Possible good news for offsiters and FP+

[mom2mickeyfan]

ITA with this!

We stay onsite and offsite -- so maybe I get why onsiters expect certain perks for staying onsite (no, transportation doesn't count because everyone can use it, and free dining doesn't count because it's a special, not an entitlement to all resort guests). EMH has been cut back so much it's hardly a difference compared to going during regular hours and off-siters can actually stay during evening EMH to shop or do ADRs.

But truthfully, if they allow offsiters the same FP+ window as onsiters, we just lost all incentive for staying onsite. We'll stay offsite and enjoy our now limited WDW experience from a less expensive but much better resort. So definitely, tiering is coming or they're going to lose a lot more money by ticking off their resort guests.

As for holding back FPs, stupid policy if they're now allowing offsiters the same window. No way I'm going to stay at WDW if I know beforehand that I can't get the FPs I want. What if I decide to take a trip 30 days in advance and the offsiters have already taken all the best FPs. I guess I'd be booking the Domican instead.

But this is what I keep coming back to. Paper FPs were a first come, first serve for all guest, on-site and off, and Disney kept filling the rooms. Disney cut the EMHs and they kept filling the rooms. I have seen nothing yet to show they are seeing large numbers of people leaving their resorts for these reasons. Why would Disney think they needed to do something different?

 

[nugov2]

But this is what I keep coming back to. Paper FPs were a first come, first serve for all guest, on-site and off, and Disney kept filling the rooms. Disney cut the EMHs and they kept filling the rooms. I have seen nothing yet to show they are seeing large numbers of people leaving their resorts for these reasons. Why would Disney think they needed to do something different?

Where are all the Disney Bubble people, that is why people stay on site nothing else matters.

I don't see why it is a shock, FP was always been a park perk not a resort one. I never thought onsite would get any better than 60+10, which they might still get or possibly tiers, but why would WDW exclude a huge chunk of the guests who spend a lot of money there. Just b/c you are off site doesn't mean you spend less at WDW. As I said before, people who have a budget trip and stay at POP now have less money to spend at meals and souvenirs. The family who takes the budget trip and stays off site, now spends more money on table service and souvenirs. We stayed off and spent thousands in the parks and resorts. We didn't do it to save money, but b/c accommodations don't meet our needs. Many stay off site for this reason. Do you think WDW wants to lose these customers? It would be a strong possibility if FP stayed with kiosks only for off site.

 

[yooperfan]

I wonder how many FP+ picks will be wasted when off site guest can't use them because the park is at capacity on any given day and they can't enter because they're not staying at a Disney Resort. Those are the days those unavailable FP+ should be in the system available to crowds already in the park. Just a wacky thought that popped in my head. Hmmm, guess I'm getting FP+Ed out.

 

[dayvewc]

I wonder how many FP+ picks will be wasted when off site guest can't use them because the park is at capacity on any given day and they can't enter because they're not staying at a Disney Resort. Those are the days those unavailable FP+ should be in the system available to crowds already in the park. Just a wacky thought that popped in my head. Hmmm, guess I'm getting FP+Ed out.

I wonder if they will change the park closing protocals? I seem to remember that guests with an ADR reservation were allowed in. Maybe they will do the same thing with FP+? They will know how manny are expected to be in a park that day, and will "pre-count" those guests when calculating park capacity for closing?

 

[Planogirl]

I got the message as well! I can start booking 2/11 for our trip 4/12. We are staying off site, but have ADR. We do not have bands. We have the new cards.

Hopefully, it all goes as planned!

Let us know if it works. I'm hopeful for you!

 

[kidd_freeper]

The family who takes the budget trip and stays off site, now spends more money on table service and souvenirs. We stayed off and spent thousands in the parks and resorts. We didn't do it to save money, but b/c accommodations don't meet our needs. Many stay off site for this reason.

Yes.

The vast majority of WDW rooms are designed for a family of four. We are a family of seven.

We are spending the money we saved (by staying offsite) on Hoop De Doo.

 

[Nurse_Mommy4]

I will be following this thread with great interest. I am a onsite guest who has always been curious about offsite accomodations. If this is true and offsite guest will have the same capabilities as onsite guest (as far as FP+ prebooking goes), my family will DEFINITELY be looking more closely at offsite opportunities!

We already added Universal to this years trip (express pass blows FP+ out of the water).

Next step may be bigger, better accomodations for less money!

Sure I may miss my Disney bubble but I would have NEVER considered offsite before this whole next gen FP+ fiascal.

 

[nugov2]

I will be following this thread with great interest. I am a onsite guest who has always been curious about offsite accomodations. If this is true and offsite guest will have the same capabilities as onsite guest (as far as FP+ prebooking goes), my family will DEFINITELY be looking more closely at offsite opportunities!

We already added Universal to this years trip (express pass blows FP+ out of the water).

Next step may be bigger, better accomodations for less money!

Sure I may miss my Disney bubble but I would have NEVER considered offsite before this whole next gen FP+ fiascal.

I think you will find that the WDW bubble will burst once you stay off site. I have done both and with our family size there is nothing that compares to luxury and amenities we get off site at WDW. Even before the FP changes I felt this way, but I agree the resorts offer so little that it isn't worth it. Almost everything besides the pools you can still experience even being off site. Activities, meals, transportation(but besides monorail I don't consider it a perk)....everything besides pools(but I'll take a private and resort pool with my house rental over even the nicer deluxe pools) and EMH(again a perk, but a dwindling one). We ate almost exclusively on site...valeted at the closest resort for easy park entrance, the kids did a ton of resort activities, but we went back to our not crowded resort pool with water slide and when we were done with that our private pool with no crowd. We also enjoyed Universal...it was amazing. You will not regret that choice

 

[momof2n2]

I've never stayed in the bubble, but I can tell you I have never felt my vacation was "less than" for being off site. At least if you try both, you will know which is for you.

 

[Vidia2]

where are all the disney bubble people, that is why people stay on site nothing else matters. i don't see why it is a shock, fp was always been a park perk not a resort one. I never thought onsite would get any better than 60+10, which they might still get or possibly tiers, but why would wdw exclude a huge chunk of the guests who spend a lot of money there. Just b/c you are off site doesn't mean you spend less at wdw. As i said before, people who have a budget trip and stay at pop now have less money to spend at meals and souvenirs. The family who takes the budget trip and stays off site, now spends more money on table service and souvenirs. We stayed off and spent thousands in the parks and resorts. We didn't do it to save money, but b/c accommodations don't meet our needs. Many stay off site for this reason. Do you think wdw wants to lose these customers? It would be a strong possibility if fp stayed with kiosks only for off site.

lol

I just had to come back to this and present you with a math question.

Say there are two families that have the same vacation budget. You can insert your own budget in your mind. You don't have to share it. One family stays onsite and eats every meal in WDW restaurants. If there's anything they need like Motrin or diapers or extra snacks or a emergency pair of shoes, they also buy those along with all of their souvenirs in Disney shops.

Take the another family and put them offsite. They spend everything that they saved by not staying onsite at WDW. I think it would be inaccurate to say that they never once eat at McDonalds or Denny's or spend money on snacks to have while sitting by the pool but for the sake of argument we'll say that they don't.

The math would indicate that the onsite family is handing over more money to Disney even though they are both spending the same amount of money on their total vacation. This is simple math and yet the same comments keep showing up.

 

[nugov2]

lol

I just had to come back to this and present you with a math question.

Say there are two families that have the same vacation budget. You can insert your own budget in your mind. You don't have to share it. One family stays onsite and eats every meal in WDW restaurants. If there's anything they need like Motrin or diapers or extra snacks or a emergency pair of shoes, they also buy those along with all of their souvenirs in Disney shops.

Take the another family and put them offsite. They spend everything that they saved by not staying onsite at WDW. I think it would be inaccurate to say that they never once eat at McDonalds or Denny's or spend money on snacks to have while sitting by the pool but for the sake of argument we'll say that they don't.

The math would indicate that the onsite family is handing over more money to Disney even though they are both spending the same amount of money on their total vacation. This is simple math and yet the same comments keep showing up.

I think it would also be inaccurate to say that the on site family doesn't leave as well. On site or off we still have a car and I've seen the parking lots and so do many others. I would guess the family who stays at a value has groceries delivered from the green grocer and eats breakfast in their room(vs spending the high WDW prices) just like the off site family swings by Target and grabs some cereal and milk. That same family buys their water and in park snacks from them to save pennies and off site may do the same or splurge at the park. I mean every trip is different and dollars spent at WDW is different. I am not saying every value guest at WDW doesn't spend every penny at WDW, but many off site guests do too. The average family spent 3400 on their WDW vacation in 2013(lets say 100% went to WDW)...we stayed off site and spent well above that at the parks and on extra experiences, souvenirs and meals that went straight into WDW's pocket. Now is this every family, no...but not every family who gives WDW 100% of their vacation fund gives WDW 3400 either. They may spend more or less. My point is off site doesn't = less money spent at WDW so to exclude 50% of their customers b/c they don't stay on site would be a bad business move. That 50% still makes up a huge chunk of their profit.

 

[Vidia2]

I think it would also be inaccurate to say that the on site family doesn't leave as well. On site or off we still have a car and I've seen the parking lots and so do many others. I would guess the family who stays at a value has groceries delivered from the green grocer and eats breakfast in their room(vs spending the high WDW prices) just like the off site family swings by Target and grabs some cereal and milk. That same family buys their water and in park snacks from them to save pennies and off site may do the same or splurge at the park. I mean every trip is different and dollars spent at WDW is different. I am not saying every value guest at WDW doesn't spend every penny at WDW, but many off site guests do too. The average family spent 3400 on their WDW vacation in 2013(lets say 100% went to WDW)...we stayed off site and spent well above that at the parks and on extra experiences, souvenirs and meals that went straight into WDW's pocket. Now is this every family, no...but not every family who gives WDW 100% of their vacation fund gives WDW 3400 either. They may spend more or less. My point is off site doesn't = less money spent at WDW so to exclude 50% of their customers b/c they don't stay on site would be a bad business move. That 50% still makes up a huge chunk of their profit.

The difference between offsite guests and onsite guests is who gets their budgeted hotel accommodation money. I'm not sure how it would be logical to assume that onsite guests spend less in the parks. So if we assume that everything is equal except offsite guests spend less to Disney for their room it makes sense mathematically to try to get them onsite.

 

[magicbob]

Good Grief, what case.

It's a discussion about a theme park, not a legal issue. Some of you take all of this waaaaaaay too seriously.

My point was anyone can contact WDW Chat and ask the same questions and get similar answers.

And my point was that verification of any "fact" by a "chat CM" has about the same degree of accuracy as if the statement was made by a bus driver. It's more likely you'll get completely different answers depending on who you happen to chat with.

You repeatedly referred to this person "in the know" that you spoke with as if they were a voice of authority, but considering who the source actually was, I wouldn't trot that out to support any assertion I had made.

Too serious?

 

[nugov2]

The difference between offsite guests and onsite guests is who gets their budgeted hotel accommodation money. I'm not sure how it would be logical to assume that onsite guests spend less in the parks. So if we assume that everything is equal except offsite guests spend less to Disney for their room it makes sense mathematically to try to get them onsite.

Because they use up a bigger portion of their budget on the hotel. Doesn't mean that WDW isn't getting it, but also doesn't mean Disney doesn't get the same budget off site guest.

Here is what I mean. Most people spend freely when in the parks. You sit down for TS meal. The kids see amazing desserts you say why not...your bill just went up $20...your kids see the souvenir cup....hey it's vacation why not another $24...now that TS meal you budgeted on $100 for your family was $144...WDW just got an extra $44. The onsite while they were home planning spent money on the hotel and decided that was more important that TS and are skipping them their whole trip. Off site family now hits Ohana their next TS resie...the extra pictures are so cute....can't we just get them...$$ more money to WDW that the frugal on site family is skipping b/c they didn't make TS resies. The impulsive spending is more likely if you plan TS meals and experiences. When you are home it is easy to stick to a budget...when you are in the throws of the vacation you are more likely to spend unwisely or for some charge it....the on site budget vacation family will have less of these temptations b/c they didn't schedule TS or $$ activities the resorts offer. They don't get tempted b/c they are not experiencing the temptation.

Now do I think this is every off site vs on scenario? No, but it does happen. I see tons of people posting on here that they stay on site and skip TS, souvenirs etc so they can do it. I see off site say that too....my point again is off site is a huge portion of the guests visiting WDW and to exclude them from a perk they have always had access to would be bad business b/c those guest do still give WDW a lot of money...even if they skip giving them the hotel revenue. To take a chance they would go somewhere else(which was the reason WDW said they wanted their ticket holders to lock into reservations) would be dumb and also very likely by excluding off site from prebooking. That is my point.

 

[Vidia2]

Because they use up a bigger portion of their budget on the hotel. Doesn't mean that WDW isn't getting it, but also doesn't mean Disney doesn't get the same budget off site guest. Here is what I mean. Most people spend freely when in the parks. You sit down for TS meal. The kids see amazing desserts you say why not...your bill just went up $20...your kids see the souvenir cup....hey it's vacation why not another $24...now that TS meal you budgeted on $100 for your family was $144...WDW just got an extra $44. The onsite while they were home planning spent money on the hotel and decided that was more important that TS and are skipping them their whole trip. Off site family now hits Ohana their next TS resie...the extra pictures are so cute....can't we just get them...$$ more money to WDW that the frugal on site family is skipping b/c they didn't make TS resies. The impulsive spending is more likely if you plan TS meals and experiences. When you are home it is easy to stick to a budget...when you are in the throws of the vacation you are more likely to spend unwisely or for some charge it....the on site budget vacation family will have less of these temptations b/c they didn't schedule TS or $$ activities the resorts offer. They don't get tempted b/c they are not experiencing the temptation. Now do I think this is every off site vs on scenario? No, but it does happen. I see tons of people posting on here that they stay on site and skip TS, souvenirs etc so they can do it. I see off site say that too....my point again is off site is a huge portion of the guests visiting WDW and to exclude them from a perk they have always had access to would be bad business b/c those guest do still give WDW a lot of money...even if they skip giving them the hotel revenue. To take a chance they would go somewhere else(which was the reason WDW said they wanted their ticket holders to lock into reservations) would be dumb and also very likely by excluding off site from prebooking. That is my point.

I think you're making possibly inaccurate assumptions whereas I'm trying to use math. Why would you think that onsite guests don't schedule table service meals or spend a lot of money on souvenirs?

 

[nugov2]

I think you're making possibly inaccurate assumptions whereas I'm trying to use math.

Well I'm also using math...just because you are working on a different word problem than me doesn't mean my answer isn't right too.

Bottom line is we are both working on what are possibly inaccurate assumptions...because you have no idea either.


One thing I do know is that WDW obviously agrees that the money off site brings in is substantial or they wouldn't be offering those guest the option to prebook...actions speak louder than words and their actions have spoken! Obviously as many have stated they feel they have no problem getting people to fill their resorts even with the dwindling perks, so they really do covet the money of the off site guest and will continue to offer them benefits too.
At the end of the day that is all that matters...though it is always fun to have a healthy debate

 

[Vidia2]

Well I'm also using math...just because you are working on a different word problem than me doesn't mean my answer isn't right too. Bottom line is we are both working on what are possibly inaccurate assumptions...because you have no idea either. One thing I do know is that WDW obviously agrees that the money off site brings in is substantial or they wouldn't be offering those guest the option to prebook...actions speak louder than words and their actions have spoken! Obviously as many have stated they feel they have no problem getting people to fill their resorts even with the dwindling perks, so they really do covet the money of the off site guest and will continue to offer them benefits too. At the end of the day that is all that matters...though it is always fun to have a healthy debate

So far no one has been able to pre-book, with the exception of AP holders.

 

[nugov2]

So far no one has been able to pre-book, with the exception of AP holders.

Well enough have it showing in their account that they will be able to very soon, so if it doesn't go through I will take down my dancing banana. Since there was little doubt in my mind that this would always be available for off site at some point I am going to make another assumption and say that is the plan very soon. I have a hard time believing WDW would allow this glitch to appear for this long in that many MDE accounts. I could see if it was only showing for a few hours, but it is still showing. I don't think they would want the PR backlash of having that many upset guests who were told they'd be able to start booking their FP+ reservations on a certain date only to have it disappear. Their IT team could have made that disappear by now if they wanted to. Only time will tell though...so I guess we have to stay tuned for just a little bit longer to see

 

[tiggerdad]

This is why we now take the camper and stay at Fort Wilderness. Granted, still paying $90 a night and spending money of diesel to pull it down there. We always drive, so actually not spending considerably more for that.

You both have a good point on which spends more money. When we camped, we cooked our own food, which we brought with us, along with diapers, extra shoes, glasses, etc. We cooked a big breakfast, so lunch was usually just a snack in the park. Late evening we came back and cooked dinner and ate, then either stayed around the campground or rode a boat over to the MK for late evening fun.

Point is, when we compared it to our original booking at a moderate with the meal plan, even considering extra fuel we spent $1000 less. (Granted the camper is not free...)

We are planning to do Universal next trip, but still plan on staying at the Fort. We just won't buy park tickets for Disney on the days we go over to Universal. It's the cheapest stay they have now, and I don't worry about bed bugs...

I changed to the campground for the same reason a lot of people stay off site, it does save money overall, but I prefer not having to drive and park. When on vacation, I like for somebody else to do the driving...I mean, after 12 hours one way pulling a 35 foot house...

 

[4inOhio]

FWIW, here is what Disney's site has posted now, so it doesn't appear to be any different than before:

Enjoy the confidence of knowing that some of your must-do experiences are locked-in before your visit—with the flexibility to change them on the go—when you preview FastPass+ with a stay at select Walt Disney World Resort hotels.

In a Hurry to Try FastPass+ Service?

During the test period, you can experience our new FastPass+ service when you book a stay at select Walt Disney World Resort hotels—with valid theme park admission. Walt Disney World Resort hotel Guests also receive a MagicBand included with their stay to make their vacation more fun and convenient than ever before.

In the future, all Walt Disney World theme park visitors—including Annual Passholders—will be able to use FastPass+ service. Learn more about Annual Passholders and the FastPass+ test.