I find it odd they are still 3 "all year" actually. How can XMAS day be the same as Sept 9?
The fact that we can reach agreement on this point is proof, in and of itself, of what a great change it would be to allow additional FPs to draw people in during slower periods.
I think the simple answer to the question of why the limit on advance FPs is the same year round is that trying to make the limits seasonal would make the system that much harder for guests to understand.
I don't think this response is very well thought out. Stop and think about it for a moment. What pre-trip information does Disney currently give its guests about the availability and use of FP+? In what way would it be more complicated for the end user if the number were "4" instead of "3"? There are plenty of reasons why first-time users might be confused about FP+. But "4" vs "3" isn't one of them. Are they now confused because the number is "3" instead of, say, "5", or "2"? What magical properties does the number "3" have that makes confusion evaporate? Even assuming that one has already used the system and has "3" burned into their brains, all it would take is a simple: "Good News! You can now get a fourth FP+ each day during your stay!" to fill them in. And when they go on the website 60 days in advance and book their first three, (thinking that 3 is the magic number..."
Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out!"), the system will immediately notify/remind them of the fact that they can book a fourth. No. You can try to look for other reasons why people should not get a fourth FP+ during the slow periods. But making the "system that much harder for guests to understand" isn't one of them.
In the slower season, the result of the lower crowds should be more availability of FPs same day and shorter standby lines. It shouldn't be necessary to give guests more FPs in advance.
In the slower seasons, Disney has been giving away Free Dining to entice people to come. While it shouldn't be necessary for people to have more FPs in order to enhance their visit, it would be a less costly way for Disney to add a perk. It costs Disney nothing, and people would feel as if they were getting something valuable in return. Would guests
prefer to have FD? Sure. But this thread passed the point of "what do guests want" vs "what does Disney want" a long, long time ago. Disney definitively does not want to use FD as a carrot. This is simply a new carrot to try.
The very simple math, that I think you agree with, tells us that if guests were able to get FPs for both of these major attractions, the supply of FPs would be depleted pretty quickly, maybe even before offsite guests get their shot at them 30 days out.
Sure. They would run out. Of course I get that. But where is it written that FP allocation has to be socialistically equal? Disney doesn't believe it should. It already has a built-in inequality guarantee by making the booking dates different for on site and off site guests. Inequality and lack of availability is known to Disney because it created it. And we need look no further than A&E to see that we are already living with a system that doles out all available FPs "before offsite guests get their shot at them 30 days out". This is already happening. Disney knows it. Disney accepts it. So now we are engaged in line drawing. How
much inequality is OK. Not
if inequality is OK. To make things completely equal, Disney would have to cut off its attendance each day at the point where everyone could get an A&E FP. Short of that, we've crossed the Rubicon and we must accept that fact that early booking guests are going to get things that late booking guests cannot. We've established that inequality exists. We are now just trying to sort out where it should end. Sort of like the old joke whose punchline is: "
We have already established what you are, madam. Now we are merely negotiating the price." For whatever reason, there are those who believe that it is OK for Disney to run out of FPs for A&E, fireworks, parades, 7DMT and a few others in advance, but it would be unthinkable for Disney to run out of FPs for Soarin' and Test Track in advance. (And in actuality, those rides are running out in advance. So the real concern is that they should not run out because the same people are getting FPs for both, as if that is some sort of crime.) Looked at another way, if you are a guest who is trying to book FPs under the current system 10 days before your visit and cannot get either Test Track of Soarin', does it matter to you whether the FPs were taken by two different sets of people, or if they were taken by one set of people who booked both? To you, that difference is irrelevant. You can pound the table and complain that 5,000 people wiped out all the FPs for Soarin' and Test Track, or you can pound the table and complain that 10,000 people wiped out all the FPs for Soarin' and Test Track. The result is the same as far as you are concerned. Tiering does not exist in order to make everyone happy. It exists to make fewer people
unhappy. And there are few rules when it comes to the latter. It is not irrational to want tiering to disappear, even if one knows the end result.
If you're going to be honest, when many people say they want to go to "Disney" what they really mean is the Magic Kingdom. Disney pricing that continues to separate the price of the MK from the other Disney parks just goes to prove it. When Disney has added parks around the world, they start with a "Magic Kingdom".
