OMG. Disney Has Reached New Lows

[Planogirl]

I think that AP holders should get more and I don't have one. Just reading this thread made my head hurt though so what do I know.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't have APs so I have no dog in this race - but it just doesn't seem right at all... Folks with APs should have precedence (IMO of course) over even resort guests...

Sorry OP. It should not have to be so complicated. Maybe you will be so over WDW by the last day you won't care what you ride?

Seriously - how does this fit with the whole lock-it-in. Does Disney just not care because they have the AP people's money already? Like from Disney's POV would they actually prefer an AP person not come so much or stay so long? I'd have to think that that AP person, even if they aren't paying admission per day, they are pretty likely to spend money on meals in the parks? Right?

What advantage would you suggest AP holders have that would not upset those who are not AP holders?

 

[cakebaker]

Yeah but you had to actually enter the park to take advantage of FP. I can only imagine if AP people were able to book FP+ anytime they wanted. Lots of no shows and wasted FP+ slots.

Agreed- Disney had to put limitations on AP holders to prevent abuse- and as is usually the case, when you try and prevent abuse, it's going to cost innocent guests.

Looks as though the OP can either use her 7 days she gets as an AP holder or her length of stay as a resort guest, but she can't have both.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I don't have APs so I have no dog in this race - but it just doesn't seem right at all... Folks with APs should have precedence (IMO of course) over even resort guests...

Sorry OP. It should not have to be so complicated. Maybe you will be so over WDW by the last day you won't care what you ride?

Seriously - how does this fit with the whole lock-it-in. Does Disney just not care because they have the AP people's money already? Like from Disney's POV would they actually prefer an AP person not come so much or stay so long? I'd have to think that that AP person, even if they aren't paying admission per day, they are pretty likely to spend money on meals in the parks? Right?

I think they like APs who are staying onsite. Just like they prefer regular ticket holders who stay onsite versus off. I think it's really more about offsite and onsite than penalizing APs. I guess meals etc don't offset using up ride capacity ?

 

[BugsDaddy]

I don't have APs so I have no dog in this race - but it just doesn't seem right at all... Folks with APs should have precedence (IMO of course) over even resort guests...

Sorry OP. It should not have to be so complicated. Maybe you will be so over WDW by the last day you won't care what you ride?

Seriously - how does this fit with the whole lock-it-in. Does Disney just not care because they have the AP people's money already? Like from Disney's POV would they actually prefer an AP person not come so much or stay so long? I'd have to think that that AP person, even if they aren't paying admission per day, they are pretty likely to spend money on meals in the parks? Right?

I would think from strictly a business perspective, it makes no sense to accommodate AP holders any more than they already do. I would suspect that vacation-type resort guests tend to spend more than AP holders who come more often. The more an AP holder comes to a park actually reduces the margin on the AP ticket which was sold to the customer. I cannot think of a single reason outside of selling more APs that they would want to offer AP holders anything. And with Disneys attendance soaring, they are probably not feeling the need to sell a lot more Annual passes.

 

[momof2n2]

What advantage would you suggest AP holders have that would not upset those who are not AP holders?

I hear what you are saying, but I'm not an AP holder and I feel as though they should get to book more freely. They are staying into the day in question. It doesn't seem right.

Agreed- Disney had to put limitations on AP holders to prevent abuse- and as is usually the case, when you try and prevent abuse, it's going to cost innocent guests.

This is it, I guess. But it sorta stinks.

I think they like APs who are staying onsite. Just like they prefer regular ticket holders who stay onsite versus off. I think it's really more about offsite and onsite than penalizing APs. I guess meals etc don't offset using up ride capacity ?

Hmmm - now on- vs. off- I guess I understand more. She's being "punished"(?) for that first night off property.


If OP booked a room anywhere on property that first night would the whole problem go away? Possible solution? Still. After sinking that money into the AP it seems unfair.

Again, sorry OP.

 

[cakebaker]

This is it, I guess. But it sorta stinks.

Indeed it does. Which is why I hate it when I see people taking advantage of the system in other ways- such as multiple bands and making reservations, then cancelling just to get the perks. I have no doubt that Disney will eventually find these to be a problem and "fix" them, and when they do, I also have no doubt that it will cost others. It almost always does.

 

[momof2n2]

I would think from strictly a business perspective, it makes no sense to accommodate AP holders any more than they already do. I would suspect that vacation-type resort guests tend to spend more than AP holders who come more often. The more an AP holder comes to a park actually reduces the margin on the AP ticket which was sold to the customer. I cannot think of a single reason outside of selling more APs that they would want to offer AP holders anything. And with Disneys attendance soaring, they are probably not feeling the need to sell a lot more Annual passes.

Yes. This could be. For sure I don't know. We get family memberships to just about everything in our community and I admit it is to keep our overall costs down. But we are treated so well, and it loosens me up to splurge on treats. But - yeah - I guess maybe the "best" AP holders to have are the ones who buy it but barely use it? Although I'm not 100% convinced.

 

[momof2n2]

Indeed it does. Which is why I hate it when I see people taking advantage of the system in other ways- such as multiple bands and making reservations, then cancelling just to get the perks. I have no doubt that Disney will eventually find these to be a problem and "fix" them, and when they do, I also have no doubt that it cost others. It almost always does.

I suspect that with the weighty cost of a WDW vacation people will continue to seek out all kinds of strategies to help produce the vacation experience most desired by them. I'll certainly confess to this. I'm going to try to do whatever I can (within what Disney allows & my pocketbook can bear) to try to simulate pre-FP+ vacations we've loved. I'll never be able to reproduce it exactly, but I'll try my best.

But I think that most APs probably expect to be able to go as much as they can fit it in their schedules. Maybe some went to APs because in order to experience the number of attractions they desire to they need to go more days?? And you can't buy more than 10 day tix, right??

Like I said, I have no dog in this race. I just would have thought APs wouldn't see this restriction. ❤

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I hear what you are saying, but I'm not an AP holder and I feel as though they should get to book more freely. They are staying into the day in question. It doesn't seem right.



This is it, I guess. But it sorta stinks.





Hmmm - now on- vs. off- I guess I understand more. She's being "punished"(?) for that first night off property.


If OP booked a room anywhere on property that first night would the whole problem go away? Possible solution? Still. After sinking that money into the AP it seems unfair.

Again, sorry OP.

Yes it would, I think.

 

[cakebaker]

But I think that most APs probably expect to be able to go as much as they can fit it in their schedules.

Actually we are AP holders and I think it depends on if you're a local AP or not. We are not. We buy AP's when we know we'll be making more than 1 trip within the year. I think it's local AP holders who are most affected by the 7 day limit- but from what I read, I don't hear a lot of complaints from them. I think they realize there has to be some limitations set. In rare cases, it's going to cause an issue and that's unfortunate and probably unavoidable.

I understand why people do what they do- but that doesn't mean it's not going to cause problems for others when and if Disney puts on the brakes.

 

[WillAustin]

I'm going to run into the same problem this summer. We are spending 4 nights at the Hilton near Downtown Disney, then moving to BLT for 12 more. I'll get the BLT stay FP+ booked 60 days out, but probably won't be able to book FP+ for the first days with our APs at 30 because we will be at the limit.

 

[larryz]

Why wouldn't she get the 7 (seven) days for the AP (annual pass) AND the 6 (six) days of FP+s (FastPassPlus) for the days (nights) in the hotel (resort)?

 

[lauradis]

AP's used to entitle you to 365 days of entrance, with the fastpasses to go with it.

Yea and gas was .15 cents when I was born. So times and value for your money is always changing.....

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Why wouldn't she get the 7 (seven) days for the AP (annual pass) AND the 6 (six) days of FP+s (FastPassPlus) for the days (nights) in the hotel (resort)?

That would be a nice compromise. But it seems you just get whichever is more and not a day more.

For us, the pass is for discounted admission and free parking. So I'm not too upset we don't get 7 days in addition to resort stays. But I wouldn't complain if they permitted that.

 

[JanaDee]

Yea and gas was .15 cents when I was born. So times and value for your money is always changing.....

Head nod to the snark, but the fact of the matter is there is no longer the value there used to be in having an AP (and I used to be a passholder).

 

[CookiesNcream]

Why wouldn't she get the 7 (seven) days for the AP (annual pass) AND the 6 (six) days of FP+s (FastPassPlus) for the days (nights) in the hotel (resort)?

That seems to make sense, the OP paid for both of them. But I'm sure Disney has their reasons for putting limits in place, right?

 

[lauradis]

Head nod to the snark, but the fact of the matter is there is no longer the value there used to be in having an AP (and I used to be a passholder).

I agree with you, the value has greatly decreased at Disney, especially for multi ride per day visits of AP holders.

Of course my youngest child is growing out of Disney She wants more thrill rides so we will just go to disney less.

 

[cakebaker]

That would be a nice compromise. But it seems you just get whichever is more and not a day more.

For us, the pass is for discounted admission and free parking. So I'm not too upset we don't get 7 days in addition to resort stays. But I wouldn't complain if they permitted that.

And we got 3 trips to WDW for less than it would have cost us for 2. That along with some pretty decent discounts on our resorts makes the AP well worth the money. We didn't run into this issue as our first 2 trips were more than 60 days apart, but we were very close. We still would have gone with the AP, because of the money we saved.

 

[LaurenT]

I'm AP and DVC and stay onsite two weeks and offsite one week per year. I typically do one sit down restaurant each day and like to book a couple of extra things ... Wild AfricaTrek or Hoop De Doo, Illuminations Cruise, etc...
You'd think they'd want to keep my business. You'd think they wouldn't want me all stressed out about which days I'm allowed to have a FP... But what do I know .... After all, I was silly enough to drink the Disney Kool Aid.