Fast Pass Plus Changes ....

[Suellen]

Every time you post it makes me want to pack up our belongings and move to Orlando. Living that close sounds so awesome!

Living this close IS awesome.... of course not without it's flaws as well.

I would be wicked surprised if there were NO FP's available day of for each ride.... even a small amount.

I did see the signs on Monday showing which rides had FP+ available but they had those for FP- too.... so it didn't really strike me as odd.

Right now I can make FP+ for tonight for decent rides at DHS, MK, Epcot and AK including: Soarin, EE, SM, SpM, PP...and more.

 

[PlutoMars]

I don't see where being a critic (or supporter) of FP+ has anything to do with this discussion. Holding back, or not holding back FPs is content neutral. OtherScott and I have had several opposing views on the topic, and yet we land on the same square when it comes to this issue. There are people in this thread who have loved FP+ from the start who are in support of the "no hold back" position. And there are people who have criticized FP+ from the start who are in support of the "no hold back" position. The narrative is irrelevant. But the business logic behind the decision is not.

It is not neutral in the sense if you always held it to be one way or the other. If one believed that FPs were being held back then they would tend not to disagree but if they, on the other hand did not believe that they were not being held back then one would be inclined to agree with the CMs.

But the business logic behind the decision is not.

Do you think that Disney has always made logical business decisions based on your definition of such?

 

[Mad Hattered]

I am glad you troll so hard and read so soft.

I have no narrative, but yes the standard scientific method is approach a subject with a hypothesis ... mine was that they were holding FPs back for day of, then test your hypothesis and record the results ... then if possible seek confirmation of your findings from others.

I tried to access the FPs held back for day of first through the app, several times ... then I tried to do so via a kiosk. In both cases this did not seem to indicate FPs were being held back .... though I should note my interim hypothesis was that my app was screwing up, which is why I went to the kiosk.

I then concluded my original hypothesis was incorrect and sought Confirmation of my findings and repeatedly sought confirmation of this information from independent and 'blind' sources ....

But yea ... thanks.

Don't worry about him, Shaden. Besides, he sounds just like a North Carolina fan.

I appreciate the feedback you are giving us during your trip.

 

[JimmyV]

It is not neutral in the sense if you always held it to be one way or the other. If one believed that FPs were being held back then they would tend not to disagree but if they, on the other hand did not believe that they were not being held back then one would be inclined to agree with the CMs.

Or, one could believe that FPs were once being held back, but that once they became bookable to all guests, that practice stopped. Not sure where that fits into your paradigm.

Do you think that Disney has always made logical business decisions based on your definition of such?

It is my belief that Disney has always made what it subjectively believes to be sound and logical business decisions, but that there are some decision makers there who are of average or below average business intelligence who sometimes make poor assumptions and wrong predictions causing them to have to re-visit situations that could have been handled better at the outset. No different than any company, it truth. Only their decisions impact more visible outcomes that get tested and critiqued more quickly than most other companies.

 

[PlutoMars]

Or, one could believe that FPs were once being held back, but that once they became bookable to all guests, that practice stopped. Not sure where that fits into your paradigm.

It fits in my paradigm in so much as there is very little "neutral content" that one runs across in life. One tends to believe that which matches their preconceived notions and biases.

It is my belief that Disney has always made what it subjectively believes to be sound and logical business decisions, but that there are some decision makers there who are of average or below average business intelligence who sometimes make poor assumptions and wrong predictions causing them to have to re-visit situations that could have been handled better at the outset. No different than any company, it truth. Only their decisions impact more visible outcomes that get tested and critiqued more quickly than most other companies.

And you belief on whether this is a logical business conclusion is also just as subjective.

 

[wdwlver]

Shaden, thank you for all your feedback and for passing on lessons learned. It's invaluable info for trip planning.

 

[OtherScott]

It is not neutral in the sense if you always held it to be one way or the other. If one believed that FPs were being held back then they would tend not to disagree but if they, on the other hand did not believe that they were not being held back then one would be inclined to agree with the CMs.

I read OP as a report on a noticeable change in trend, from one that supported the OP's hold-back hypothesis to one that contradicts it - before OP contacts any CM.

And by reporting what the CMs said, which is direct contradiction to what OP believed was happening before, the OP is accepting CM information that not only doesn't fit the narrative but is the opposite.

I tend to think it is a positive when people adjust their opinion based on additional facts and observations.

 

[PlutoMars]

I read OP as a report on a noticeable change in trend, from one that supported the OP's hold-back hypothesis to one that contradicts it - before OP contacts any CM.

And by reporting what the CMs said, which is direct contradiction to what OP believed was happening before, the OP is accepting CM information that not only doesn't fit the narrative but is the opposite.

I tend to think it is a positive when people adjust their opinion based on additional facts and observations.

It is not just the OP but others like JimmyV that took the OP's reporting as confirmation of what he already believed. It may well turn out to be true but I think its too early to claim this with a high degree of certainty at this point

 

[OtherScott]

One tends to believe that which matches their preconceived notions and biases.

Which is the opposite of what Shade has demonstrated.

 

[JanaDee]

Don't worry about him, Shaden. Besides, he sounds just like a North Carolina fan.

I appreciate the feedback you are giving us during your trip.

 

[OtherScott]

It is not just the OP but others like JimmyV that took the OP's reporting as confirmation of what he already believed. It may well turn out to be true but I think its too early to claim this with a high degree of certainty at this point

You've called out posters for inconsistency wrt their willingness to believe CM/insider info - they believe it when it supports preconceived ideas, reject it when it doesn't.

Being that Shaden is the OP and you've gone back and forth in this thread, I think it's reasonable to assume you mean Shaden. But the opposite is being demonstrated here. Shaden believed one thing when experience and CM info supported it and now believes something different, based on additional experience and differing CM info.

As for Jimmy, I don't know of him holding strongly to the hold-back hypothesis. Before implementation anything was possible and mathematically, hold back made sense (I agreed with the math but though behavior would win out). But even if he did, the experience of others as reported here undermines that hypothesis more than any CM inside the parks.

 

[jtowntoflorida]

From more of an outsider's point of view...I also think that there is less strife between the lovers and the haters (using those terms loosely, of course) of FP+. It seems we've all come to accept that it is what it is, and now we're just all trying to figure out how to use it more advantageously. I think the only "agenda" here is trying to figure out how to make the system work as best as it can FOR YOU. The more data points there are, the more all of us benefit.

I also appreciate that Shaden is testing the system. Nothing (for me) is less valuable than seeing a sunshine and flowers report on how FP+ is the BEST THING EVER when the poster only took their preassigned 3 and didn't make any changes. That's of no value to me because that's not how I see myself using the system. For many people, it's very helpful because they're happy with just 3. For those of us who want more, I like seeing reports on how far the system can be pushed, and how much flexibility there really is. Shaden's actual experience is backed up with conversations with CMs...that's three separate data points. I don't see anyone as dismissing reports, or of trying to carry on an agenda, but trying to see how each little piece of the puzzle we're being doled out fits into the big picture.

 

[Mad Hattered]

From more of an outsider's point of view...I also think that there is less strife between the lovers and the haters (using those terms loosely, of course) of FP+. It seems we've all come to accept that it is what it is, and now we're just all trying to figure out how to use it more advantageously. I think the only "agenda" here is trying to figure out how to make the system work as best as it can FOR YOU. The more data points there are, the more all of us benefit.

I also appreciate that Shaden is testing the system. Nothing (for me) is less valuable than seeing a sunshine and flowers report on how FP+ is the BEST THING EVER when the poster only took their preassigned 3 and didn't make any changes. That's of no value to me because that's not how I see myself using the system. For many people, it's very helpful because they're happy with just 3. For those of us who want more, I like seeing reports on how far the system can be pushed, and how much flexibility there really is. Shaden's actual experience is backed up with conversations with CMs...that's three separate data points. I don't see anyone as dismissing reports, or of trying to carry on an agenda, but trying to see how each little piece of the puzzle we're being doled out fits into the big picture.

Nice post, jtown. There is an agenda in play right now but it's not Shaden. It's all too familiar and we've seen it over and over again...all that changes is the name.

 

[JimmyV]

Do you think that Disney has always made logical business decisions based on your definition of such?

And you belief on whether this is a logical business conclusion is also just as subjective.

OK. Now you've lost me. You asked me (in the first quote above) what I think. And when I told you what I think, you dismissed it as being "subjective". By definition, asking me what I think is asking me for my subjective belief. So why criticize me for giving you what you asked for? Every post on this thread (and 99% of all posts on this board) are at their root, subjective. If subjective viewpoints are of no value to you, then you are fishing in the wrong waters.

 

[PlutoMars]

OK. Now you've lost me. You asked me (in the first quote above) what I think. And when I told you what I think, you dismissed it as being "subjective". By definition, asking me what I think is asking me for my subjective belief. So why criticize me for giving you what you asked for? Every post on this thread (and 99% of all posts on this board) are at their root, subjective. If subjective viewpoints are of no value to you, then you are fishing in the wrong waters.

And that is my point. Your conclusions, even if you present them as "business logic" are subjective. Someone could come to an opposite conclusion as yours saying that they are using "business logic" as well.

My overall point is, it is too early based on the OPs original post to make a definitive statement on whether or not Disney is withholding same day FP+s or not. I just think it prudent to wait for more evidence before using one person's experience with various CMs as the cornerstone for your argument.

 

[mouseaddicts]

....

They are no longer holding back FPs for day of .... according to them they stopped a couple weeks ago

I'm addition.... throughout the parks they have signs up with FP availability. Attractions are listed as 'available' or 'limited' ... again confirmed from 2 guest relations people 'limited' actually means they are all gone but some might be added back if people cancel or skip or what have you.

Just thought I'd share since this is pretty important info.


Though again ... these are just CMs bad GR CMs .... so take it for what it's worth ... but it seems pretty legit with multiple conformation points

Ummmm ..... doesn't the original post point out that this is not 100% guaranteed? Why debate what was originally stated???

 

[OtherScott]

...using one person's experience with various CMs as the cornerstone for your argument.

This is what you've deduced during your short tenure lmao on the board?

 

[JimmyV]

And that is my point. Your conclusions, even if you present them as "business logic" are subjective. Someone could come to an opposite conclusion as yours saying that they are using "business logic" as well.

My overall point is, it is too early based on the OPs original post to make a definitive statement on whether or not Disney is withholding same day FP+s or not. I just think it prudent to wait for more evidence before using one person's experience with various CMs as the cornerstone for your argument.

While it may be too early to confirm the OPs report, it is not too early to state that not holding back FPs fits best with the economic model that drives FP+ in the first place. That is a static concept. And it is not subjective. What we are seeing here is a classic example of: "X is best for Disney, but it isn't best for me. So I sincerely hope that it isn't true that "X" is going to be our future." The second part of that, ("X" being implemented) may or may not come to fruition and even if it does, it may not last. And you can hope and pray for that outcome. But none of that changes the first part, which is that "X" is best for Disney. One can hope that Disney does something that cuts against its own economic interests and benefits you. And it might even happen. But which way would you bet?

Example: At Captain Cook's before the remodel, the Dole Whip machine was self-serve. There are rumors that if/when the machine returns after the remodel, it will no longer be self-serve. Horrors! So let's anyalyze:

• Eliminating the self-serve feature is in Disney's best economic interest. That is not subjective.
• Eliminating the self-serve feature cuts against my personal interest because I used to build servings that put Everest to shame.

Now, I can hope that Disney does something that goes against its interests. And I can have a subjective view on whether keeping the self-serve feature is "better" or "worse" for the guests' enjoyment. And I can accuse people who publish this rumor of being anti-Disney or anti-Dole Whip. And I can criticize CMs for being unreliable. But what I cannot do is alter the objective truth that the self-serve feature is not in Disney's best economic interests. And when someone points out that self-serve is not in Disney's best economic interest, shouting that person down for posting "subjective" business conclusions does nothing to alter the truth.

 

[PlutoMars]

While it may be too early to confirm the OPs report, it is not too early to state that not holding back FPs fits best with the economic model that drives FP+ in the first place. That is a static concept. And it is not subjective. What we are seeing here is a classic example of: "X is best for Disney, but it isn't best for me. So I sincerely hope that it isn't true that "X" is going to be our future." The second part of that, ("X" being implemented) may or may not come to fruition and even if it does, it may not last. And you can hope and pray for that outcome. But none of that changes the first part, which is that "X" is best for Disney. One can hope that Disney does something that cuts against its own economic interests and benefits you. And it might even happen. But which way would you bet?

By the same token, people have and do suggest that the whole My Magic initiative and the 1-3 billion dollars spent(depends on who you want to believe) was not in the economic interests of Disney but yet Disney proceeded to continue on with the project. Therefore, people have differing views what makes logical business sense for Disney or what is in Disney's best economic interest. What makes sense to you and your models do not automatically project to what Disney is doing in this case with holding back same day FP+s or not. Also, using your assumption that Disney does not care about locals or same day visitors cuts against Disney's economic interests. It does not make logical business sense to not care about a portion of your consumer base. You cannot have it both ways. You cant say that Disney will act in its own economic interests in all case and in another breath say that they do not care about a percentage of their guests. What sense does that make from a business standpoint?

 

[morethananyonex]

Also, using your assumption that Disney does not care about locals or same day visitors cuts against Disney's economic interests. It does not make logical business sense to not care about a portion of your consumer base. You cannot have it both ways. You cant say that Disney will act in its own economic interests in all case and in another breath say that they do not care about a percentage of their guests. What sense does that make from a business standpoint?

It makes logical business sense to not care as much about a portion of your customer base. Why would Disney try as hard to please guests who are more likely to return regardless of what Disney does (to a point) than the more rare guests whose likelihood to return or even come in the first place is much more dependant on what Disney is or isn't doing?

What you're saying doesn't make sense. It absolutely can be both ways. Disney's best interest economically may be to put significantly more effort into the less frequent guests. That doesn't mean they don't care if they get other guests or not, it means they don't have to put in the same level of effort to keep them. We don't know, we can only speculate.