LOVE or HATE FP+ Anyone's mind been changed ??

[jade1]

I feel it is a shame that at the rate Disney continues to raise prices many more families will be left out.

But think how many more can be included if they drop prices.

 

[JimmyV]

No, not "only if capacity is close to equal". To my knowledge, there is no ride as efficient as you propose, so comparing blue ninja monkeys to my breakfast doesn't make any sense.

Of course it does. It is a common technique. Start with an extreme (but possible) example that everyone agrees does not exist. Then, extrapolate backwards until you get to a point of reality. Don't like the ride that holds 50,000 people per hour? Make it one that holds 25,000 people per hour. Still don't like it? Then keep moving downward. Eventually you will hit the point where actual capacity trumps wait time, and before you know it, you are having blue ninja monkeys for breakfast!!

Yes, there is a degree to which capacity has an effect, but if people are still willing to wait 4 hours as compared to less than 1 hour, then I would say that the 4 hour attraction wait is more popular than the 1 hour attraction wait.

And you would continue to be wrong. What sense does it make to at once say that capacity has an effect, and then in the next breath, rely only on wait times? All you have to do is make the ride with the one hour wait have a capacity that is 4 times as efficient as the experience that has a one hour wait. Boom. Equal number of people wanting to ride. Unequal wait times.

What no one is addressing is the relative popularity among differing demographics. A&E is much more popular with 5 year old girls. They are willing to wait 4 hours. And their parents must wait with them, even though they might detest the concept. So you have a very small sample size of people who are actually willing to wait for 4 hours out of a pure sense of desirability. Ask all the parents if they think that A&E is their favorite attraction and see what answers you get. When half the people in line disagree that A&E is their most popular attraction, then you get an entirely different result.

 

[erc]

Run the same math using the percentage of people who got a FP for both Soarin' and Test Track in the same day. Not 2 per each ride. Just one per each ride. That percentage is way, way more than 7%.

TT was always a single-rider walk-on for me. Same with EE in AK.

 

[flicx]

But think how many more can be included if they drop prices.

Heck I am not talking about lowering prices. I am talking a year or two of no increases and cutbacks on ticket perks. Of course the odds of that happening are slim to none. The odds are better of 2 increases in a year.

 

[JimmyV]

TT was always a single-rider walk-on for me. Same with EE in AK.

And the fact that the single rider line was "walk on" is a testament to what low percentage of people availed themselves of that option. It's a great feature to take advantage of. But it doesn't move the meter all that much.

 

[jade1]

Heck I am not talking about lowering prices. I am talking a year or two of no increases and cutbacks on ticket perks. Of course the odds of that happening are slim to none. The odds are better of 2 increases in a year.

I agree with that, but think they should increase every year to reduce capacity, think how many visits many of us made through the years-you must have visited a few times correct? There are countless folks that have never gone.

 

[erc]

I feel it is a shame that at the rate Disney continues to raise prices many more families will be left out. The recent taking away the no exp feature on tickets really cuts down on our chances of returning after our tickets are done. I think it is sad when you raise prices whether the attendance is up or down. Many of these same people are ones who have gone to Disney for years and went when it was lean times, 911 etc.

The amazing thing is that WDW was much cheaper back in the 70's and 80's, but people go back much more today than they did then. $28 admission in 1988 is the same as $56 today:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=28&year1=1988&year2=2014

 

[dayvewc]

Of course it does. It is a common technique. Start with an extreme (but possible) example that everyone agrees does not exist. Then, extrapolate backwards until you get to a point of reality. Don't like the ride that holds 50,000 people per hour? Make it one that holds 25,000 people per hour. Still don't like it? Then keep moving downward. Eventually you will hit the point where actual capacity trumps wait time, and before you know it, you are having blue ninja monkeys for breakfast!!

This is generally known as the reduction of the absurd argument, and is considered a logical fallacy.

And you would continue to be wrong. What sense does it make to at once say that capacity has an effect, and then in the next breath, rely only on wait times? All you have to do is make the ride with the one hour wait have a capacity that is 4 times as efficient as the experience that has a one hour wait. Boom. Equal number of people wanting to ride. Unequal wait times.

What no one is addressing is the relative popularity among differing demographics. A&E is much more popular with 5 year old girls. They are willing to wait 4 hours. And their parents must wait with them, even though they might detest the concept. So you have a very small sample size of people who are actually willing to wait for 4 hours out of a pure sense of desirability. Ask all the parents if they think that A&E is their favorite attraction and see what answers you get. When half the people in line disagree that A&E is their most popular attraction, then you get an entirely different result.

I never relied "only" on wait times. If you check back, I said that wait times are "one" observable option to evaluate popularity. I also specified that the problem becomes defining "more" and "less".

And the parents of the 5 y/o girls who want to see A&E obviously find "value" in pleasing those little girls by waiting, so while it may not be "popular" with them, the wait has "value", which I believe was the point that LakeTravis brought out and I agreed with. I just happen to see more overlap in "popularity" vs. "value" than I understood from his post.

And yes, relative popularity among different demographics is in no way being addressed in anything I have said. I am only talking relative overall popularity and one observable method of measuring it. Not the only method, and not an absolute. I know of no way that anything can be said to be "4 times as popular" as something else, just that it is "more" popular, and yes using wait times is one way to do that. FP+ distribution is another. Relative capacity can be another again.

 

[JimmyV]

Disney world is fast becoming a country club.

An 8 day pass for an adult nets out to $43.13 per day. A room can be had for under $150 per night. Show me a country club with those prices. Heck. Find me a public golf course with prices like that.

The amazing thing is that WDW was much cheaper back in the 70's and 80's, but people go back much more today than they did then. $28 admission in 1988 is the same as $56 today:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=28&year1=1988&year2=2014

Was it much cheaper in the 70's and 80's. As noted above, an 8 day pass today costs $43.13. Using the calculator that you provided, that is $21.55 per day in 1988 dollars. What did a three or five day pass cost in 1988? (Pretty sure that 5 was as high as they went).

 

[Cormoran]

It was there by the time I read it. Whether or not you added it later is moot.

No, you are mistaken. I never quoted the whole post. If you blelieve this, please provide the evidence

 

[Cormoran]

Why do I need to do that?

because you're the one who is claiming that all Iwant to see is more thrill rides. However, I never said that so I am asking you to provide evidence to support your claim.

 

[flicx]

The amazing thing is that WDW was much cheaper back in the 70's and 80's, but people go back much more today than they did then. $28 admission in 1988 is the same as $56 today:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=28&year1=1988&year2=2014

I remember those years a 3 day no exp hopper was a whopping 68.00 back in 85 or 86. I still have that one somewhere. The caveat is the 56 dollars today is more like $105.00.

 

[JimmyV]

This is generally known as the reduction of the absurd argument, and is considered a logical fallacy.

Actually, it is not. And it is not. Reductio ad Absurdum requires an absurdity. What we have here is an unlikelihood.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/

 

[JimmyV]

I remember those years a 3 day no exp hopper was a whopping 68.00 back in 85 or 86.

So 3 days at $68 comes out to $22.67 per day. That is $45.37 per day in today's money. Granted, you have to buy an 8 day pass to get that per day savings, but it can be had.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I stand corrected.

You posted a statement without a quote and then later quoted the part you were referring to.

It was a simple error on my part.

That said, the rest stands. MK did just finish an expansion. So including MK was not really a correct part since they did recently complete a project that added 3 attractions, 2 of which were rides.

No, you are mistaken. I never quoted the whole post. If you blelieve this, please provide the evidence

ETA: I now understand what you mean--you posted an additional post with quote rather than edited a prior quote. For clarity, the quote would have been helpful the first time to clear up any misunderstandings of what you meant.

 

[jade1]

I remember those years a 3 day no exp hopper was a whopping 68.00 back in 85 or 86. I still have that one somewhere. The caveat is the 56 dollars today is more like $105.00.

Yes but if you continued to buy passes as the prices increased-you contributed to the exact problem you are talking about. Now if you bought these in the 80's, and have not gone back because of price hikes-then you did not contribute to the problem.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So 3 days at $68 comes out to $22.67 per day. That is $45.37 per day in today's money. Granted, you have to buy an 8 day pass to get that per day savings, but it can be had.

Well, except that back then--the multi day passes were cheaper and the park hopping included for free.

 

[cakebaker]

because you're the one who is claiming that all Iwant to see is more thrill rides. However, I never said that so I am asking you to provide evidence to support your claim.

Ummmm....no I didn't. I said some people. If you fit in there, great. If not, then I'm not talking about you. I may well have the impression that if it's not a "ride", it doesn't count in your world, but thrill ride? No, never said. If you can find that quote where I said, YOU only want to see more thrill rides, I'll be more than happy to tell you that I was wrong since you say that is not true.

 

[jade1]

So 3 days at $68 comes out to $22.67 per day. That is $45.37 per day in today's money. Granted, you have to buy an 8 day pass to get that per day savings, but it can be had.

2 more parks since then as well so you need more days anyway.

 

[cakebaker]

Oh goody! We've moved on to complaining about the price hike. I knew we'd get someday!!

Speaking of the podcast- You should listen to last weeks broadcast. They had some really funny stuff to say about that.

Prediction was, there would be a collective freak out on the boards, people will claim they're not going back, they'll scream the world is going to end and then they'll all go back to planning their vacations. They got a great laugh out of it. Funny stuff to listen to.