Non-resort guests can not reserve FP+ early

[Queen2PrincessG]

Tight wads?no I think people stay off site for many reasons, size, more affordable. Maybe they aren't only going to Disney, they need a more central area to stay.

I'm an onsite only person. Even when we go to Universal, we stay on their site. Our main reason is transportation. We don't like driving on vacation so once we are at a location we stay there, that's our preference.

 

[Laketravis]

We've always stayed on-site, but I have to admit the possibility of staying off-site made it's way into our last trip planning when we started researching the condo deals that are out there.

And if we hadn't of been able to sneak in on the tail end of free dining for 14 days, our CSR reservation was at times seriously threatened by some of those last minute "David Deals" that you probably know about.

I guess in my case that was motivated by my own personal tightwadiness, but this year we will again consider off-site strictly because of current/pending changes at both WDW and other entertainment venues in the Orlando area.

Unless free dining comes around again. Then it's obviously a no-brainer. Duh.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think the issue here is that none of Disney's prices are "reasonable" when you compare them to their real world counterparts when you're just considering the space you get. Value resorts are considerably more expensive than a room of that size elsewhere, moderates and deluxes too.

I don't know why people are always so surprised at the cost of suite type rooms in Disney. They are priced in line with the rest of their rooms. Expensive. When you're paying between $100-200 for a small room at a moderate resort, it only makes sense that suites that are bigger will be considerably more.

Sucks for the family who wants to stay onsite on a budget, but that's life. Don't forget, a childless couple still has to pay the same amount per room as a family of 4 with 2 kids, essentially paying more per person.

Agree.

 

[AmyB2006]

I'm still convinced that pre-booking will be an onsite perk.

I'm not. Disney has stated over and over their goal is lock you into your plans to keep you in their parks more. That would include off-site people, even more than on-site people, IMO.

I think on-site will have a 60+10 like dining's 180+10, possibly. But I definitely think off site people will be able to pre-book.

 

[mom2mickeyfan]

True, but they are still have tickets and they will still come to the parks. I don't think Disney believes they will get everyone coming to Orlando to stay in a Disney resort, but they want to be the first choice obviously. People that stay onsite will continue to stay onsite. Some guests that usually stay offsite will probably move onsite to get the perks. Some will continue to stay offsite and work with it the best they can and some will get frustrated and quit coming. As long as they hit their numbers that's all that really matters.

Yes I agree, which it one of the reason I point to Disney offering some form of pre-booking to off site guest. For off site guest to pre-book, they must purchase their non-refundable tickets. Once those families have purchased those tickets, they are locked into going to Disney's parks. No matter how cool those Universal brochures look in their hotel lobby. They already committed to Disney because of the money already invested in the tickets. Locking them into Disney before they ever leave home. Isn't that what they have stated is one of the main goals?

 

[ArwenMarie]

True, but they are still have tickets and they will still come to the parks. I don't think Disney believes they will get everyone coming to Orlando to stay in a Disney resort, but they want to be the first choice obviously. People that stay onsite will continue to stay onsite. Some guests that usually stay offsite will probably move onsite to get the perks. Some will continue to stay offsite and work with it the best they can and some will get frustrated and quit coming. As long as they hit their numbers that's all that really matters.

I agree, I think they want to use FP to move a percentage of people who stay offsite back onsite. But they don't expect to move everyone.

This is one of the premises behind free dining and room discounts as well...to lower the price difference between offsite and onsite.

Offsite lodging puts downward pressure on what Disney can charge. I suspect Disney would like to use FP to further differentiate the two products (offsite vs onsite). I'm interested to see what happens to offsite prices after this is all done.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I'm not. Disney has stated over and over their goal is lock you into your plans to keep you in their parks more. That would include off-site people, even more than on-site people, IMO.

I think on-site will have a 60+10 like dining's 180+10, possibly. But I definitely think off site people will be able to pre-book.

I go back and forth on this.

I'm wondering if the onsite perk will be more FPs. That would be something that would be very easy to advertise.

 

[Laketravis]

Yes I agree, which it one of the reason I point to Disney offering some form of pre-booking to off site guest. For off site guest to pre-book, they must purchase their non-refundable tickets. Once those families have purchased those tickets, they are locked into going to Disney's parks. No matter how cool those Universal brochures look in their hotel lobby. They already committed to Disney because of the money already invested in the tickets. Locking them into Disney before they ever leave home. Isn't that what they have stated is one of the main goals?

What a monster Disney has created, huh? We've got 25,000 on-site rooms that can accommodate upwards of 100,000 people that we have to fill, can't build DVC resorts fast enough because, well, the people that buy those are basically paying our construction costs and that's just a great business idea period, and now we've got those clowns across town announcing that they think they can build 20,000 of their own on-site rooms and keep them filled......

But then roughly half of our park guests each day aren't staying on-site. Can't risk making them feel like they are getting screwed.

Interesting dilemma with no clear solutions.

 

[mom2mickeyfan]

I'm not. Disney has stated over and over their goal is lock you into your plans to keep you in their parks more. That would include off-site people, even more than on-site people, IMO.

I think on-site will have a 60+10 like dining's 180+10, possibly. But I definitely think off site people will be able to pre-book.

Not to mention to pre-book those off-site guest will have to sign up on the website. Then Disney can try to get them to purchase MBs and pick out their own cool color. Maybe they will only sell the gray ones in the parks if they sell them at all in the parks. THEN, they can point out how you can link your credit card to that MB or even the card and now even off-site guest can be on the tap to pay system. Tap to pay is said leads to people spending more money. Up to now there has been no way to get the off-site guest into that tap to pay system.

 

[d1gitman]

it's very simple, each guest is a $$ per person, more specifically, profit per person for Disney. I'm feel confident in stating that onsite guests yield more profit per person, per day than offsite. A) profit from the resort, B) potential increase in discretionary spending. Disney has morphed from a having a few resorts to a full fledged resort destination. The 'build it and they will come' is in full effect and Disney is smart to expand there offerings. They never claim or set out to be the 'cheapest' destination or amusement park, that's what carnival's and six flags is for. So why should they also be expected to be the cheapest lodging option? from what I can see, the great divide for lodging comes for a party of 5 or greater, there definitely is a huge jump in cost as the 5th person in effect doubles the cheapest lodging option. what will be interesting to see is whether over the next decade Disney begins to offer more competitive options for parties of 5 or greater. We stayed at AoA cars suite for a party of 5 last August and it was same price as 2 value rooms or cabins (not including cart rental). it seems to me that the party of 5+ is an area they can work on. IF that demographic is a large enough contingency that can yield profit away from offsite options, i'm sure they will.

What would also be interesting is if they ever come up with an option for larger groups, say 12 or more where maybe there are dorm like rooms to accommodate large groups, AKA youth groups, etc....

and I am also all for onsite guests getting better perks such as advanced FP+ bookings. Universal includes front of line pass for their onsite guests at 3 of their 4 resorts, anyone BBQ'ing universal for that?

 

[FireDancer]

My take is that eventually FP+ will be available to pre-book for offsite guests but there will be criteria they have to meet. Those not meeting the criteria will only have same day FastPasses.

Let's say you are staying off site, purchase MBs ahead of time, attach a credit card to the MBs, and then attach park tickets to them. That gets you a pre-booking window. How big of a window? Smaller then onsite. The window you do get can also be adjusted depending on how much you spend. Attach a ticket that is at least 4 days? You get a larger window than offsite guests get if the book 3 or less.

I would also eventually add spending incentives to FP+ to gamify them in a sense. Spend more then $500 on food and souvenirs one day and get an additional FP+ the next. It is like a loyalty program that doesn't need actual monetary discounts. Collecting all this data is only useful if it returns an ROI.

There are ways to use FP+ to both encourage people to stay onsite and encourage those staying offsite to spend more time at Disney then somewhere else. Too many people on these boards are thinking like customers while Disney is thinking like a salesman who is trying to get as much out of every customer as possible.

 

[dayvewc]

I'm not. Disney has stated over and over their goal is lock you into your plans to keep you in their parks more. That would include off-site people, even more than on-site people, IMO.

I think on-site will have a 60+10 like dining's 180+10, possibly. But I definitely think off site people will be able to pre-book.

Just based on reading where people booking onsite have been able to do so for 60 days plus length of stay, I believe that will be the on-site perk, 60+ LoS.

it's very simple, each guest is a $$ per person, more specifically, profit per person for Disney. I'm feel confident in stating that onsite guests yield more profit per person, per day than offsite. A) profit from the resort, B) potential increase in discretionary spending. Disney has morphed from a having a few resorts to a full fledged resort destination. The 'build it and they will come' is in full effect and Disney is smart to expand there offerings. They never claim or set out to be the 'cheapest' destination or amusement park, that's what carnival's and six flags is for. So why should they also be expected to be the cheapest lodging option? from what I can see, the great divide for lodging comes for a party of 5 or greater, there definitely is a huge jump in cost as the 5th person in effect doubles the cheapest lodging option. what will be interesting to see is whether over the next decade Disney begins to offer more competitive options for parties of 5 or greater. We stayed at AoA cars suite for a party of 5 last August and it was same price as 2 value rooms or cabins (not including cart rental). it seems to me that the party of 5+ is an area they can work on. IF that demographic is a large enough contingency that can yield profit away from offsite options, i'm sure they will.

What would also be interesting is if they ever come up with an option for larger groups, say 12 or more where maybe there are dorm like rooms to accommodate large groups, AKA youth groups, etc....

and I am also all for onsite guests getting better perks such as advanced FP+ bookings. Universal includes front of line pass for their onsite guests at 3 of their 4 resorts, anyone BBQ'ing universal for that?

I don't know about that. Onsite guests definitely pay more, but also cost Disney more. I would not be sure that such a blanket statement is absolute fact. (Not specifically disagreeing, other than all blanket statements are wrong - including this one.)

 

[KatieCharlotte]

I go back and forth on this.

I'm wondering if the onsite perk will be more FPs. That would be something that would be very easy to advertise.

Yes. More FPs or different booking windows would "lock-in" offsite guests while still creating an onsite incentive, but more FPs would be much easier to advertise. They could also be a "limited time offer" in the slower seasons.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Yes. More FPs or different booking windows would "lock-in" offsite guests while still creating an onsite incentive, but more FPs would be much easier to advertise. They could also be a "limited time offer" in the slower seasons.

Right. Then they could ease off the free dining and room discounts. Which essentially translates into a price increase. Brilliant really.

 

[ArwenMarie]

What a monster Disney has created, huh? We've got 25,000 on-site rooms that can accommodate upwards of 100,000 people that we have to fill, can't build DVC resorts fast enough because, well, the people that buy those are basically paying our construction costs and that's just a great business idea period, and now we've got those clowns across town announcing that they think they can build 20,000 of their own on-site rooms and keep them filled......

But then roughly half of our park guests each day aren't staying on-site. Can't risk making them feel like they are getting screwed.

Interesting dilemma with no clear solutions.

They don't have to bring everyone back from offsite to make more money. Just some of them. Even using a conservative $250 per night per room in increased revenue, if they can increase their occupancy from 80% to 90%, that's an extra $250 million per year in revenue. And I'd say $250 extra per night is probably on the low end, could be much higher.

But I agree, it's a balance between going for this and alienating too many offsite visitors as well.

 

[Mkrop]

You can compare the past to the present but that will not change the new system. It is here and here to stay, legacy FP is going away. Even though I love part of the system but hate other parts(tiering) I feel like complaining about it is useless. I had never rode TSMM before my last trip because the fastpass were always gone before I could get to the park, explain to me how that is fair? I didn't complain and moan I realized I would probably never ride it. Now the new system has come and I get a shot at it just like any other paying guest. So the argument can be made both ways. If anything Disney has made it so more people get to ride something at least once vs others riding it 3-4 times.

What kept you from the park? Why were you unable to get there like other guests? It was more than fair, first come, first served.

And now the offsite guest might get screwed, they may not get a shot at it like other paying guests...and somehow you think that is "more fair"

Except FP+ only currently allows that for my family at one park. One. Out of 4. I'm supposed to be excited for that? A system that truly did allow us to take it slow but still reserve the rides we want would be awesome.

At Epcot, we cannot reserve both rides that would allow us to take it slow. At DHS we cannot reserve all 3 rides that would allow us to take it slow. At MK we can reserve 3 rides but there are many more we enjoy that still have considerable waits. All FP+ has done for us is schedule some of the FP- we would have pulled in advance. We still need to get to the parks when they open in order to enjoy all the attractions we like without a huge wait. Nothing has changed in that respect. If you want to minimize your waits you still can't have leisurely mornings, just like before.
It's funny that you mention the stress from planning, I have never felt stress planning a WDW vacation, until this trip. Trying to book appointment after appointment after appointment is much more planning intensive than it ever used to be. Then you add in the constant stalking of the WDW site waiting for certain FP+ to open up (parades, fireworks, BoG) not exactly stress free. For every person who feels FP+ has made their vacations easier, there's a person who feels the opposite as well.

You can't make a blanket statement that Disney wanted to make vacations less stressful. It simply wasn't their stated purpose of FP+. It does sound a lot nicer than Disney wants to lock people into their parks before they leave home though, doesn't it?

 

[d1gitman]

Just based on reading where people booking onsite have been able to do so for 60 days plus length of stay, I believe that will be the on-site perk, 60+ LoS.



I don't know about that. Onsite guests definitely pay more, but also cost Disney more. I would not be sure that such a blanket statement is absolute fact. (Not specifically disagreeing, other than all blanket statements are wrong - including this one.)

food for thought....if Disney is gaining profit from a guest staying at their resort, even a small profit, then the statement is true. I have a hard time believing that Disney is NOT profiting at all from their resort bookings.

A guest staying offsite yields no profit for Disney with regards to hotel revenue. The only offsetting factor would be the parking fee, assuming the guest is driving to and parking a vehicle. Then the debate is whether that profit is allocated to transportation or in my opinion it is in place of the profit gained by a guest staying onsite. Then what about resort transportation, how is that allocated. So keeping it simple and looking at just the lodging aspect, staying onsite has to yield more profit per person than when a person stays offsite. There is $0 lodging revenue, hence $0 lodging profit generated from lodging by offsite guests.

 

[Brian Noble]

In this time of more and more blended families being formed, which generally mean more children, it seems odd that Disney doesn't offer anything more affordable for bigger families.

It seems fairly clear to me that Disney believes the new Family Suite category is the answer for the 5-6 member family demographic. And, they are selling well, so I suspect that they are not likely to build something out at a lower price point---that just means a lower return on investment.

I'm not. Disney has stated over and over their goal is lock you into your plans to keep you in their parks more. That would include off-site people, even more than on-site people, IMO.

I used to think so too. But, if that's really the direction they were going to go, I would have expected it to happen before they started turning off legacy FP machines. That MK---the flagship park---has gone this direction without giving offsite guests the ability to pre-book has led me to reconsider that position.

 

[dayvewc]

food for thought....if Disney is gaining profit from a guest staying at their resort, even a small profit, then the statement is true. I have a hard time believing that Disney is NOT profiting at all from their resort bookings.

A guest staying offsite yields no profit for Disney with regards to hotel revenue. The only offsetting factor would be the parking fee, assuming the guest is driving to and parking a vehicle. Then the debate is whether that profit is allocated to transportation or in my opinion it is in place of the profit gained by a guest staying onsite. Then what about resort transportation, how is that allocated. So keeping it simple and looking at just the lodging aspect, staying onsite has to yield more profit per person than when a person stays offsite. There is $0 lodging revenue, hence $0 lodging profit generated from lodging by offsite guests.

But this assumes that our two hypothetical families do and purchase everything exactly the same with the only difference being the lodging. And if you consider the off-site guests who tour the resorts and purchase souvenirs etc. they are a 100% pure profit to Disney.

As I said originally, I don't doubt that Disney makes more from on-site guests in general, I just don't agree that it is true across the board in all instances.

 

[jiminyfan]

Guests and the S&D always had the same park benefits as on-site guests. Are they allowed to book ahead of time now too or are they considered Off-site and not able to book until entry?

This could change our future plans as we like staying there.