Nervous about FP cancellation emails

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

It wouldn’t be hard to do, but there would be way too much collateral damage. For example, last minute resort changes, DVC waitlists, etc would lose FPs if they associated A resort reservation number with a FP. So yes, I agree it’s not something WDW could pull off without causing lots of headache all around.

In my experience, FP within 30 days stick around. But it’s been a while since I have tested this due to an upcoming real trip.

Oh, they could do even that with some very complex programming with a whole lot of IF statements in it.
IF the FP doesn't have W or X or Y or Z (or however many different exceptions there are) associated with it, then delete it.
I simply have zero faith, less than zero, that Disney can ever program their system to accomplish something that complex.
It's just best left alone. I mean, seriously how many FP can there possibly be out there associated with a resort stay canceled inside 30 days? Are they really talking about THAT many, in the realm of ALL the FP for a day?

No, it's pretty easy.

FP made > 30 days out get a flag with the date of resort check in. Then check to see if there is a resort stay for each day between the flagged date and the day of the FP.

Sweeps can be done each day, up until the night before the day of the FP.

FP made at <= 30 days get a null flag, so safe from sweeps.

 

[AngiTN]

No, it's pretty easy.

FP made > 30 days out get a flag with the date of resort check in. Then check to see if there is a resort stay for each day between the flagged date and the day of the FP.

Sweeps can be done each day, up until the night before the day of the FP.

FP made at <= 30 days get a null flag, so safe from sweeps.

Their system just doesn't have that check added so no, it's not that easy.

 

[PrincessWithABlaster]

No, it's pretty easy.

FP made > 30 days out get a flag with the date of resort check in. Then check to see if there is a resort stay for each day between the flagged date and the day of the FP.

Sweeps can be done each day, up until the night before the day of the FP.

FP made at <= 30 days get a null flag, so safe from sweeps.

I agree that the coding/flagging would be easy. Figuring out what to do with what they find might be more difficult. They may not want to deal with the headache that will cause when they start poofing a lot of FPs.

Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer sort of thing.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

I agree that the coding/flagging would be easy. Figuring out what to do with what they find might be more difficult. They may not want to deal with the headache that will cause when they start poofing a lot of FPs.

Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer sort of thing.

I think the warnings going out is the answer. They don't want tons of last minute resort cancellations. My gut says the warnings going out are tests to see if the system is identifying them correctly. I think once they determine the correct fps are marked for deletion, they'll do it.

 

[anomamatt]

No, it's pretty easy.

FP made > 30 days out get a flag with the date of resort check in. Then check to see if there is a resort stay for each day between the flagged date and the day of the FP.

Sweeps can be done each day, up until the night before the day of the FP.

FP made at <= 30 days get a null flag, so safe from sweeps.

The sweeps would need to be triggered by something (e.g., resort cancellation or modification) as it would be way too much overhead to check every single FP every day. MDE would collapse upon itself. But you could have them triggered by a cancellation.

But, of course, what you are suggesting would eliminate the umbrella (since off-site guests never have a reservation, but can use an on-site guest's FP window). Which, admittedly, I don't know if Disney intends or not. From their "planning with others" page, it does seem like the umbrella could be intentional.

The solution to keeping umbrella'd guests happy would be to associate resort reservation number with a FP. And do that check when a reservation is cancelled. But then you have the problem of switching resorts, waitlists coming through...

it becomes more difficult than it seems. Meanwhile, it's easy to do selected sweeps (upon cancellation) that recognize FP sitting there >30 days out and no reservation. Those are indeed cancelled -- and there is no collateral damage in this.

Given that it took them years to do nightly sweeps to check if media were used for FP, but not used to enter the park... and that they still (2 years after those sweeps) cannot prevent an FP being used on a band that didn't enter the park, I think cancellation of FP once under 30 days will be a tough thing for MDE engineers to pull off.

 

[michelepa]

I think most of you are giving Disney “technology” people way too much credit in their capabilities. Have you ever tried to use MDE. We're still at the basics people.

 

[AngiTN]

No, it's pretty easy.

FP made > 30 days out get a flag with the date of resort check in. Then check to see if there is a resort stay for each day between the flagged date and the day of the FP.

Sweeps can be done each day, up until the night before the day of the FP.

FP made at <= 30 days get a null flag, so safe from sweeps.

And where do you group the people who don't have a resort stay at all? They are less than 30 days too
Or what about those who have a resort stay, cancel it, the then rebook?
You think they can make it sophisticated enough to tell them all apart?

 

[PrincessWithABlaster]

I think most of you are giving Disney “technology” people way too much credit in their capabilities. Have you ever tried to use MDE. We're still at the basics people.

Their user interface is extremely poor but the infrastructure is not. That they either paid big money for or put their best people on. Every single day there are hundreds of thousands of people accessing their databases to make and use FPs. It's honestly pretty staggering. And by and large that system works the majority of the time through many different conditions. It is not a simple or poorly designed system. The interface into it is. I don't think we give Disney IT enough credit for all that they got right - mostly because we see and have to deal with the glitches and bad user interface issues that they got wrong. But overall, the system is honestly pretty impressive.

I believe they could easily add a date flag on the day the FP was booked. They could sweep overnight looking for FP parties that don't have at least one person on a resort on the day the FP is booked for. The parties are already associated in some way since they come up together. If the date code indicates it was booked greater than 30 days and no one has a resort reservation, they delete it. They already do that when you don't have ticket media. You need to link a new ticket to keep FPs if you cancel a package and go with separately booked tickets. The recommendation is to link the new tickets before you cancel the package to be safe. It would just then be the same for making a resort change.

Not saying they wouldn't break a bunch of user interface things in the process - they probably would. But they could do it.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

And where do you group the people who don't have a resort stay at all? They are less than 30 days too
Or what about those who have a resort stay, cancel it, the then rebook?
You think they can make it sophisticated enough to tell them all apart?

FPs made at <= 30 days don't need a date flag, and are always safe from being cancelled because of resort changes/cancellations. They'd get a null flag, instead of a date flag.

Those that have a resort stay, cancel, and rebook will be fine. If someone cancels/rebooks within the grace period, when they go to do the sweep, they will check to see there is a resort reservation on the dates indicated by the flag, and they are good to go.

 

[tguz]

Gosh I’m a terrible person, if I had an unreliable 5th wheel asking to come on a trip that was already booked I’d just let them sort their own room out, I wouldn’t move offsite. I’m a selfish vacationer, this is why I could never travel in a big group. You’re a nicer person than me OP!

I agree! I would say here are our dates and where we are staying.....it would be great to see you there, let us know if you decide to go.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

The sweeps would need to be triggered by something (e.g., resort cancellation or modification) as it would be way too much overhead to check every single FP every day. MDE would collapse upon itself. But you could have them triggered by a cancellation.

But, of course, what you are suggesting would eliminate the umbrella (since off-site guests never have a reservation, but can use an on-site guest's FP window). Which, admittedly, I don't know if Disney intends or not. From their "planning with others" page, it does seem like the umbrella could be intentional.

The solution to keeping umbrella'd guests happy would be to associate resort reservation number with a FP. And do that check when a reservation is cancelled. But then you have the problem of switching resorts, waitlists coming through...

it becomes more difficult than it seems. Meanwhile, it's easy to do selected sweeps (upon cancellation) that recognize FP sitting there >30 days out and no reservation. Those are indeed cancelled -- and there is no collateral damage in this.

Given that it took them years to do nightly sweeps to check if media were used for FP, but not used to enter the park... and that they still (2 years after those sweeps) cannot prevent an FP being used on a band that didn't enter the park, I think cancellation of FP once under 30 days will be a tough thing for MDE engineers to pull off.

If they did daily sweeps of all FP, then they could do as @PrincessWithABlaster suggested, and the check would be at least 1 person in the fp party has a resort reservation that matches the flagged date.

If they only do checks of FPs upon cancelation or modification of a resort reservation, then it would require additional, reciprocal tags, with checks based on cancellation of a resort guest's FP. I would not use resort reservation numbers for the reasons @anomamatt gave.
Resort guests RG1 and RG2 make a FP for themselves and off site guest OS1 at greater than 30 days out.
RG1 and RG2 have their FP tagged with OS1 as covering OS1
OS1 get tagged with both RG1 and RG2 as the resort guests covering OS1.
RG1's FP gets cancelled for any reason (chooses not to do the ride, no ticket in the account, removed from resort reservation, etc.)
The system sees the OS1 tag on RG1s FP, and removes the RG1 tag from OS1s FP. OS1 gets tagged for a check
OS1 does not have their FP cancelled, as they still are tagged by RG2.
RG2's FP gets cancelled a few days later. The system sees the OS1 tag attached to RG2, and marks OS1's FP for a check
This time, OS1 no longer has a resort guest tagged on their FP, so OS1 gets their FP cancelled as well.

 

[AngiTN]

Their user interface is extremely poor but the infrastructure is not. That they either paid big money for or put their best people on. Every single day there are hundreds of thousands of people accessing their databases to make and use FPs. It's honestly pretty staggering. And by and large that system works the majority of the time through many different conditions. It is not a simple or poorly designed system. The interface into it is. I don't think we give Disney IT enough credit for all that they got right - mostly because we see and have to deal with the glitches and bad user interface issues that they got wrong. But overall, the system is honestly pretty impressive.

I believe they could easily add a date flag on the day the FP was booked. They could sweep overnight looking for FP parties that don't have at least one person on a resort on the day the FP is booked for. The parties are already associated in some way since they come up together. If the date code indicates it was booked greater than 30 days and no one has a resort reservation, they delete it. They already do that when you don't have ticket media. You need to link a new ticket to keep FPs if you cancel a package and go with separately booked tickets. The recommendation is to link the new tickets before you cancel the package to be safe. It would just then be the same for making a resort change.

Not saying they wouldn't break a bunch of user interface things in the process - they probably would. But they could do it.

I've never denied for 1 second it COULD be done. I'm certain it could be. By some other organization.
I've denied that Disney's tech could do it without impacting things unintentionally.
I'm certain that they would. There are too many validly booked FP inside that 30-day window that could also be deleted because they have faulty systems at this time.
IF they ever got all their ducks in a row, sure. I have little faith that at this time, as things stand, that can happen.

 

[Minsc]

Their user interface is extremely poor but the infrastructure is not.

Oh yeah. I work for a technology company that designed the infrastructure (not the software), and to say no expense was spared is an understatement! They have one of the most, if not the most sophisticated data analytics systems I've ever seen in all my years in the business. If you talk to their Data Scientists, and they can go into great detail about the *billions* of data points they collect and act on every day.

 

[monkyby87]

I'd wager these issues, while annoying, aren't a big enough deal for them right now to try and do more about it. They're taking a few measures with the emails and the FP's that can obviously be cancelled, but that's the extent that they probably care right now. And probably will care about for a while until they start losing money.

 

[pattyw]

Just want to add that I received two e-mails this morning warning me that my FP will be cancelled. We are AP holders and have a reservation at the Swan which I linked to make the FP's. I called the number on the e-mail to inquire why they would cancel our FP's. We have valid tickets and a resort reservation. The CM said that we didn't have a resort reservation. I gave him the resort Confirmation number. He said that the link must have dropped- and that this is common. Wow! Good thing it was just a warning and that our FP's weren't canceled.

 

[jlundeen]

Just want to add that I received two e-mails this morning warning me that my FP will be cancelled. We are AP holders and have a reservation at the Swan which I linked to make the FP's. I called the number on the e-mail to inquire why they would cancel our FP's. We have valid tickets and a resort reservation. The CM said that we didn't have a resort reservation. I gave him the resort Confirmation number. He said that the link must have dropped- and that this is common. Wow! Good thing it was just a warning and that our FP's weren't canceled.

Yet another testament to the stability of MDE... or lack thereof.

 

[ScrapYap]

Fastpasses are still in place.

 

[AngiTN]

Just want to add that I received two e-mails this morning warning me that my FP will be cancelled. We are AP holders and have a reservation at the Swan which I linked to make the FP's. I called the number on the e-mail to inquire why they would cancel our FP's. We have valid tickets and a resort reservation. The CM said that we didn't have a resort reservation. I gave him the resort Confirmation number. He said that the link must have dropped- and that this is common. Wow! Good thing it was just a warning and that our FP's weren't canceled.

And one of the many reasons why their blanket sweep can't work with the system in it's current state

 

[Tink_83]

I think the warnings going out is the answer. They don't want tons of last minute resort cancellations. My gut says the warnings going out are tests to see if the system is identifying them correctly. I think once they determine the correct fps are marked for deletion, they'll do it.

I agree with this - it would make since to thoroughly test this portion of the system, gather the data (including the number of unlinked reservations when someone rebooks etc.) and verify how well it is working and then pull the trigger on the second portion - the actual delete. Why bother with a warning email if they don’t intend to ever enact the second part of the plan and actually delete the FP at some point.

 

[hiroMYhero]

Because the OP has confirmed her FPs are still intact well beyond the Warning Cancellation Date, closing.