at Bonnet Creek, and we do so for two weeks at a time, once a year. We're in the parks for at least 10 of those days, spending money. So, Disney might make more money upfront with their own hotel room rentals, but less IN the actual park because people don't stay there as long.

Disneys goal is for you to drop your two weeks to the 10 days that you visit the parks with an onsite room, and take all of your vacation dollars.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I can see Disney charging for FP+ eventually for offsite visitors but totally locking them out seems illogical. And us staying offsite this December has no bearing on my opinion.

I hope that FP+ is exactly the same for offsite and onsite too. We were going to start staying offsite because we need more space. I just have a bad feeling that somehow they will make it a better perk for onsite customers.

 

[tjkraz]

And you know that 80% for a hotel as a 365 year average is off the charts. The hotel business just isn't and wasnt ever designed on full occupancy... It's not realistic... Travel is too much of a servant to a whole range of issues and conditions that have nothing to do with the magic kingdom.

Come on...you have to be realistic even at Disney. We are at the LOW point at 78%. If the ducktape holds on the economy - there's a boom that will come from some new made up crap... And they're right there back to 90%+

Agree that 78-80% is good for the industry. But you and I both know Disney will step over $.98 to pick up a dollar. The vacant 22% represents an opportunity.

Every percentage points equates to about 30 filled rooms per night. Not only is that $300-400 per night for the room, but it's another 100 or so people staying on-site instead of off. With the higher on-site guest spending numbers.

They can wait for a boom to bring them up to 90%. Or they can look for ways to goose occupancy now to get them into the mid-80s today and mid-90s if/when that boom occurs.

100% occupancy isn't practical but there is room to add revenues now, with only a modest increase in resort-side expenses.

As for whether or not they'll use FP+ to achieve those goals, that remains to be seen. I don't believe they have any plans to monetize the entire FP+ system. All off-site and on-site guests will get their 3 attractions per day.

Offering some added benefit to on-site guests does risk alienating those who are not eligible for such a perk. But my gut tells me Disney would stand to make more than they lose. Universal has been running a two-tiered system for years and they don't seem to be suffering from the blowback.

Some guests will stand by their principles and refuse to patronize the Disney parks, perceiving themselves branded as less important. But I think more people would view it as a reason to pay extra for a Disney hotel rather than staying off-site.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Agree that 78-80% is good for the industry. But you and I both know Disney will step over $.98 to pick up a dollar. The vacant 22% represents an opportunity.

Every percentage points equates to about 30 filled rooms per night. Not only is that $300-400 per night for the room, but it's another 100 or so people staying on-site instead of off. With the higher on-site guest spending numbers.

They can wait for a boom to bring them up to 90%. Or they can look for ways to goose occupancy now to get them into the mid-80s today and mid-90s if/when that boom occurs.

100% occupancy isn't practical but there is room to add revenues now, with only a modest increase in resort-side expenses.

As for whether or not they'll use FP+ to achieve those goals, that remains to be seen. I don't believe they have any plans to monetize the entire FP+ system. All off-site and on-site guests will get their 3 attractions per day.

Offering some added benefit to on-site guests does risk alienating those who are not eligible for such a perk. But my gut tells me Disney would stand to make more than they lose. Universal has been running a two-tiered system for years and they don't seem to be suffering from the blowback.

Some guests will stand by their principles and refuse to patronize the Disney parks, perceiving themselves branded as less important. But I think more people would view it as a reason to pay extra for a Disney hotel rather than staying off-site.

Interesting post. I agree that bumping up occupancy is always a goal. Look at all of the effort Disney puts in to getting people into the "bubble." People who are in the bubble don't just pay for a hotel, but then all of their meals, shopping, etc.

In the future, I think FP will be used in different ways to boost occupancy, but there are lots of ways to do that. Basically, they have taken a system that used to be included with park admission (so "free" in a way) and now they are controlling it, not the park customer.

The one thing that I find interesting is that they have not done one test with anyone other than onsite hotel guests. Could mean nothing. Or something. I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[Planogirl]

I continually see Universal's system brought up as an example but IMO it's a poor one. Universal only has three resorts so I don't see that amount of people having as much of an impact on the ride lines. Also, a fastpass ticket is available for purchase for everyone. No one knows if Disney will do something similar.

I still dispute that Disney necessarily makes that much when it comes to onsite people dining. I just wonder how many people take advantage of free dining. It is true that they are more of a captive audience though.

Some said that Disney would step over $.98 to grab a dollar (love that!) and I agree. I still think that they will want to take as much money from both onsite and offsite groups and treating offsite visitors in such a different way seems counterproductive to that.

 

[disneylover1980]

This is funny!!

I'm a local AP holder, I "popped" into Disney this weekend - with my $1600 worth of Annual Passes - and spent a whole load of money on food/drinks and souveniers (something along the lines of $400 probably).

Saying that we crowd the parks, use up the FP and don't bring in any money for the "mouse" is far from the truth in my opinion and in fact I'd be almost willing to bet that us local AP holders spend more at Disney in the course of a year than those that visit for a week or 10 days every year.

Amen! This is where I am too. If ANYONE can tell me how I can go to Disney and NOT spend money, please let me know! Even though we are "local" we are STILL at least 2.5 hours away from the parks. It's too far for a day trip so we ALWAYS stay up there. Food? We HAVE to eat and we always eat at the parks. Thinking AP come and go as they please and only use the FP system to keep non locals from using them is rubbish.

 

[tjkraz]

I continually see Universal's system brought up as an example but IMO it's a poor one. Universal only has three resorts so I don't see that amount of people having as much of an impact on the ride lines.

Yes Universal has fewer hotel rooms (although the number is growing--they have 1800 rooms under construction.)

However, Universal Express is quite different than FastPass. First, it's a "front of the line" option where participants walk right past the public to ride whenever they wish. There are no scheduled return times. Also there are no limits on its use. Disney is looking at 3 FP+ options per day. Universal Express could be used 30 times in a day by guests with park hopping tickets.

Additionally, Universal has fewer parks and fewer attractions which accept the Express Pass.

There may be fewer FOTL participants at Universal (hotel guests + those who pay for it) but there are also fewer attractions which offer that service and no limits on the number of times those people can use the perk.

You're right that there's no way to truly compare both since they are quite different. However, I suspect they have a similar psychological impact on guests.

The question posed was whether off-site guests would shun the Disney parks because they receive a lesser FP+ option. My response to that is yes, some probably will. However a similar two-tiered system (the Haves and the Have-nots) has existed at USF for many years and they don't seem to be harmed by the business lost.

Also, a fastpass ticket is available for purchase for everyone. No one knows if Disney will do something similar.

Disney has repeatedly said that FP+ would be available to everyone. That includes a statement from Bob Iger to congressman Ed Markey.

What we don't know is if everyone will get identical FP+ benefits. Disney COULD give more rides to its hotel guests. They COULD sell additional FP+ ride times at a price. Many possibilities.

At the end of the day, if Disney does decide to directly monetize FP+, I think it stands to gain a lot more $$$ than it would lose from the disgruntled few.

 

[Robbi]

Yes Universal has fewer hotel rooms (although the number is growing--they have 1800 rooms under construction.)

However, Universal Express is quite different than FastPass. First, it's a "front of the line" option where participants walk right past the public to ride whenever they wish. There are no scheduled return times. Also there are no limits on its use. Disney is looking at 3 FP+ options per day. Universal Express could be used 30 times in a day by guests with park hopping tickets.

Additionally, Universal has fewer parks and fewer attractions which accept the Express Pass.

There may be fewer FOTL participants at Universal (hotel guests + those who pay for it) but there are also fewer attractions which offer that service and no limits on the number of times those people can use the perk.

You're right that there's no way to truly compare both since they are quite different. However, I suspect they have a similar psychological impact on guests.

The question posed was whether off-site guests would shun the Disney parks because they receive a lesser FP+ option. My response to that is yes, some probably will. However a similar two-tiered system (the Haves and the Have-nots) has existed at USF for many years and they don't seem to be harmed by the business lost.



Disney has repeatedly said that FP+ would be available to everyone. That includes a statement from Bob Iger to congressman Ed Markey.

What we don't know is if everyone will get identical FP+ benefits. Disney COULD give more rides to its hotel guests. They COULD sell additional FP+ ride times at a price. Many possibilities.

At the end of the day, if Disney does decide to directly monetize FP+, I think it stands to gain a lot more $$$ than it would lose from the disgruntled few.

FOTL guests get in the express line just as Disney guests get in the FP line. Both walk past the public. FOTL is basically an unlimited fast pass IF you stay onsite, however, you don't cut the line in front of other Express ticket holders.

 

[tjkraz]

Just to respond to a few older posts...

as a local, we were just there this past weekend and I have to say that I was appalled at the way the new magic bands were being treated. By the time DHS was even OPENED the FIRST thing we did was go to Pixar to get FP for the Toy tory Mania ride....and the times were ALREADY between 3:30 and 4:30...at 9am! I planned on writing a letter to corporate but I feel it will fall on deaf ears. I was talking to a guy in the line to get in, and he was also an annual pass holder that was a local and he said this was the last time he was going...his passes expire at the end of the month and he was OVER it too. So sad!

One of the problems with this testing phase is that they are allowing resort guests to double-dip FastPasses by both reserving in advance AND using KTTW cards or some other physical medium to obtain paper FP tickets.

Passholders WILL have access to the FP+ system. At one point there was a mention of some limit. 20 days per quarter (3 mos) rings a bell. But I haven't heard anything about that recently.

Once the FP+ system is in place, getting day-of FastPasses will be relatively easy. Think about how the system has changed. FP+ will:

1) Add dozens of new attractions and experiences to the FP system.
2) Places limits on the daily FP allocation for each guest.

So they're adding new FP options all over the place while reducing the number that most guests can actually use.

Toy Story Mania and maybe Soarin are the sorts of attractions that may be tough to obtain same-day due to their popularity. But for all other attractions, I think you'll be able to pop onto your laptop or smartphone the night before, while riding to the parks, or even while in the park, and still get a FP+ reservation time.

This is my thoughts on this too...which is terrible for AP holders. Perhaps the system will allow AP holders to book FP+ in advance too once rolled out fully, but who knows. I'm not counting on it.

See above. Yes, Passholders will have access.

I think it is bad for off site visitors unless I am not understanding something. My understanding is the FP plus is tied to a RESORT reservation. Someone staying off site is not a resort guest therefore can't access fast pass plus 60/90 days out..Is this NOT true? I assumed they could only show up at the park the day of their visit and try to schedule the rides then...

Again, Disney has said repeatedly that all guests will have access to the 60 day advance reservations. Only requirement is that you have valid theme park tickets (including AP) linked to your My Disney Experience account.

A Disney resort reservation is not required.