I'm guessing our family is done with Disney

[crostorfer]

Come on. 3 rides and get out?

If that's what they really want they will be getting rid of all EMH, which I suppose is possible.

They aren't so stupid that they actually think that a lot of guests are going to be satisfied with 3 rides or attractions in a day. That would be a pretty sure way to eliminate most return business.

Most of the people on these boards who prefer FP+ feel that way because they are able to get their fill of attractions in other ways, either at rope drop or by visiting at less busy times when standby lines aren't that long. If I thought I could only do 3 attractions in a day, I wouldn't be going to WDW either.

Where is the argument that WDW is so much more than rides? That is the rebuttal I see most often when those of us of a different opinion cry foul. Where is the, "Why, 3 guaranteed rides a day? That works perfectly for our family! It's all we need!"

We view this differently, obviously, but I really, actually, truly do think that they would be seriously overjoyed if everyone just came to the park, bought a Mickey ice cream bar, rode their 3 rides, watched a parade, grabbed a bite to eat, bought a pair of Mickey ears and a balloon, and then high tailed it out of the park. It's a reasonable assumption. It's a business model. Hourly turnover benefits WDW greatly, if you aren't in standby, the standby line is smaller. If you aren't in standby, you are free to spend your time, and money, elsewhere.

I would suspect that there are probably a fair amount of brand new, first time visitors to WDW that actually DO think they can only do 3 rides a day. The booklets they send out say nothing about stand by lines,(I have two with my reservation information in my house right now that I've received in the past 2 weeks), but they are hammering home the idea that you need to schedule 3 rides per day and touting it like some huge benefit.

 

[damo]

Well, then, they won't like us.

We do a number of things in one park in the morning,including all of the rides that we consider headliners, take a break, and then spend the evening at another park using our 3 FPs, doing a few other lesser attractions that don't have long waits, and maybe taking in a nighttime show. That usually means about 9 hours in the parks and 3-4 hours enjoying something else at the resort, but we are out of the way in the middle of the afternoon when the standby lines are the longest.

I think there are a TON of us that tour that way. That's what makes me nervous about the evening fastpass situation.

 

[ParkHoppers]

Value calculation? If everyone was in the pool of the old Fastpass right from the get go the actually number of FP people would have got would probably be very close to 3 on average. It was just fortunate for the users of FP legacy that the pool wasn't even half full. Not fair to set ones standard in a pool system when the pool is not full. How many FP you could get if the pool was full would be the standard. You can,t compare a shrinking container of yogurt with the FP pool system. The simple variables in a pool system make your comparison not sound. No strawmen here....the motivation of people have nothing to do with the simple math used in a pool system. The fact that people are picking on those for using the word FAIR and such just seems like a way to ignore the numbers of why people get a certain amount of FP in a POOL system.

 

[kdubs]

Because they are entitled to a value calculation that has nothing to do with sharing, or even other consumers ( who are also entitled to make the same value calculation).

When you see the yogurt container getting smaller and smaller...but the price stays fixed...if you make a decision to stop buying are you mad that sharing with everyone else who might want yogurt has shrunk your portion size? Or are you just deciding you'd rather spend your money on something that offers more value? And yes...there is a finite amount of yogurt to go round....just wait til the zombie apocalypse!

Sharing isn't even on the radar, here. Not as motivation, consideration, or outcome.

And, as you've seen in subsequent posts...most had no issue helping to add to the user pool, when given the opportunity. So when there WAS an opportunity to consider others, directly...people acted to help. I know I did similar things many, many, many times...both on this most recent trip and others.

Somewhat interestingly...you're creating a strawman argument out of almost literal strawmen.... People who don't exist with the motivations you're ascribing to them.

I feel like I should just follow you around and post "Yeah that." You used the word heuristics in a post. Are you an economist? I kind of have a crush on you, and I'm not even sure of your gender.

And, yes, you were right, I am totally willing to share for goods and services that have always been communally owned and allocated. I live in California, and am investing in a grey water diverter to water my lawn as a way of reducing my water usage, even though my community hasn't even suggested rationing yet.

But for non-essential, leisure activities people do exist with the sentiments suggested; being unwilling to pay the same amount for a lesser product. And if someone wants to ascribe a motivation to me (that I'm selfish and unwilling to share) to that sentiment, then they should be pleased that I'm not around. That was my point; not to put flesh and bones to someone's strawman.

Seriously though pilferk, if you are a published economist, I'd love to know about it. You have elevated the discussion here and I greatly appreciate it.

 

[wisblue]

I think there are a TON of us that tour that way. That's what makes me nervous about the evening fastpass situation.

Personally, I'm not worried about it because we always stay onsite (usually with DVC points) and I know that I will be organized and disciplined enough to book my FP+ reservations early enough to get my choices.

I'm not buying into the angst about FP+ reservations being booked within the first hour of the 60 day mark, or so many people adopting the evening FP+ approach. If and when they do, I will adapt (if I live that long).

 

[pilferk]

Value calculation? If everyone was in the pool of the old Fastpass right from the get go the actually number of FP people would have got would probably be very close to 3 on average. It was just fortunate for the users of FP legacy that the pool wasn't even half full. Not fair to set ones standard in a pool system when the pool is not full. How many FP you could get if the pool was full would be the standard. You can,t compare a shrinking container of yogurt with the FP pool system. The simple variables in a pool system make your comparison not sound. No strawmen here....the motivation of people have nothing to do with the simple math used in a pool system. The fact that people are picking on those for using the word FAIR and such just seems like a way to ignore the numbers of why people get a certain amount of FP in a POOL system.

Yes, value calculation. As in: we used to be able to get this, and now we get less ( if they do, in fact get less) from our vacation. We are still paying x...or likely x+...so is it now still worth it.

Thus shrinking yogurt. It's actually quite apt.....I like it!

This has nothing to do with sharing. It's that simple.

You can use that to try to vilify the opposing viewpoint ( of which I am not one), but it's simply not true. People understand the pool system....they just don't like fp+ implementation of it. Again...why new system and not just increased education? You are reaching....and creating a strawman argument simply to knock it down.

YOU are the one ascribing motivation....look at your posts. You are saying people are leaving because they don't want to share...thus, the conversation has everything to do with motivation. You are saying their expectations are not realistic out of greed. Yet...in reality...they are simply comparing past experience with present...and adjusting their value calculation.

I'm telling you, sharing isn't the consideration. The value calculation is. And not you, nor I, nor anyone not involved in writing their checks, is entitled to make it for another person. Nobody is Under a moral obligation to support a business they view as offering value below the level the expect. Just like no one can tell you that your value calculation is wrong. The shrinking yogurt paradigm...

I take issue with "fair" because it's not apt. Fair is about same opportunity. That existed, before.

Uneven is certainly apt. It speaks to distribution.

And now I'll let this piece die...as I suspect we are going to do some tail chasing.

 

[Laketravis]

I'm still feeling horrible about those poor kids who didn't get to ride because of me.

I even ate some broccoli for dinner. Still ashamed. Can't shake it.

Heuristics? Mesa, take the wheel.... the cliff is near.....

 

[wisblue]

Where is the argument that WDW is so much more than rides? That is the rebuttal I see most often when those of us of a different opinion cry foul. Where is the, "Why, 3 guaranteed rides a day? That works perfectly for our family! It's all we need!"

We view this differently, obviously, but I really, actually, truly do think that they would be seriously overjoyed if everyone just came to the park, bought a Mickey ice cream bar, rode their 3 rides, watched a parade, grabbed a bite to eat, bought a pair of Mickey ears and a balloon, and then high tailed it out of the park. It's a reasonable assumption. It's a business model. Hourly turnover benefits WDW greatly, if you aren't in standby, the standby line is smaller. If you aren't in standby, you are free to spend your time, and money, elsewhere.

I would suspect that there are probably a fair amount of brand new, first time visitors to WDW that actually DO think they can only do 3 rides a day. The booklets they send out say nothing about stand by lines,(I have two with my reservation information in my house right now that I've received in the past 2 weeks), but they are hammering home the idea that you need to schedule 3 rides per day and touting it like some huge benefit.

I don't see many people saying that 3 RIDES a day are enough for them. They are saying that 3 FPs a day are enough. For a lot of us, 3 FPs at times we can select are more valuable than the ability to get more than that at times dictated by the return time that happens to be available.

 

[btk2333]

Yes, value calculation. As in: we used to be able to get this, and now we get less ( if they do, in fact get less) from our vacation. We are still paying x...or likely x+...so is it now still worth it.

Thus shrinking yogurt. It's actually quite apt.....I like it!

This has nothing to do with sharing. It's that simple.

You can use that to try to vilify the opposing viewpoint ( of which I am not one), but it's simply not true. People understand the pool system....they just don't like fp+ implementation of it. Again...why new system and not just increased education? You are reaching....and creating a strawman argument simply to knock it down.

YOU are the one ascribing motivation....look at your posts. You are saying people are leaving because they don't want to share...thus, the conversation has everything to do with motivation. You are saying their expectations are not realistic out of greed. Yet...in reality...they are simply comparing past experience with present...and adjusting their value calculation.

I'm telling you, sharing isn't the consideration. The value calculation is. And not you, nor I, nor anyone not involved in writing their checks, is entitled to make it for another person. Nobody is Under a moral obligation to support a business they view as offering value below the level the expect. Just like no one can tell you that your value calculation is wrong. The shrinking yogurt paradigm...

I take issue with "fair" because it's not apt. Fair is about same opportunity. That existed, before.

Uneven is certainly apt. It speaks to distribution.

And now I'll let this piece die...as I suspect we are going to do some tail chasing.

I agree with everything you said until where you defined "fair."

I looked up the definition of fair as an adjective

"in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate."

Things were fair before- they are fair now. Just because something changed doesn't mean that anything was unfair.

Everyone needs to decide if WDW vacations are worth it to them. I feel bad for people who loved WDW before and would now choose to quit going because I love WDW, it is one of my escapes from the real world; however, I understand that it is not my decision to make for people. There are many other vacation destinations in the world and I hope people find other magical destinations!

 

[ParkHoppers]

In a POOL system like FP and many other POOL systems in the world you should only expect the number you get if the POOL is full. That is the only standard that exist in a POOL system. If you get more of the pie because the pool is not full that is great and you should be happy. Just because the pool was never full doesn't mean the standard wasn't always there for the full pool of FP. And that standard would never be 6-10 FP if the pool was full. Did I use the word POOL enough?

 

[btk2333]

i don't see many people saying that 3 rides a day are enough for them. They are saying that 3 fps a day are enough. For a lot of us, 3 fps at times we can select are more valuable than the ability to get more than that at times dictated by the return time that happens to be available.

+1

 

[pilferk]

I'm still feeling horrible about those poor kids who didn't get to ride because of me.

I even ate some broccoli for dinner. Still ashamed. Can't shake it.

Heuristics? Mesa, take the wheel.... the cliff is near.....

Pretty sure they are using them...IT versions, anyway. They might not be evolutionary gifts...but the decision making trees are still there. Rules and pseudo definitions used to make real time decisions on resource utilization, staffing, etc. Rudimentary stuff now ( mostly dash boarding for decision support) but once they are fined tuned and expanded....

Remember the movie "Westworld"?

Yeah, it's not quit as sci fi as it used to be....

 

[larryz]

But FP- is all gone by then anyway, so we have 100 minute waits for everything, now we will have at least 3-huge improvement.

Let's do this with math.

You used to get zero FPs. Now you get three. To determine the percentage of improvement, multiply your previous experience by the current experience.

0 X 3 = ?

 

[mesaboy2]

I'm still feeling horrible about those poor kids who didn't get to ride because of me.

I even ate some broccoli for dinner. Still ashamed. Can't shake it.

Heuristics? Mesa, take the wheel.... the cliff is near.....

Yeehaw!!!!!!!!!

 

[pilferk]

I agree with everything you said until where you defined "fair."

I looked up the definition of fair as an adjective

"in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate."

Things were fair before- they are fair now. Just because something changed doesn't mean that anything was unfair.
[\quote]

Agree...but I think that jives with my definition. Rules and standards speak to providing a similar opportunity for success within their confines. They do not promise the same outcome for every single person, or any certain % of people. THAT would be even distribution...which s a different animal.

I'm not saying that, in its final version, fp+ is less fair, either. I don't mean to imply that. In its current version it's less fair, because of the way it treats off site guests and so holders who have not had an onsite stay. I don't think it will stay that way, though.

Everyone needs to decide if WDW vacations are worth it to them. I feel bad for people who loved WDW before and would now choose to quit going because I love WDW, it is one of my escapes from the real world; however, I understand that it is not my decision to make for people. There are many other vacation destinations in the world and I hope people find other magical destinations!

Bingo!

 

[Laketravis]

Pretty sure they are using them...IT versions, anyway. They might not be evolutionary gifts...but the decision making trees are still there. Rules and pseudo definitions used to make real time decisions on resource utilization, staffing, etc. Rudimentary stuff now ( mostly dash boarding for decision support) but once they are fined tuned and expanded....

Remember the movie "Westworld"?

Yeah, it's not quit as sci fi as it used to be....

You know, I'm not ashamed to admit that actually makes sense to me......

 

[pilferk]

I feel like I should just follow you around and post "Yeah that." You used the word heuristics in a post. Are you an economist? I kind of have a crush on you, and I'm not even sure of your gender.

Male. Flattered. And married.

NOT an economist but...I've worked n healthcare IT for over a decade ( and it, in general, for over 2) and I cut my teeth in decision support ( now systems architect/coordinator/data and business analyst with an alphabet title).

And, yes, you were right, I am totally willing to share for goods and services that have always been communally owned and allocated. I live in California, and am investing in a grey water diverter to water my lawn as a way of reducing my water usage, even though my community hasn't even suggested rationing yet.

But for non-essential, leisure activities people do exist with the sentiments suggested; being unwilling to pay the same amount for a lesser product. And if someone wants to ascribe a motivation to me (that I'm selfish and unwilling to share) to that sentiment, then they should be pleased that I'm not around. That was my point; not to put flesh and bones to someone's strawman.

Seriously though pilferk, if you are a published economist, I'd love to know about it. You have elevated the discussion here and I greatly appreciate it.

Thanks. I do try. Especially as I am generally a fence rider with fp+

 

[btk2333]

Agree...but I think that jives with my definition. Rules and standards speak to providing a similar opportunity for success within their confines. They do not promise the same outcome for every single person, or any certain % of people. THAT would be even distribution...which s a different animal.

I'm not saying that, in its final version, fp+ is less fair, either. I don't mean to imply that. In its current version it's less fair, because of the way it treats off site guests and so holders who have not had an onsite stay. I don't think it will stay that way, though.

Fair enough I think we more or less agree

 

[Laketravis]

I cut my teeth in decision support ( now systems architect/coordinator/data and business analyst with an alphabet title)

Okay now you're giving ME wood.......

 

[crostorfer]

I don't see many people saying that 3 RIDES a day are enough for them. They are saying that 3 FPs a day are enough. For a lot of us, 3 FPs at times we can select are more valuable than the ability to get more than that at times dictated by the return time that happens to be available.

And are you willing to wait 60-120 minutes in line, in order to ride more than 3 rides per day? 30 minutes is my limit. I may wait 45 for the Tower of Terror, but that is seriously pushing the limits of my patience.

If you travel during low attendance periods, this system will work fine. It worked fine for a lot of January people, even though the standby waits for Pirates and HM seem to be steadily growing. The standby waits at DHS are still ridiculous, but that will likely never change.