Non-resort guests can not reserve FP+ early

This makes an assumption that Disney can increase their occupancy rates faster than off-site guests are cancelling their trips. It's not like WDW has been floundering at 50 or 60% occupancy rates. Disney is "capped" with how many off-site guests they can transition to on-site. In the busy season, Disney might only have about 5% occupancy to play with. It seems like there is not an insignificant risk, during these periods, for more off-site people to stop visiting than Disney could possibly absorb.

Disney will hope that people will rebook their off-site July trip to on-site in January, but that ignores that many people are limited by their children's and their own vacation time, many people simply can't move their travel dates. So the potential remains for a lot of simply cancelled off-site visits.

The things we need to know:

Ratio of on-site to off-site guests
Unused hotel capacity available at WDW
Percentage of guests "aware" of the changing conditions and are at risk of changing travel plans
Repeat vs First time guests

If most off-site people aren't aware of the difficulties in securing a seat on a popular ride until after their vacation has started, there is no potential loss of a cancellation. If most people aren't repeat guests than the potential loss of upset people never returning is small; they were never coming back anyway. But in an age where social media is ever growing, I would start to think that all the "so why won't you go back to WDW?" answers would start to build up to the point where they do start to affect the bookings of First time guests.

You are missing one key factor in that equation:

What percentage of overall guests used Fastpass before all the changes.

There is a percentage of people that were willfully ignorant of the Fastpass system and willingly stood in long lines and return to WDW to do the same thing on a regular basis.
 
This makes an assumption that Disney can increase their occupancy rates faster than off-site guests are cancelling their trips. It's not like WDW has been floundering at 50 or 60% occupancy rates. Disney is "capped" with how many off-site guests they can transition to on-site. In the busy season, Disney might only have about 5% occupancy to play with. It seems like there is not an insignificant risk, during these periods, for more off-site people to stop visiting than Disney could possibly absorb.

Disney will hope that people will rebook their off-site July trip to on-site in January, but that ignores that many people are limited by their children's and their own vacation time, many people simply can't move their travel dates. So the potential remains for a lot of simply cancelled off-site visits.


The things we need to know:

Ratio of on-site to off-site guests
Unused hotel capacity available at WDW
Percentage of guests "aware" of the changing conditions and are at risk of changing travel plans
Repeat vs First time guests

If most off-site people aren't aware of the difficulties in securing a seat on a popular ride until after their vacation has started, there is no potential loss of a cancellation. If most people aren't repeat guests than the potential loss of upset people never returning is small; they were never coming back anyway. But in an age where social media is ever growing, I would start to think that all the "so why won't you go back to WDW?" answers would start to build up to the point where they do start to affect the bookings of First time guests.

I think this a great point but it's not hard to see the future here. The same phenomenon you describe applies to the parks during peak holiday and summer seasons, i.e., the parks themselves run at basically 100% capacity - rarely, like on New Years Eve or the 4th of July, they will close the parks. But commonly, the parks are so crowded as to make the experience significantly downgraded.

The question then is: how does Disney beat the demand curve during the tourism industry's high-demand vacation season like holidays and summer and spring break?

Well, they could build more parks and attractions. LOL. Moving on.

OK, let's not move on. That's overly cynical. But we all know more attractions and parks require huge immediate outlays, and the ROI is longtail and they get it back slowly over time. That's not the MO of most public companies focused on the next two-to-four fiscal quarters, Disney included.

Option 2: they could charge more for what they currently offer and informally price-out the low-spend day-guest. I think this is happening. It's slow. But it's happening.

So, you can imagine in 5-10 years when Disney squeezes a few more DVCs into the property, maybe another budget resort or two with a few thousand more rooms, but DOESN'T increase park capacity at the same time. THEN you have the scenario where Disney is even more indifferent to the whims of the off-site guests, because the onsite guest to park capacity ratio approaches 1:1, and then they can cater exclusively to their high-value onsite spenders.

From my amateur watcher view point, this is almost *exactly* what has happened in the past decade. Do a "hotel room build out::attraction + theme park capacity build out" calculation and it's pretty obvious Disney is building onsite room capacity at a way faster rate than they are building capacity within the theme parks. They've got like 5 new DVC resorts, 2 new budget resorts. I don't have the exact math, but I'm quite confident park capacity hasn't kept pace with the build of onsite rooms.

The result of all this, then, is what snorkelyn alluded to: they are quietly, subtlety, but quite clearly (IMO) on the path toward centering the business model on the demands of the onsite guest and at the expense of the experience of the offsite guest.
 
I don't know if anyone has said this yet but I have a feeling we will no longer see big discounts anymore. There will be more reason to stay onsite and it won't be as hard for Disney to fill rooms, as a result they won't need to woo us with Free Dining anymore.
 
Last week, I had to decide between going to a fancy, expensive steakhouse, or going to the chain restaurant Outback Steak house. If the decision were marginal, I would go with the cheaper one. If the fancy steakhouse were more important, I'd wait a couple weeks to save for it.

You say "The decision to go to Disney is hard" Than you say
"The decision to go to Disney is only marginally better than elsewhere"
It sounds contradictory to me.

You can't expect to get the same thing for less than those who paid to be onsite. Someone said that they don't need the perks (such as buses), so they stay offsite where it is cheaper. Maybe Disney is trying to make the onsite perks more appealing by adding FP+ pre-booking. Offsites still get it- the day of.

Many resorts offer perks that people don't use, but still pay for. Many resorts have fitness centers people don't use. or have mandatory resort surcharges that include amenities some won't use.

I think it is a good business decision.
Perhaps this will clear up the contradiction:

Would you rather spend 4 days at WDW or 2 weeks at the beach? Roughly the same cost...but which choice provides the greater vacation? The beach of course.

Now if I can stay offsite for 10 days and visit WDW instead of onsite for 4 days (same cost), then I'd say the WDW choice just edges out the 2 weeks at the beach choice by a little bit.

I don't like the onsite rooms. I've had a MK view at the Poly and a savanah view at AKL. They were fine for short stays, but I would go nuts if I had
to stay in one of those cramped hotel rooms for two weeks. But I can get an entire house, with a pool/kitchen/game room for less than one of those cinderblock rooms at ASM.

As I will NOT stay onsite (unless I win a contest or something), WDW has just made my visit to the parks LESS enjoyable by making me stand in a line, using up valuable park time, WHEN THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO AVOID THAT.

If they wish to offer a better advance FP+ reservation than offsite, then why don't they let offsite guests only make FP+ reservations 10 days in advance instead of forcing them to wait in a line in the park?.

I have a vacation planned for July at WDW. I have a 3000 sq ft house reserved for 10 days at $100/nite in Clermont. I will try to work with whatever scraps the Disney Corporation decides to toss me. With the present FP+ system, there is a significant risk that the Disney Parks will never get another dollar from me, because of line waiting times and perceived elitism.

Smart business decision? Hardly.
 

FireDancer said:
Disney isn't excluding anyone from FP+. It is entirely possible, and in my opinion preferable, to go to Disney and not make a single FP+ selection at all let alone before hand. I don't know why people want to micro-manage their vacations like that. I prefer to just do what I feel like doing at the time and not worry about keeping to schedules I made months in advance. I don't make ADRs on park days for the same reason.

I have never not ridden something I wanted because of lack of legacy FastPasses and won't because of lack of FP+. I am just willing to wait in line and don't need Disney to provide me with a mechanism to avoid them.

Glad these changes won't cause you any issues and you're willing to wait in line. We tour differently. Ya know different strokes for different folks. You are correct - FP+ is available for offsite they are not excluded. It remains to be seen though if off site folks are able to get a FP+ for major headliners the day of.

Not sure how often you are able to go, but for me it's maybe every couple years. I am also willing to stand in lines....well for a reasonable time. Heck on my last trip I stood in Soarin' in my last day for 70 minutes. I didn't have access to FP_ and FP+ were going tk be used ar HS. For my next trip though, I am wanting to bring my sis and her family and it will be a once in a lifetime trip for them. Granted they don't know what they are missing but I know they would enjoy TSMM and Soarin' and want them to be able to experience those rides with minimal wait. I don't expect them.to wait 70 mins. Yes I agree this could be a learning experience for them (learning patience), but frankly I don't need to spend at least $5,000 for them to learn patience. I don't expect to be able to walk on rides all day long, but I do expect to be able to ride the headliners and not use FP+ on wasteful things like Stitch.

I don't understand why some folks believe there is only one way to tour. No one is right or wrong....we have different opinions.
 
I don't know if anyone has said this yet but I have a feeling we will no longer see big discounts anymore. There will be more reason to stay onsite and it won't be as hard for Disney to fill rooms, as a result they won't need to woo us with Free Dining anymore.

They still need to fill rooms off-peak. I think discounts and free-dining type promotions are here to stay when and if Disney needs to juice occupancy during off-peak times. Those are pretty standard across the travel industry; Disney is not the only resort operator that stoops to that, and the Mouse has yet to figure out how to make schools close in late September.

To reiterate what others have said, where Disney was historically *atypical* was not granting privileged access to the resort (i.e., the parks) to its own onsite guests.
 
/
It is NOT a very smart business decision. The choice ISN'T stay onsite vs. stay offsite. The choice is go to WDW or go somewhere else.

The decision to go to WDW is hard. While the level of entertainment is exceptional, the cost to go to WDW is huge. At present, the decision to go to WDW is only marginally better than going somewhere cheaper. The decision is only palatable because of the quality and low-cost of offsite lodging.

I can rent an entire new 3000 sq ft offsite house, with a private pool, for less than a 260 sq ft cinderblock special at All-Star Music.

If I am forced to pay a ton of extra money to stay in those tiny little rooms that WDW offers just so I can avoid more lines, then I simply will not go to WDW any more.

And my guess is that Disney is fine with your decision. There are so many more people that will go, stay onsite for the perks, or arrive totally clueless from some scrappy timeshare or offsite house and stand in lines. Disney is not going to miss your money, because others will still go, at least for one trip.
 
Perhaps this will clear up the contradiction:

Would you rather spend 4 days at WDW or 2 weeks at the beach? Roughly the same cost...but which choice provides the greater vacation? The beach of course.

For you. Two weeks at the beach would bore me to tears, and I would not consider it a greater vacation. More like a coma to me.
 
Do u think they could at least have kiosks outside the gates, so while we wait we can get fp+ instead up waisting valuable park time getting them if we r staying off site?

My husband and I mentioned this as well! I think that this would really help customers avoid using valuable early morning time standing in line at a kiosk!

For the record, we are off-site guests who visit Disney annually for at least one week. We have a family of 5, and the reality is that it would cost us over $500 A DAY (nearly $4,000+) to stay on-site versus off-site (we get multiple rooms). If the new FP+ makes our vacation to Disney less enjoyable, we will just choose to vacation elsewhere. I don't think that TSM is worth $4,000.... no matter how much my son loves it. :confused3
 
I have a vacation planned for July at WDW. I have a 3000 sq ft house reserved for 10 days at $100/nite in Clermont. I will try to work with whatever scraps the Disney Corporation decides to toss me. With the present FP+ system, there is a significant risk that the Disney Parks will never get another dollar from me, because of line waiting times and perceived elitism.

Smart business decision? Hardly.

I think you've sort of answered this here though. You (wisely!) get a much better value getting a beautiful, nice vacation home for WAY cheaper than it costs to stay with the Mouse. As a consequence, though, does Disney care if they lose you as a customer when they've got plenty of guests willing to drop $100/night to stay in a concrete closet at All-Star?

They might, now. In the future, maybe not. My point here is that it's pretty clear where the trendlines are headed and Disney probably doesn't care that much if they lose the off-site guest. Generally speaking, they spend less on food, in the parks, at the restaurants, they have the audacity to have a car and go to other Orlando attractions, etc.

It's not hard to see where Disney wants its customers and "in a 3000 sq ft home @ $100/night in Clermont" ain't it, and they're going to use Pirates and Soarin' and Toy Story Mania to compel people into the $100 closet or $500 Poly room or whatever, and I mean this sincerely, it probably is good business in the end. Put differently, the seafood restaurant doesn't care if I care for steak so long as the tables are full, and as Disney continues to build onsite hotels, and can keep them full, they're going to care less and less for the concerns for the people who are getting fantastic deals for vacation homes off property. That's not their bread-and-butter customer anymore the way it was in 1970 when they were trying to snag families for a day in their car on their way to the beaches and Miami.
 
I think you've sort of answered this here though. You (wisely!) get a much better value getting a beautiful, nice vacation home for WAY cheaper than it costs to stay with the Mouse. As a consequence, though, does Disney care if they lose you as a customer when they've got plenty of guests willing to drop $100/night to stay in a concrete closet at All-Star?

They might, now. In the future, maybe not. My point here is that it's pretty clear where the trendlines are headed and Disney probably doesn't care that much if they lose the off-site guest. Generally speaking, they spend less on food, in the parks, at the restaurants, they have the audacity to have a car and go to other Orlando attractions, etc.

It's not hard to see where Disney wants its customers and "in a 3000 sq ft home @ $100/night in Clermont" ain't it, and they're going to use Pirates and Soarin' and Toy Story Mania to compel people into the $100 closet or $500 Poly room or whatever, and I mean this sincerely, it probably is good business in the end. Put differently, the seafood restaurant doesn't care if I care for steak so long as the tables are full, and as Disney continues to build onsite hotels, and can keep them full, they're going to care less and less for the concerns for the people who are getting fantastic deals for vacation homes off property. That's not their bread-and-butter customer anymore the way it was in 1970 when they were trying to snag families for a day in their car on their way to Miami.

Yup. They've hardly broken ground for the Poly DVC, and they are leaking (again) the Fort Wilderness DVC, which will be a big resort. That's really what they want...to sell those DVC units and fill their rooms.
 
You know, after all of our back and forth about onsite vs. offsite booking, I don't think WDW has said that offsite guests won't be able to make FP+ ahead of time...have they? People hear or read things, but has anything ever come out officially from WDW yet? Not that they have been saying anything about FP+ throughout the entire "testing" phase...

I am the OP and they did say that as of now, FP+ advanced reservations can only be made for onsite guests, along with AP holders. I never stated that FP+ wasn't going to be available to offsite guests, just that we can only reserve on the day of our visit.

To the Dis member who has added the fact that as far value for your money, staying offsite is much better in most instances, I agree. Staying offsite does not mean that a person/family is less deserving of another. I didn't want the conversation to turn to that way, but for some it obliviously is. I mean statements like "less people for me to deal with or more for me is crazy". It's not like this is my first trip to WDW and I have stayed onsite (SOG) before and although it was nice, staying offsite suits our needs. We (offsite guests) are not second class consumers, maybe dare I say wiser, who knows. Point is we are consumers just the same. I can seriously see not getting a FP+ for several rides in every park based upon our times of visits (usually summer due to school age children) and that is what really has me so upset.

Hoping they change the basics on this and allow some type of advanced reservations for offsite guests.
 
I kind of figured this would be the case. It doesn't bother me because we always stay on-site. I like DME, I like the atmosphere, I like the easy transportation so to me it's worth the cost. Yes, it is a bit more $$ to stay on-site than say the Best Western, but so are the Universal Resorts. We all make choices on how to spend our money and have to balance what's worth it to us. If you think early access to FP+ is not worth it, then don't stay on-site. It's YOUR choice and I don't think Disney should be expected NOT to give perks to on-site guests.
 
I am the OP and they did say that as of now, FP+ advanced reservations can only be made for onsite guests, along with AP holders. I never stated that FP+ wasn't going to be available to offsite guests, just that we can only reserve on the day of our visit.

I know you didn't state that it wasn't available. I was asking about what the final product would be. Right now, FP+ can't be booked ahead at AK, and apparently will work the same way at MK at the start. I was wondering about how this will all end up when it's finished. Maybe offsite guests will be able to book ahead of time...no one knows yet.
 
We went to WDW Jan 1st-5th 2014. We always stay off sit due to cost. We done everything we wanted with the legacy fastpass which now is gone. Seems like Disney has a lot of expensive rooms to fill by offering FP+. Condos for 75-150$ are hard to beat. 2-3 bedrooms 2 bathrooms etc. We can go every 2 years and stay offsite or go every 5-6 years offsite. I think we may go to Universal next time and pay for the FOTLP.
 
MyTwoPrincesses said:
I kind of figured this would be the case. It doesn't bother me because we always stay on-site. I like DME, I like the atmosphere, I like the easy transportation so to me it's worth the cost. Yes, it is a bit more $$ to stay on-site than say the Best Western, but so are the Universal Resorts. We all make choices on how to spend our money and have to balance what's worth it to us. If you think early access to FP+ is not worth it, then don't stay on-site. It's YOUR choice and I don't think Disney should be expected NOT to give perks to on-site guests.

I absolutely think onsite guests should get perks. They do with DME, EMH, and the +10 on ADRs. The issue is the change with FP. With FP_ off site were able to get them just as easily as onsite. Now....not so much. No one knows what will happen in the future so I think folks are looking at it from all angles to see how it will change their own vacations. Change is always hard....I get that. It's just sad when you come to the realization that you will no longer get the same wonderful experience as you once had.
 
Perhaps this will clear up the contradiction:

Would you rather spend 4 days at WDW or 2 weeks at the beach? Roughly the same cost...but which choice provides the greater vacation? The beach of course.

Now if I can stay offsite for 10 days and visit WDW instead of onsite for 4 days (same cost), then I'd say the WDW choice just edges out the 2 weeks at the beach choice by a little bit.

I don't like the onsite rooms. I've had a MK view at the Poly and a savanah view at AKL. They were fine for short stays, but I would go nuts if I had
to stay in one of those cramped hotel rooms for two weeks. But I can get an entire house, with a pool/kitchen/game room for less than one of those cinderblock rooms at ASM.

As I will NOT stay onsite (unless I win a contest or something), WDW has just made my visit to the parks LESS enjoyable by making me stand in a line, using up valuable park time, WHEN THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO AVOID THAT.

If they wish to offer a better advance FP+ reservation than offsite, then why don't they let offsite guests only make FP+ reservations 10 days in advance instead of forcing them to wait in a line in the park?.

I have a vacation planned for July at WDW. I have a 3000 sq ft house reserved for 10 days at $100/nite in Clermont. I will try to work with whatever scraps the Disney Corporation decides to toss me. With the present FP+ system, there is a significant risk that the Disney Parks will never get another dollar from me, because of line waiting times and perceived elitism.

Smart business decision? Hardly.

Whose perception is it? I don't think I'm elite because I stay on property. And I don't look down on people who stay offsite. For the price of the rental offsite- you could certainly afford to stay on site if you chose to. You just prefer the extra space. That doesn't make onsites "elite". They are simply receiving benefits as an onsite resort guest. You can choose those benefits over the space in your rental. Your choice.

As a business owner- I can assure you that our loyal customers who spend more will get more (whether it be quicker service, or extra supply, bigger Christmas gift, etc. If they found themselves in a pinch- we will do whatever it takes to help them). We are not alone on our thinking. Look at all the rewards programs out there.

A 2 week beach vacation does sound great! We plan to bring our family to a variety of types of vacations. The price tag may no longer be worth it once they are older. But....there is only one Walt Disney World, and we want our kids to make wonderful memories there while they are young. So...to WDW (onsite) we go!
 













Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top