Fast Pass return times

[mcd2745]

Because guest x and guest y are the same person.

x/y gets in the SB line for TSM at 10am. My family of 5 have TSM fp with a window of 10am - 11am, but don't return within that window. Guest x/y benefits.

later in that same day, Guest x/y gets in the SB line for RnR at 4pm. We had RnR fp for 1pm - 2pm but we show up late at RnR at 4:01 and walk by x/y. x/y may be inconvenienced at that moment in time. I say may because...

however just as we returned late, it is likely and possible that another party of 5 with an actual 4pm - 5pm window decides to dine at the Brown Derby during that time and returns to RnR after dinner - at 6:30pm. Now x/y benefits again and the inconvenience mentioned above is negated.

That just postpones the negative impact further down the line, to say, Guest Z. Everyone generally agrees it is a zero sum game. That means if x/y or anyone else benefits earlier in the day, someone HAS to get negatively impacted eventually. Some will argue to what degree. While I admit it could be only a very minimal amount, that's a completely separate argument.

 

[UNCFanatik]

Ok, you've convinced me - I'm wrong. I clearly should not have used practical examples, reasoning and math to prove othewise when I could have relied on rehetoric and non fact based opinions. Thanks for the elightenment.

How are making blanket statements like you have equate to sound reasoning?

Such as:

Further, you'll now waste more than that amount of park time criss crossing the park to make a FP time and hanging out in a park area because you don't have time to walk to another area of the park and get back for your window.

This is a false dilemma you are trying to create because you know as well as I do especially at more popular attractions, that people have plenty of time to do other things and still make their FP times. I fail to see how this example qualifies as "a practical example", "sound reasoning", or "math". This just sounds like you venting at your displeasure of the change.

I just used the logical deduction based on the fact that we do not live in a vacuum and late FP usage wasnt happening in a vacuum either and had negative and positive effects on other guests.

And your rhetoric just adds to the already pile of pejoratives used to describe those that disagree with late FP usage claims and assertions. Now, not only are people that dont agree with FP late usage sheep, jealous, self righteous, and holier than thou but now they also dont dwell in the realm of fact and only base their opinions on rhetoric. Very nice. If you cant defend your position, I guess its always a good practice to try to minimize other opinions.

 

[angierae]

I went the week before Easter, which is commonly thought of as the second most crowded week of the year, and I had absolutely no problems using my fast passes within the hour window, and only used them on a handful of rides anyway, because we did most of our touring during early mornings and late nights.

 

[goofyernmost]

I believe you are wrong on your "late FP use affected me" argument, but I can accept that - we disagree.

I can't accept that you think that allowing late use was not WDW policy - frankly continuing to argue that undermines your credibility on the other point.

Try to understand that there is establish public policy and operating policy. It is necessary to have both or absolutely no exceptions can be made, ever. Not even for things that logically would be legitimate reasons. You will find no official signage, **video or promotion that says that FP's were allowed anytime other then within the window.

**No the video shown earlier in the thread is not an official Disney release. It only shows someone giving correct information about operational procedures that is not supposed to be public knowledge. Slips of the tongue, whether knowingly or not do not an official rule make. It was allowed and in many cases promoted by CM's in the know, but now they have had to change operational policy for whatever reason. It's a tough pill to swallow, but swallow it we must.

 

[mjp12831]

That just postpones the negative impact further down the line, to say, Guest Z. Everyone generally agrees it is a zero sum game. That means if x/y or anyone else benefits earlier in the day, someone HAS to get negatively impacted eventually. Some will argue to what degree. While I admit it could be only a very minimal amount, that's a completely separate argument.

Not everyone will agree that it's a sum zero game - read this thread - however I accept that you are in agreement on this point.

I'm not arguiuing that noone was ever negatively impacted in a given day - there certainly is a guest z on any given day, however the impact is negligible.

I am arguing that for the most part that comes out in the wash for each guest, and while guest z might have experienced a very slight negative impact today, tomorrow it would likely be in their benefit. The most likely negative impact is late in the day - I'd guess that to come out a loser consistently on this you would need to only visit the park later in the day.

You're just as likely to benefit from someone missing their window as to lose out from someone missing their window. Since the benefit and the detriment are about equal (which they must be for it to be sum zero), they should come out in the wash, both on the whole and for each guest over a course of a day or two.

 

[mjp12831]

Try to understand that there is establish public policy and operating policy. It is necessary to have both or absolutely no exceptions can be made, ever. Not even for things that logically would be legitimate reasons. You will find no official signage, **video or promotion that says that FP's were allowed anytime other then within the window.

**No the video shown earlier in the thread is not an official Disney release. It only shows someone giving correct information about operational procedures that is not supposed to be public knowledge. Slips of the tongue, whether knowingly or not do not an official rule make. It was allowed and in many cases promoted by CM's in the know, but now they have had to change operational policy for whatever reason. It's a tough pill to swallow, but swallow it we must.

This is semantics again - I don't disagree with what you are saying.

My posts on this topic were only in regard to accusations of those who used late being "rule breakers".

I never referenced a video or you tube posts or CM quotes in any of my posts in this thread - others have.

I have said that because CM allowed late use, without exception, without intervention or warnings that it wouldn't be allowed next time, this became the accepted company policy - stated or unstated. Because it was allowed consistently in this manner, people who used late were not rule breakers

 

[fastergoofy]

I'm weighing into the thread late but figured I'd try to contribute anyway.

I never really thought about late fastpass returns as a problem until our last visit. We try to use crowd calendars to predict the best times to go, so waiting was never really much of an issue. Until the last visit!

It was May in FL. BFor some reason, HUNDREDS of people waited until 8pm to use their Big Thunder fastpass. I'm not kidding. We were in about the middle of a 25-30 min wait when we watched the fastpass line rapidly turn into a second HUGE standby line. Our wait turned out to be (I think) about 75 minutes by the time we were seated on the ride.

A few people in our line gave up and squeezed back through that tiny little corral we were all trapped in (the boxy one up above, not in view of the vehicles) but once you've waited a certain amount of time, it feels like a waste to just give up. We're kind of easy going anyway and there was no way we could have predicted just how long the wait would be. At least we got to see some parade action in the distance? haha

So I, for one, am really thankful that fastpass times will be enforced. That said, I kinda wish it was a two hour window, not one!

 

[UNCFanatik]

Not everyone will agree that it's a sum zero game - read this thread - however I accept that you are in agreement on this point.

I'm not arguiuing that noone was ever negatively impacted in a given day - there certainly is a guest z on any given day, however the impact is negligible.

I am arguing that for the most part that comes out in the wash for each guest, and while guest z might have experienced a very slight negative impact today, tomorrow it would likely be in their benefit. The most likely negative impact is late in the day - I'd guess that to come out a loser consistently on this you would need to only visit the park later in the day.

You're just as likely to benefit from someone missing their window as to lose out from someone missing their window. Since the benefit and the detriment are about equal (which they must be for it to be sum zero), they should come out in the wash, both on the whole and for each guest over a course of a day or two.

Funny how you are changing your position and trying to nuance it because of previous statements like this:

I continue to post on these threads mainly because I strongly feel that WDW did a disservice to the park goer in making this change. They took a rule that wasn't broke, worked very well and wasn't negatively impacting anyone and changed it such that it will most definately impact our trip and make it less enjoyable. I do not post because I feel entitled to anything - it's their park and they make the rules.

Interesting.

In your "sum zero" theory, even over a weeks time 10 guests could be positively affected while 10 guests are negatively affected. Your Sum Zero argument doesnt change the fact, that some are seeing a negative effect.

My next question is if the new FP enforcement and later down the road NexGen/XPass system both turn out to be have a sum zero effect as you are asserting late FP usage was, would you be in favor of it being that you are the one who is negatively affected while others are positively affected?

 

[mcd2745]

Not everyone will agree that it's a sum zero game - read this thread - however I accept that you are in agreement on this point.

I'm not arguiuing that noone was ever negatively impacted in a given day - there certainly is a guest z on any given day, however the impact is negligible.

That's fine. As I said, I believe the degree of the impact is a totally separate argument. However, there's plenty of people here on the DIS who have refused to acknowledge that any guest could be negatively impact at all by late FP use.

I am arguing that for the most part that comes out in the wash for each guest, and while guest z might have experienced a very slight negative impact today, tomorrow it would likely be in their benefit. The most likely negative impact is late in the day - I'd guess that to come out a loser consistently on this you would need to only visit the park later in the day.

You're just as likely to benefit from someone missing their window as to lose out from someone missing their window. Since the benefit and the detriment are about equal (which they must be for it to be sum zero), they should come out in the wash, both on the whole and for each guest over a course of a day or two.

For some guests, it may end up a wash. Others, not so much. May come down to touring styles and prefrences. The family that makes it for rope drop and leaves the park early probably would be a net "winner". The family who stays all day have a good chance of washing out. The family who likes to sleep in and arrive at the parks later in the day, would likely be a net loser.

 

[jmclester]

I only found out you could use fastpasses late a few months ago, then I found out you couldn't anymore a few weeks later So for us, it won't make any difference. We don't make any ADRs - table service meals take too much precious ride time - so not worried about any conflicts with anything else we've scheduled.

I hesitate to join such a hostile thread but you are sooo right. Anyone who is willing to spend an hour or more at a TS restaurant when the parks are overly busy should not fret missing a ride or two here and there. We've always been able to hit the window so I voted "LIKE". Return time BETWEEN X:XX and Y:YY has always been pretty clear to me!

 

[mjp12831]

Funny how you are changing your position and trying to nuance it

You bolded a sentence fragment in two separate posts.

If you continue reading after your bold in my first post, it says "the impact is negligible". Further, this post goes on to describe how a guest inconvenienced in a moment in time ends up not being inconvenienced in the whole. The bold part you conveniently selected was referring to the moment in time.

This is thoroughly consistent with the next fragment you chose to bold from an earlier post "wasn't negatively impacting anyone".

A negligible impact is meaningless. By nature, something meaningless cannot be negative.

Nice try, but anyone could attempt to make a fool of another poster by sifting through their previous posts and selecting sentence fragments that appear to contridict each other.

If you read both of my posts in full, without selecting random fragments, they are in fact consistent.

 

[goofyernmost]

This is semantics again - I don't disagree with what you are saying.

My posts on this topic were only in regard to accusations of those who used late being "rule breakers".

I never referenced a video or you tube posts or CM quotes in any of my posts in this thread - others have.

I have said that because CM allowed late use, without exception, without intervention or warnings that it wouldn't be allowed next time, this became the accepted company policy - stated or unstated. Because it was allowed consistently in this manner, people who used late were not rule breakers

I know you didn't reference the video, that was a pre-emptive strike on my part.

I have gone on record many times, just in this thread alone, in stating that no one that was allowed to use their FP's after the window were rule breakers. Perhaps the early years when people took a chance to see what they could get away with, but recent years absolutely not.

This was a mess that Disney got themselves into by not being more diligent or perhaps whomever came up with the FP idea was no longer with the company and new people did not understand it's original intent. Whatever the case may be, Disney allowed all people to use their FP after the window. Since they make they rules, they certainly can bend them and I can go with whatever they decide is OK. Now they have decided that it isn't OK, and I'm just going to find a way to make the current system work for me. Notice I didn't say work around the rules, I said work with them.

 

[UNCFanatik]

You bolded a sentence fragment in two separate posts.

If you continue reading after your bold in my first post, it says "the impact is negligible". Further, this post goes on to describe how a guest inconvenienced in a moment in time ends up not being inconvenienced in the whole. The bold part you conveniently selected was referring to the moment in time.

This is thoroughly consistent with the next fragment you chose to bold from an earlier post "wasn't negatively impacting anyone".

A negligible impact is meaningless. By nature, something meaningless cannot be negative.

Nice try, but anyone could attempt to make a fool of another poster by sifting through their previous posts and selecting sentence fragments that appear to contridict each other.

If you read both of my posts in full, without selecting random fragments, they are in fact consistent.

The fact that you cant get around even with repeated verbal gymnastics is that you categorically have said that late FP usage wasnt negatively impacting anyone. We even have a poster in this very thread that tells how she personally was negatively impacted but you continue to hold fast to your indefensible position.

You have not proven to a certainty that your continued assertion that late FP usage "wasn't negatively impacting anyone" and you ignore any and all scenarios to prove that you are wrong.

Even taking your words at face value now, negligible does not mean none. If FP late usage even had a negligible, negative impact then by very definition there was some, even if its very small, negative impact. Thus rendering your statement "wasn't negatively impacting anyone" false.

 

[Reddog1134]

I'm just doing some basic math here with the info that is available. Correct me if I'm wrong. I read that BTMRR has a capacity of 2400 riders per hour. So to have late fastpass users increase the wait time by one hour (middle of a 25-30 min wait increased to 75) would require 2400 late riders to all enter the line in generally the same time correct?

 

[CandleontheWater]

I'm just doing some basic math here with the info that is available. Correct me if I'm wrong. I read that BTMRR has a capacity of 2400 riders per hour. So to have late fastpass users increase the wait time by one hour (middle of a 25-30 min wait increased to 75) would require 2400 late riders to all enter the line in generally the same time correct?

I would watch out about about using math around here, some people tend to think that mathematical theory is made up by people on the Dis and therefore false.

Really, you only should be using righteous indignation in order to be taken seriously when you back up your points.

 

[pinkerbell]

My point of posting was to try and learn how to better utilize the new policy of enforcing fast pass times.
I say new policy becasue that is what a disney cast member told me. That leads me to believe that anyone who went back after the time was not breaking the rules, but that time was a suggested time, kind of like the SRP (suggested retail price) of an item.
I have learned some tips and appreciate it, so lets try and keep the thread friendly and I don't want it to be closed or for people to feel like they can't voice thier opinion.
Thanks for all the passionate responses in what is clearly a dividing subject

 

[KellyNY]

You bolded a sentence fragment in two separate posts.

If you continue reading after your bold in my first post, it says "the impact is negligible". Further, this post goes on to describe how a guest inconvenienced in a moment in time ends up not being inconvenienced in the whole. The bold part you conveniently selected was referring to the moment in time.

This is thoroughly consistent with the next fragment you chose to bold from an earlier post "wasn't negatively impacting anyone".

A negligible impact is meaningless. By nature, something meaningless cannot be negative.

Nice try, but anyone could attempt to make a fool of another poster by sifting through their previous posts and selecting sentence fragments that appear to contridict each other.

If you read both of my posts in full, without selecting random fragments, they are in fact consistent.

So, now you finally admit negative affect but you try to minimize it to zero and somehow push a positive affect.

In your own words, Nice try!

So let me ask again, what makes you think that I care about possible benefit at 11 AM if I am not there, every day.

What makes you think that late FPer has a right to decide when to negatively impact me and when to throw me a bone in a form of no show.

And who gives late FPers, not you in particular but any late FPer, a right to decide how negligible My Time. Let me repeat, we are talking about negative affect on my time, not yours, mine. So I guess what makes it negligible is the fact that it is Mine and not Yours, am I right?

How big affect is not important, it can be few minutes, it can be cycle time on cycle rides and shows. Important part that negative affect exist, every time late FPer shows and lets not try to minimize it to nothing.

 

[origin62]

To be honest I'm totally baffled as how fast passes can generate pages and pages of debate.

Fast passes are, inherently in their design, a tool used to redistribute guests so that lines for rides are more manageable. For that to work properly you need to specify how the redistribution is spread out.

Statistically, in an ideal world each ticket would have one specific time and they would all be spread out throughout the day, but obviously that doesn't create a very pleasant experience.

So what do you do? You pad it out by making it a time window instead of a specific time and you do it in batches instead of single tickets so that families can ride together. You do NOT however make that padded window "From X o'clock until whenever the park closes". That defeats the entire purpose of a fast pass.

I think the common misconception is the assumption that fast passes were founded on the intention of giving guests a way to skip the line when in fact that's a perk that naturally occurs from the actual purpose, which is to subtly tell people when to ride certain rides and spread everyone out. So working off that misconception, they think the "X o'clock to close" rule makes sense since it fulfills the false foundation or they think they're entitled to it because they assume that's the point of the fast pass.

Of course Disney is known for bending over backwards to try and make a guests experience better, so it's entirely logical to conclude that this "unofficial rule" sprang up from cast members making exceptions and word spreading.

Now they're tightening down on the exceptions, most likely because it was getting to the point where it was negating the point of fast passes. That or like someone else suggested, they need more strict data so that they can properly plan this new X-Pass idea.

In any case there is a legit reason behind it. Disneys whole business model is to treat guests as well as they reasonably can in order to acquire a customer for life, so they really wouldn't clamp down on this rule just to piss off people.

As for judging people who took advantage of the lax rules, or calling people who didn't jealous, that's just silly. Some people do what they can get away with and others don't. Neither is universally right or wrong. It's subjective.

It's also reasonable to be a little bummed if the rules are being locked down now. If you have a nice thing and it goes away, you're going to be bummed. It's natural. However it's unreasonable to be flat out angry or to feel entitled to the lax rules just because they used to exist. The rules are up to Disney to decide and as consumers our "say in it" is simply through giving them money or withholding and not going.

Anyway, just my extended two cents.

I think this sums it up nicely and accurately.

 

[origin62]

Disney's business model is to make money. If making money pisses people off, that's obviously not going to get in the way.

This is the thing that bothers me so much about them changing it. There's rumor of next gen, but nothing concrete. Shouldn't a company have a transition plan or an explanation of why a change is being made (ie. this needs to happen because... or this will improve things because...). They obviously had a segment of loyal customers who liked the idea of the open window, and they eliminated it without announcing the progression of how this will improve anything.

If they gave me something concrete, I'd be much more understanding. Concrete is not "we did this because something better is coming" - that's too open ended for me to accept.

So we're just left to debate what next gen might be while wondering if our trip this year will be as enjoyable as ones in the past.

Bad form

If it helps at all, CMs were briefed before enforcement began in March. The reason for the change (which was to be shared with Guests if they should ask) was that overall, more guests are taking advantage of FP, and more will be able to in the future, if everyone uses their passes during their designated window.

That may not be the answer or communication method you were looking for, but that was the official reason given.

 

[EMHDad]

i voted 'liked'.

Truthfully, not overly thrilled about it. However, I think I will hower a better chance to adapt and such. (For example, I have no problem doing a quick trot across the park to grab the FPs.) Hopefully this will give us a small advantage by not being affected as much.