Fast Pass to become "Pay for Play"?

[goodferry]

What about Universal Studios, is everyone that pays park admission to get into Universal Studios on equal footing, absolutely not. People staying at a Universal Hotel get FOTL privledges. I imagine that Disney is looking for a way to compete with that when it comes to their resort guests. I would have no problem with a limit on the number of FP available to you in a day corresponding to which hotel you are staying in or limiting the FP to resort guests only.

 

[bicker]

If you financed your DVC purchase your monthly payments aren't for your current stay but just a mortgage.

200 points times $80 is $16,000. The current value of that expenditure carried forward for forty years is far in excess of that -- probably close to $40,000. So after you've spend $40,000 on rooms at WDW (excluding tax -- Disney doesn't get that, but they DO get the interest on that $16,000), perhaps you can raise your point again. (Joking here a bit, eh?)

Payments made for financing, member dues or assessments are used for your capital investment.

You're still ignoring the principal paid, and the interest on that prinicipal.



I'll be the first to admit that DVC members don't pay as much as deluxe resort guests for comparable accommodations, but it's actually pretty close. That's actually how the price for DVC membership is arrived at: by determining what is the value of the membership. Disney makes members pay the net present value of that value, up-front, with a small advantage associated with making such a commitment to Disney. That's it. In all other ways, DVC members pay the same as deluxe resort guests.

Now, I'm not saying that entitles DVC members to everything deluxe resort guests get. DVC members are only entitled to what they've been promised. However, it does mean that any assertions of justification based on how much deluxe resort guests pay are equally applicable and valid for DVC members.

 

[bicker]

Mark my words - If Disney goes through with this, there's gonna be trouble. This topic has been on here for about 3 hours, and look at the response it has already gotten.

That's often an indication more of people realizing that something they don't like can very likely get implemented, without trouble, as anything else. Go back into the archives and check out the discussions when the first rumors of FastPass came up. This is NOTHING compared to that uproar! I suspect the same thing would have occured when WDW changed to pay-one-price, if the Internet existed in its current form back then.

Letting people that can afford to stay at a more expensive hotel cut in front of people who cannot is shrewd. It's wrong.

"Wrong"? Based on what? I've scoured my imagination for what could constitute "wrong-ness" and came up empty. Some of us don't like it -- granted. I don't see that that makes it "wrong".

If I were Jimmy Crack Corn, and someone cut in front of me because they were staying at a nicer hotel, I'd punch him in the nose.

I suspect that in that case you'd be arrested for assault, while the High Roller would be showered with attention and further considerations, for having endured your assault.

Some people on here can politely disagree and debate. Then you have others that are just plain nasty.

With respect, sometimes what appears to be "nasty" is just the only possible response to an outrageous assertion (such as equating rescuing people from a fire versus tiered priority for FastPass). I didn't read anything nasty into the reply, and I sure hope you don't read anything nasty into my replies either. We're disagreeing with you, that's all.

There are a lot of loaded words being thrown around: "Elitist" among them. That can be taken as a very "nasty" assertion, but I think most folks are viewing those assertions in context.

 

[jgalecpa]

I suspect that in that case you'd be arrested for assault, while the High Roller would be showered with attention and further considerations, for having endured your assault.

And Also, likely sued.

They would win, further enabling them the ability to pay for even more stays.

One fallacy I find in these discussions is the idea that just because someone stays in a deluxe resort is that they "make" more than others.

I think it only says that they PAY more for that particular stay.

If a family elects to go only every four years, but stay in a deluxe resort, they may make significantly less than people who go annually (or even more often) and stay in moderate resorts.

Again:

Disney is a business.

Always has been, always will be.

You get what you pay for.

People are not paying premium fees at the deluxe resort just to be in a nice hotel, they are paying it to upgrade their Disney Experience.


Just my 1.5 cents

Jim

 

[bicker]

Disney is probably one of the most savvy companies out there when it comes to PR... I highly doubt that they would take away fast pass options all together.

I agree, however, Disney has found it necessary, in the past, to take things away. MKC comes to mind. Sometimes, in business, it is better to take a short-term PR hit, in order to glean long-term profitability improvements.

Having said that, it still seems most likely that if they make any changes they will take very little, if anything, AWAY. Rather, they'll simply ADD things that haven't been offered before, like the ability for deluxe resort guests to reserve a certain number of FastPasses in advance.

If this happens, I bet there will a HUGE backlash on the internet.

Just like for Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Disney's withstood that sort of thing in the past.

In fact, where do I sign up to be a leader?

You may want to chat with JT about that.

What I just noticed is that virtually everyone that has viewed this thread has responded.

How can we tell something like that? :-?

Well, I agree with that, but what is sticking in peoples' craws is that you aren't paying more for the park. Just for the resort.

One thing to keep in mind is that they could even limit the added benefits to folks who book packages (room plus admission together). They have tied benefits to packages before. In that case, you couldn't make the argument you're trying to make (not that I think that argument really matters -- no offense intended).

 

[athenna]

I am waiting for DVC and AP holders to petition WDW to not let the rest of us in.

Why?? We don't think we are any better than anyone else. Obviously, we have a lot of money invested in our trips to WDW, but EVERYONE who goes there (regardless of where they are staying, etc) has a lot of money invested to go there. I don;t think we're not ''going to want to let the rest of you in''.

 

[jgalecpa]

How can we tell something like that? :-?

On the Main padge for this forum, check the number of View versus the number of replies.

They are virtually identical.

Jim

 

[Lewisc]

My point must have been very poorly written since even you didn't get it.

Let's go to the extreme. Guests at the GF, who pay rack rate, put their resort card in the FP machine and always get a FP 5 minutes later.

Some guests will make the decision to pay the $$$ to get that kind of VIP treatment. Disney would hope to be able to rent more deluxe rooms at a higher price with such a policy.

You've already bought your DVC unit. You may be financing it and are certainly paying maintenance BUT what is this new policy going to do to get additional $$$ to Disney? You've already committed to the dollars. If you decide to boycott Disney in protest Disney still gets your money. I made the point, speculation since I don't have any data, that a new guest may be more likely to spend $$$ on souvenirs than repeat guests.

Disney could use a special FP as an incentive for future sales similar to the free ticket offer that was given when DVC first started.

The reality is Disney would have to do something for DVC for goodwill but there isn't any logical reason to offer it. The existing DVC units have already been paid for.

Disney is currently using EMH as a way to give an extra perk to resort guests. Disney has too many rooms to do what Universal does. If every guest of every resort got unlimited FP then the rest of the guests would have a hard time riding attractions like Splash Mountain.

A better debate, but outside the scope of this board, would be the concept of granting a business patents for processes. The person who invented the checkout counter or taking a restaurant reservation wasn't granted a patent. Why should the computer equivalent be patentable? Should the first theme park that came out with pay one price have been granted a patent?

Several reports says FP has been a failure. The intent was to allow guests to spent time in gift shops and restaurants instead of waiting on line. Disney is finding guests are just spending less time in the parks.

200 points times $80 is $16,000. The current value of that expenditure carried forward for forty years is far in excess of that -- probably close to $40,000. So after you've spend $40,000 on rooms at WDW (excluding tax -- Disney doesn't get that, but they DO get the interest on that $16,000), perhaps you can raise your point again. (Joking here a bit, eh?)

You're still ignoring the principal paid, and the interest on that prinicipal.



I'll be the first to admit that DVC members don't pay as much as deluxe resort guests for comparable accommodations, but it's actually pretty close. That's actually how the price for DVC membership is arrived at: by determining what is the value of the membership. Disney makes members pay the net present value of that value, up-front, with a small advantage associated with making such a commitment to Disney. That's it. In all other ways, DVC members pay the same as deluxe resort guests.

Now, I'm not saying that entitles DVC members to everything deluxe resort guests get. DVC members are only entitled to what they've been promised. However, it does mean that any assertions of justification based on how much deluxe resort guests pay are equally applicable and valid for DVC members.

 

[lillygator]

then there would be a lot less people in the parks and no need for FP's!!


(I am just kidding here folks!)

 

[bicker]

My point must have been very poorly written since even you didn't get it.

Thanks! (It think. )

You've already bought your DVC unit. You may be financing it

We paid cash, and I think your point would be clearer if you focused on that scenario. How people paid for DVC is irrelevant. The interest they paid didn't go to Disney, as you suggested, so all that matters to Disney is the principal and the interest on the principal.

The reality is Disney would have to do something for DVC for goodwill but there isn't any logical reason to offer it. The existing DVC units have already been paid for.

Well, you get into trouble with the word "logical." Logic would dictate that how Disney lives up to its commitments to its current DVC members will affect their ability to exact a premium from new DVC members. That goes beyond good will.

However, keep in mind that I, specifically, haven't said anything about whether Disney would be well-advised to offer new FastPass benefits to DVC members. I only said that they've promised to treat us like deluxe resort guests. Any scenario that results in the new benefits going to specific deluxe resort guests (such as those on room/admission packages) nullifies any logical assertion that DVC members should get the new benefits, relegating such assertions matters of personal beliefs only (which, of course, have no place in business, unless both seller and buyer share the same personal beliefs).

 

[pamlet]

Yes, but the only way this would be relevant is if Disney gives you the option to pay more to add on to your park experience, or to pay less and forgo certain park amenities, just as you can do when choosing a resort.

But they do...

A basic ticket does NOT include park hopping, "pluses" and it expires. You pay more for those experiences. I for one was THRILLED when they came out with it. We only visit Disney every 5 - 8 YEARS.. believe me I've LOST the one day on park hoppers ... those tickets have disappeared. We've purchased 7 day PHPs - they're PERFECT for our vacation.

I still think Disney knows EXACTLY how they would integrate this... we're all jumping to conclusions, but they know they have to do SOMETHING to make staying onsite more appealing.

I saw someone say the deluxes should offer "better service" now THAT to me is ridiculous - ALL the resorts should offer "best service". Great customer service costs a company NOTHING... nada... zilch!!

From what I've seen of the patent application they are just trying to patent ANY variation of the technological use of fastpass... who knows what variation they are going to use...

 

[mattr555]

But Universal allows only those staying in their 'few' resorts to use FoTL passes.

They also have the Universal Plus ticket which is $20 on top of a normal ticket. This gives one fast pass for everyride in the park for the whole day.

 

[tlbwriter]

But they do...

A basic ticket does NOT include park hopping, "pluses" and it expires. You pay more for those experiences.

LOL... I know... that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying they should give you the opportunity to pay more for the park ticket with the special Fast Pass option, just as they currently give you the opportunity to pay more for the ticket with park hopping, or the ticket that doesn't expire. Those are additional PARK features, and you buy them as part of your PARK ticket. You do not have to stay in a particular resort to qualify for those options. The value-added park features work very well in this context, and Disney would be wise to stick to it.

 

[antmaril]

What about Universal Studios, is everyone that pays park admission to get into Universal Studios on equal footing, absolutely not. People staying at a Universal Hotel get FOTL privledges. I imagine that Disney is looking for a way to compete with that when it comes to their resort guests. I would have no problem with a limit on the number of FP available to you in a day corresponding to which hotel you are staying in or limiting the FP to resort guests only.

I agree. I think Disney is looking for a way to compete with FOTL at Universal. Bottom line - if you want unlimited access to FOTL at Universal, you have to stay on-site. For that reason, I would never consider staying off-site at Universal. I would love to have that opportunity at Disney. I realize because of the size of Disney, FOTL is not possible. But, I'm all for a variation of FastPass to complete with FOTL and I'm willing to pay for it.

Just my two cents, of course.

 

[Lewisc]

Thanks! (It think. )

We paid cash, and I think your point would be clearer if you focused on that scenario. How people paid for DVC is irrelevant. The interest they paid didn't go to Disney, as you suggested, so all that matters to Disney is the principal and the interest on the principal.

I originally did but some posters who financed their purchase muddied the argument. They thought the interest they're paying should give them some rights.

Well, you get into trouble with the word "logical." Logic would dictate that how Disney lives up to its commitments to its current DVC members will affect their ability to exact a premium from new DVC members. That goes beyond good will.

By logical I meant logical from the viewpoint of using this potential new perk as a vehicle for getting additional room and package revenue. I always said goodwill would require DVC get some considerations.

However, keep in mind that I, specifically, haven't said anything about whether Disney would be well-advised to offer new FastPass benefits to DVC members. I only said that they've promised to treat us like deluxe resort guests. Any scenario that results in the new benefits going to specific deluxe resort guests (such as those on room/admission packages) nullifies any logical assertion that DVC members should get the new benefits, relegating such assertions matters of personal beliefs only (which, of course, have no place in business, unless both seller and buyer share the same personal beliefs).

You have to separate legally enforceable promises that are contained in your contract and offering documents with what your DVC guide told you. My understanding is perks like pool hopping can be dropped at will. Disney isn't offering MYW Dining to DVC guests, even if they buy the new passes. I suspect DVC members are legally entitled to a lot less than they think.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Disney may decide to give these new perks to package guests.

My point is offering perks to existing DVC members won't do anything to create additional revenue for Disney.

Most of the people are missing the point. DISNEY HAS FAR TOO MANY ROOMS to offer unlimited FP's to all resort guests. Probably too many rooms to even offer it to those guests who purchase the new dining package. I could see a system where concierge guests could get a few FP's before they get to the park.

IMHO we're reading far too much in this patent application. Some of it may be intended so Disney can collect licensing fees from other companies.

 

[Local_Girl]

Ticket options like park hopping, non-expiration, added plus features...are different in that they have nothing to do with your experience in the particular park, ie. MK. If I pay for a ticket to get into the MK (regardless of what other features are a part of my ticket), I would like to have the same opportunity as everyone else to ride the rides and see the attractions. If I have to stand in a 2 hour+ line to do anything (well, okay, the "big" attractions) besides walk around the park enjoying the magic because I no longer have access to FP while others do...I would be upset.

And we would seriously think of another way to spend our $$. That's the bottom line for Disney...whether more people would spend more money if such a program were implemented, or if they lose customers as a result. "PR nightmares" come and go, as many have said, but in the end it's all about whether or not the program is a money maker for Disney.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Just jumping in on this topic... I am adopting a "wait and see" attitude on the whole FP reformation. HOWEVER, I think one possibly unintentional long-term effect of possible changes may be to create a sort of "layered" park. What I mean is that there will be the high-roller crowd who stay at Deluxe resorts and spend 10k or so per trip walking right onto rides. There will be masses of other folks (mostly locals and other day guests I am assuming) queued up for these same rides. For them it will liekly become a very "Six Flagish" experience. By this I mean longer lines, dwindling customer service, and ultimately dirtier parks.

There will be fewer guests in the parks, but more income for the whole WDW resort because there will be more people staying at higher rates. I am not real sure where families like mine who plunk down $1500 once or twice a year for visits fit into this scheme. I suspect we'll just have to make do with fewer perks. Fewer guests = fewer CMs = lower overhead. It just might work. Disney certainly has every right to try it. I certainly won't like it, but it's not my company. I just wish that WDW could value the legions of families like mine who lay out $1500+ per trip. People like us appreciate the perks even more than the Deluxe crowd. We may not be the Rockefellers, but that's no reason to take us for granted.

Footnote to above: I am not trying to grumble about the caste/class system at WDW resorts. It is the "World" we all love and are a part of when we visit, so my comments do reflevct those differences. If you can be one of the Deluxe crowd, more power to you. If you are among the Value crowd like me, rock on.

 

[pamlet]

IMHO we're reading far too much in this patent application. Some of it may be intended so Disney can collect licensing fees from other companies.

That crossed my mind when I read it as well.... Really they're attempting to patent concepts ... and VERY vague technology.

LOL... I know... that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying they should give you the opportunity to pay more for the park ticket with the special Fast Pass option, just as they currently give you the opportunity to pay more for the ticket with park hopping, or the ticket that doesn't expire. Those are additional PARK features, and you buy them as part of your PARK ticket. You do not have to stay in a particular resort to qualify for those options. The value-added park features work very well in this context, and Disney would be wise to stick to it.

I really don't see the difference... Disney does the theme park thing better than ANYONE - this just takes it all to another level. They also aren't there for the greater good of society - they are there to make money - and this is another way they see that they can bring in the dough..

They obviously look at everything... in the past year or so they DROPPED the price of water in the parks - because they saw that they could make MORE money by selling MORE water if they dropped the price... It is a constant "game" in business to figure out how to make more money with what the market will bear..

 

[tlbwriter]

I just wish that WDW could value the legions of families like mine who lay out $1500+ per trip. People like us appreciate the perks even more than the Deluxe crowd. We may not be the Rockefellers, but that's no reason to take us for granted.

"People like us?" Could we please stop stereotyping Deluxe visitors as wealthy gaddabouts, and Value visitors as penny pinching coupon clippers? Why would "people like you" appreciate perks even more than those mythical "people who are not like you?"

I really don't see the difference...

You really don't see the difference in restricting upgrades to those staying in certain resorts, and making upgrades available for anyone to purchase? Truly?

Here's something to think about... how much does it cost to add the park hopper option to a ticket? Obviously it varies, but does it ever double the price of the ticket itself? I don't think so. Not even on a one-day ticket, the least discounted option. Now, what about upgrading from a Value resort to a Deluxe resort. Does it double the price of your room? More than double. Presuming Disney might implement this program in order to encourage visitors to choose the more expensive resorts, are people going to be willing/able to more than double the price of their vacation? That's a good question. Time will tell.

 

[pamlet]

You really don't see the difference in restricting upgrades to those staying in certain resorts, and making upgrades available for anyone to purchase? Truly?

Here's something to think about... how much does it cost to add the park hopper option to a ticket? Obviously it varies, but does it ever double the price of the ticket itself? I don't think so. Not even on a one-day ticket, the least discounted option. Now, what about upgrading from a Value resort to a Deluxe resort. Does it double the price of your room? More than double. Presuming Disney might implement this program in order to encourage visitors to choose the more expensive resorts, are people going to be willing/able to more than double the price of their vacation? That's a good question. Time will tell.

I'm sorry .. what I don't see the difference in is that Disney is going to make money - that's what they are there for. I probably didn't make myself clear.. laugh... I'm packing - cause we leave tonight..

I see your point - bottom line is they apparently think this is a good thing. I also wonder why "buying upgrades" like US and apparently Six Flags isn't mentioned... maybe someone ALREADY has a patent on that idea? Maybe this is just another spin that they feel they can patent.. It may well be that they WILL offer a purchased upgrade - along with the "hierarchy" of resorts. As I've pointed out - people make choices based on what they can afford vs what they want/need. We are staying offsite - I have two "boys" that are HUGE.. both over 6'.. can they share a double bed - NOPE... so my options onsite are 2 value rooms or deluxe.. or home away from home... Can we do that for under 100.00 a night - NO WAY - SO for us to go to Disney and have a comfortable vaction for all - we opted to stay offsite... We had HUGE discussion regarding this... I played the numbers every which way- offsite FOR US - was the only decision.. We're going because we've not been to Animal Kingdom - Disney hold very fond memories for us ... and let's face it ... it's just plain FUN. If the Fast pass hierarchy was in play - who knows if we'd opted for it.. probably..

Maybe I don't have as much emotionally invested in this argument because going to Disney every year is NOT our idea of a great vacation - we tend to do driving vactions... trying to see lots of different things.. experience new things.. so maybe that's why I'm not seeing what the fuss is...

I would LOVE to see Disney's stats on repeat vs first time/occasional visitors. I think that we get on this board and it seems like the ONLY way to enjoy a trip to Disney World is to stay onsite and "do it right"... lots of "commandos" out there... people who go ALL the time - yet I also think the "bread and butter" are for Disney are the "non-planners" they don't know all the "tricks" ... We see all the time folks posting about using Fastpass and cannot believe that others aren't using it... apparently they way it's working now is NOT distributing the traffic around the parks like they'd hoped - they're looking for another angle... this may just be one more way to do it..