My FP+ Park Strategy WILL SAVE ME ALMOST $20,000!!!

[mom2rtk]

From my perspective we will always go Universal plus we like to explore new places. The extra cost for a Disney multi-day pass becomes negligible after a certain point. Since we do these other things anyway why not spend part of the day at one venue and then another part at a Disney venue? We only do it for a few days but it works out well.

I agree. The cheap "out days" of a longer ticket make this a very appealing approach.

 

[MrInfinity]

Ahhhh... but Fuzzy, WDW is about a lot more than "rides".

Um... you're the one doing the math, not me. I was just multiplying out your price per day by the days you were staying to see if there was any savings.

Presumably you are sharing your strategy on how to save $20,000 so we can understand, or build on it together, and come to a conclusion on whether one is better off doing a short stay or a long stay. We are 14 pages deep and you have yet to get to some numbers. Tho it is very relevant, for I want to save money as much as the next guy. If you were to show me how you could stay 28 days for cheaper than one could stay for 6 days, I would certainly take a lot away from it.

Already, I have gotten some good info, like agreeing you can get a lot done on an arrival day, and that driving out to a hotel doesn't take much more time than taking a bus back to a Disney hotel. I agree on these. This is all good stuff, but we have yet to come to any sort of conclusion regarding your overall premise.

 

[Laketravis]

This is all good stuff, but we have yet to come to any sort of conclusion regarding your overall premise.

"We"?

Perhaps "We" doesn't understand the premise.

 

[wisblue]

I'm still having trouble seeing from this, and the companion thread on the TPAS board, how this is anything more than pointing out that you can spend less money on a trip to WDW if you stay and eat offsite, if you drive instead of fly, etc. The debates about the relative merits of onsite and offsite stays have been going on for as long as I've been watching these boards and, being that they are so much a matter of personal choice and taste, there is never going to be a consensus.

 

[Laketravis]

I'm still having trouble seeing from this, and the companion thread on the TPAS board, how this is anything more than pointing out that you can spend less money on a trip to WDW if you stay and eat offsite, if you drive instead of fly, etc. The debates about the relative merits of onsite and offsite stays have been going on for as long as I've been watching these boards and, being that they are so much a matter of personal choice and taste, there is never going to be a consensus.

It's not for everybody and not everybody will understand it. This isn't just about spending less, it's about doing more and making productive use of time without having to spend most of the day in a park. You've made it clear before that you aren't the "typical" guest so these threads probably don't make sense to you. Others have commented that they find the information helpful, even if it's old hat to you.



.

 

[wisblue]

It's not for everybody and not everybody will understand it. This isn't just about spending less, it's about doing more and making productive use of time without having to spend most of the day in a park. You've made it clear before that you aren't the "typical" guest so these threads probably don't make sense to you. Others have commented that they find the information helpful, even if it's old hat to you.
.

I guess you're right. I understand everything you're saying, but it is all old hat to me.

For people who didn't realize that there are cheaper places to stay and eat in the Orlando/Disney World area, and that the area is teeming with attractions ranging from world class to exceptionally cheesy, this information may be helpful.

 

[Laketravis]

I guess you're right. I understand everything you're saying, but it is all old hat to me.

For people who didn't realize that there are cheaper places to stay and eat in the Orlando/Disney World area, and that the area is teeming with attractions ranging from world class to exceptionally cheesy, this information may be helpful.

Yet even you were surprised at the rate I got for a rental car for a week, so I'd like to think there's something for everyone.



.

 

[MrInfinity]

I didn't want to post this until all the figures were final, but I think I've finally found a way to embrace FP+. You see, because we felt like we couldn't do as much per day with FP+ and in order to satisfy our sense of value we had extended our two big annual treks to WDW to two weeks at a time.

Our trips to Orlando have been, for decades, exclusively Disney and always onsite. But now since we can reserve 3 FP's for any time of the day whether we eat and stay at WDW or not and it's gotten to where we don't want to stay in the parks for hours at a time with nothing but Standby Lines after we've used our FP's, it occurred to me that I simply needed to monetize the benefits the 51% who like FP+ have come to realize.

Lake, I'm trying to figure out where you're actually saving this money. If you would indulge please...

In the old days, you would go for 1 week twice a year. This would run you around $6,000 total.

Now, because of FP+, you would like to extend your trips to 2 weeks each. Right? More days = more Fast Passes. So your costs go up to around $12,000 (I ran CSR for the dates you posted... it's not as expensive as you have stated for a week in early June). But because of your new strategy, you can stay offsite (it is well known that staying offsite will save around $200/wk vs a value and $400/wk vs a Mod)... you are saving $400/week, over 4 weeks, which is $1600 saved. And also by going offsite, you decline the DDP that you used to get ($142/day) in favor of just spending $100/day cash. Presumably you feel you have to do these extra two weeks because you now only do 6 attractions (and other magicial things) instead of 12 attractions (and other magical things) in a given day.

Ok, that's great. So you proceed to describe a day, in which you think it's reasonable to do a good 6 things, plus enjoy the Disney magic, in 1/2 a day, while spending the other half eating outside the park at Chilis or Ponderosa and going to Universal. So if you can do 1/2 as much as you used to, in 1/2 as much time, you are really getting the same amount done. AKA, why don't you just stay the whole day, and get in 12 or more rides and other magical experiences?

It would be cheaper.
I don't see that you're saving enough in the weekly rate of $750 to come out ahead when you factor in 4 weeks at $750 vs 2 weeks at $1150.

How is it cheaper to stay 4 weeks offsite, instead of 2 weeks at a Moderate -- or even a Value?

EDIT... What may be helpful, is to try to lay it out in a 2-column format. Maybe use Excel. One side for 4 weeks, staying offsite and the other side for 2 weeks, Moderate.

 

[Laketravis]

Two weeks early June at CSR, buy AP's and DDP for 3: $7,039.

(I ran CSR for the dates you posted... it's not as expensive as you have stated for a week in early June).

I really don't have time to keep correcting your math for you, but add the cost to upgrade the 10 day park hoppers to AP's to the below room/dining plan/park tickets package. It's actually more now than when I first calculated it.

 

[cakebaker]

Safe to assume that your plans don't address one of the major complaints of fp+? That is the amount of planning that is required and the lack of flexibility?

I am honestly impressed with your efforts. Regardless of whether this type of vacation would interest me or not or whether I think it in any way addresses the issues with fp+, it's quite impressive. I always thought I was a super planner but by your standards, I'm flying by the seat of my pants.

 

[Cormoran]

I think the OP is providing all of this detail because people are asking him about the specifics of his trip.

 

[Laketravis]

Safe to assume that your plans don't address one of the major complaints of fp+? That is the amount of planning that is required and the lack of flexibility?

I am honestly impressed with your efforts. Regardless of whether this type of vacation would interest me or not or whether I think it in any way addresses the issues with fp+, it's quite impressive. I always thought I was a super planner but by your standards, I'm flying by the seat of my pants.

That sounds like two complaints so let me respond to each one separately:

(1) I would have to admit that the amount of planning I am currently doing each morning for the other thread is a lot. This morning I spent almost an hour planning the AK half of one day. Is it required? Probably not, although I'm sure I wouldn't be happy with the final result if I didn't plan it, and I think a good plan us certainly reusable so it only needs to be developed once and tweaked for additional use. The contrast that keeps glaring at me is when I get to the second part of the day (USO) and it simply involves showing up. In that respect, they hold the advantage.

(2) Lack of flexibility is manifested from the plan itself, so I contribute to that somewhat by going thru the steps I go thru in (1) above. A stringent plan that maximizes daily yield is inherently inflexible but instead of being a disadvantage I try to turn it into an advantage.

 

[cakebaker]

I think the OP is providing all of this detail because people are asking him about the specifics of his trip.

I don't see your point. Yes, he's sharing the extremely detailed plans he's made

That sounds like two complaints so let me respond to each one separately:

(1) I would have to admit that the amount of planning I am currently doing each morning for the other thread is a lot. This morning I spent almost an hour planning the AK half of one day. Is it required? Probably not, although I'm sure I wouldn't be happy with the final result if I didn't plan it, and I think a good plan us certainly reusable so it only needs to be developed once and tweaked for additional use. The contrast that keeps glaring at me is when I get to the second part of the day (USO) and it simply involves showing up. In that respect, they hold the advantage.

(2) Lack of flexibility is manifested from the plan itself, so I contribute to that somewhat by going thru the steps I go thru in (1) above. A stringent plan that maximizes daily yield is inherently inflexible but instead of being a disadvantage I try to turn it into an advantage.

Not a complaint at all. I just noticed that your plan does require some significant and rather detailed plans.

I have no issue with stringent plans that, in order for the vacation to work well, have to be adhered to as much as possible. We do it with every WDW vacation we've ever made. There were times changes had to be made and we adjusted as best we could and didn't let it ruin the trip, but our goal was to stick to a schedule that we knew worked to achieve our goal- which was to have a great vacation.

It just seems a big complaint these days is the amount of planning required and I noticed your alternative requires that as well.

 

[Laketravis]

Not a complaint at all. I just noticed that your plan does require some significant and rather detailed plans.

I wasn't referring to YOU complaining. You said:

"Safe to assume that your plans don't address one of the major complaints of fp+? That is the amount of planning that is required and the lack of flexibility?"

You said "one" of the major complaints but gave two examples. That's why I said it sounded like two complaints (as opposed to one).

 

[Angel Ariel]

It just seems a big complaint these days is the amount of planning required and I noticed your alternative requires that as well.

Different strategies address different issues.

For someone like me, whose biggest issue is the amount of preplanning involved, Lt's strategy may not be the best. There are still points I'm paying attention to in this thread, though, even though the main strategy may not be one I employ.

For someone else whose issue is more trying to get what they consider a full value out of their vacation within the restrictions of fp+, this may be of more benefit to them.

No.one touring plan/style is going to address all the potential concerns people may have with fp+.

 

[cakebaker]

I wasn't referring to YOU complaining. You said:

"Safe to assume that your plans don't address one of the major complaints of fp+? That is the amount of planning that is required and the lack of flexibility?"

You said "one" of the major complaints but gave two examples. That's why I said it sounded like two complaints (as opposed to one).

Sorry, obviously a duh.. moment for me!

 

[Cormoran]

For someone else whose issue is more trying to get what they consider a full value out of their vacation within the restrictions of fp+, this may be of more benefit to them. No.one touring plan/style is going to address all the potential concerns people may have with fp+.

That's exactly what I'm trying to get out of the trip: full value with FP+. My major issue is with the MK. There are so many rides that we love that are now FP+ and now the SB lines are longer. Trying to find value within the limits of the FP+ system is not easy, for us. I don't think we would find the FP+ system so restrictive if they had only used it on the headliners, but oh well.

 

[cakebaker]

That's exactly what I'm trying to get out of the trip: full value with FP+. My major issue is with the MK. There are so many rides that we love that are now FP+ and now the SB lines are longer. Trying to find value within the limits of the FP+ system is not easy, for us. I don't think we would find the FP+ system so restrictive if they had only used it on the headliners, but oh well.

Despite what people on the Dis say, the most current independent information I can find says it isn't true and actually lines are shorter on some rides. Some of them are very popular rides like TOT and Space Mountain. When we went last year, we never noticed lines longer than they ever were either. I know this goes against the grain for a lot of dis folks- longer standby lines helps bolster their reasoning for not liking fp+, but it may just not be factual.

Touring plans has looked at it twice and times are actually better in the later study. I'd love to see any factual reports dated later that show a different outcome.

http://blog.touringplans.com/2014/04/03/how-fastpass-plus-affects-your-wait-update

 

[Cormoran]

Despite what people on the Dis say, the most current independent information I can find says it isn't true and actually lines are shorter on some rides. Some of them are very popular rides like TOT and Space Mountain. When we went last year, we never noticed lines longer than they ever were either. I know this goes against the grain for a lot of dis folks- longer standby lines helps bolster their reasoning for not liking fp+, but it may just not be factual.

Touring plans has looked at it twice and times are actually better in the later study. I'd love to see any factual reports dated later that show a different outcome.

http://blog.touringplans.com/2014/04/03/how-fastpass-plus-affects-your-wait-update

I wasn't speaking about headliner attractions. I was talking about attractions like: SW, HM, POTC. The standbys have increased for the second tier attractions. I expect waits for headliners, it doesn't impress me that these attractions have reduced waits. I am providing an opinion based on my experiences last April 2014 and other reports from posters on these boards.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Cormoran said "My major issue is with MK. There are so many rides that we love that are now FP+ and now the SB lines are longer."

I read that and see that she's talking specifically about MK rides that did not have legacy FP, but do now have FP+. Not referencing *all* rides at all.

So then I go and read the blog linked in the next post. I look at the chart with average changes in SB line times, and there are 4 rides highlighted in Green to show that their wait times have gone down measureably since FP+ - the only 2 MK attractions there are Space Mtn and Winnie the Pooh - neither of which Cormoran was referencing, as they both had legacy FP.

Then there are quite a few more rides in white (more in this group than either of the others) - which TP says later is to show that there's such a minimal change in SB time that they're basically considering those rides SBs to not have changed at all. The MK rides in that group are Buzz, Peter Pan and BTMRR - again, all rides that had legacy, so not what Cormoran was referencing.

Then there are 7 rides highlighted in yellow to show measureable increases in SB wait times. MK rides on this list include Jungle Cruise, Pirates and Haunted Mansion. Of that group only JC had legacy, so that leaves Pirates and HM on that list *as rides that fit not having legacy FP* - and the chart supports that wait times have gone up for them.

The chart doesn't mention quite a few rides that have FP+ now (like IASW, Aladdin carpets, mad tea party, etc) - so no conclusion can be drawn either way on those rides.

I don't see where at all Cormoran stated she was talking about FP+ as a whole/in general.