This just in from Disney Parks blog!

[Ava]

Agreed. If you could use the app it would be better.

Do the Disney-savvy people here think this will happen eventually? (Being able to book additional FP+ via the app.) Because standing in line at a kiosk to get more FP+ doesn't sound like a very efficient use of time, unless the stand-by lines for all rides are incredibly long by late morning.

Also, I haven't been since FP+ was implemented so I don't know how many kiosks there are or their exact locations, but it sounds like this could also have guests doing a lot of crisscrossing the parks to get FP then use said FP, then get another FP. Rinse, repeat.

I'm actually happy with being able to book 3 FP in advance, as it's not easy to run for FP at rope drop with small kids. But hopefully this change doesn't mess up my plan of having 8:05 breakfast at CRT, then being able to do Small World, Peter Pan, and Pooh first thing without much wait.

 

[JimmyV]

You honestly think arriving at 5PM FP+ would only be beneficial NYE?

Of course not. But this is why there is a Civil War. Are people who commit to spending an entire day at a park supposed to give way to people who saunter in at 5:00? FP+ seeks to put people who stroll in at 5:00 on even FP footing as people who arrived at 9:00 a.m.. There is a natural tendency to think that the investment in time that one commits to a park should factor in to their ability to enjoy the park. When someone is waiting in a 60 minute line at 11:00 a.m. because immediate access to that ride is being held in reserve for someone who may or may not arrive at 5:00, a level of frustration is inevitable . Of course this system helps the late arriver. The question is, should that person be helped? Giving 3 FPs to someone who is in a park for two hours and ten minutes while giving the same 3 FPs to someone who is in the park for 12 hours is anything but intuitive. The recent change is supposed to move to cure this problem, but there wouldn't have been a problem to cure if FP+ had been better thought out. For example, had they retained the "every two hours" restriction on reserving FPs, people who arrived at 5:00 could get and
use 3 FPs, but only if they stayed in the park past 9:00 instead of 7:05.

 

[mom2rtk]

Of course not. But this is why there is a Civil War. Are people who commit to spending an entire day at a park supposed to give way to people who saunter in at 5:00? FP+ seeks to put people who stroll in at 5:00 on even FP footing as people who arrived at 9:00 a.m.. There is a natural tendency to think that the investment in time that one commits to a park should factor in to their ability to enjoy the park. When someone is waiting in a 60 minute line at 11:00 a.m. because immediate access to that ride is being held in reserve for someone who may or may not arrive at 5:00, a level of frustration is inevitable . Of course this system helps the late arriver. The question is, should that person be helped? Giving 3 FPs to someone who is in a park for two hours and ten minutes while giving the same 3 FPs to someone who is in the park for 12 hours is anything but intuitive. The recent change is supposed to move to cure this problem, but there wouldn't have been a problem to cure if FP+ had been better thought out. For example, had they retained the "every two hours" restriction on reserving FPs, people who arrived at 5:00 could get and
use 3 FPs, but only if they stayed in the park past 9:00 instead of 7:05.

That about covers it.

 

[Davey Jones II]

I don't believe fp+ cost $2 billion. The new coaster at Cedar Point cost $30 million. So say a Disney coaster might be double that price with all the extras rhey do. So at $60 million (wich would be the most awsome coaster ever built) they could have built 33 of them with money left over at $2 billion. Just think 8.25 new coasters ( best in the world at that price) per park! That's what $2 billion can get you.

Well, a themed coaster (to use your example) can easily carry a nine-figure price tag. Expedition Everest cost $100 million, and it opened in 2006. Of course, construction and labor costs have only gone up since then.

But cost hardly matters if you can build a superstar attraction. Those are the kinds of rides which have a huge, disproportionate impact on a theme park. Radiator Springs Racers cost upwards of $200 million (some say $300 million) but is such a hit that the fast pass line is one of the biggest draws early in the morning. It is the lynchpin of Cars Land and the entire DCA expansion. Without a superstar E Ticket, that expansion would not have put DCA on the map as a worthy sister park to the mighty Disneyland.

Even if the $2 billion had bought only a handful of E Tickets, to me it is a no-brainer that the money would have been much better spent.

However, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. Disney is listening, and changing the FP+ system. I do think this announced change is an improvement, because it offers us more options and flexibility. And if they are willing to listen and change when it comes to FP+, maybe they are willing to listen and reinvest in park infrastructure, too. The DCA makeover came as a result of Disney listening to its fans; we had been saying for years that DCA needed a lot of work.

 

[JimmyV]

However, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. Disney is listening, and changing the FP+ system. I do think this announced change is an improvement, because it offers us more options and flexibility.

The flip side to this is that the changes make FP+ inch ever so closer to what FP- was. So while we can give credit to Disney for making changes, if the changes make the system look more like what we use to have, then what was the point of spending $2B? To put it another way, if Disney "listened" to the point of scrapping FP+ and reverting back to FP- (which, of course, it won't do), would we praise Disney for "listening", or scold it for wasting all that money? My fear is that after all the adjustments are implemented, we will have a system that is modestly different from what we had before, one that could have been made by making one left turn at minimal cost instead of three right turns at tremendous cost, and will siphon money away from other much needed areas such as maitenance and new attractions. It's going to take Disney a long time to bounce back from this expenditure. Park discretionary spending is going to be very tight for quite a while. Avatar may have been green-lighted. But it will be tough getting much else past the bean counters for the remainder of this decade.

 

[Davey Jones II]

The flip side to this is that the changes make FP+ inch ever so closer to what FP- was. So while we can give credit to Disney for making changes, if the changes make the system look more like what we use to have, then what was the point of spending $2B? To put it another way, if Disney "listened" to the point of scrapping FP+ and reverting back to FP- (which, of course, it won't do), would we praise Disney for "listening", or scold it for wasting all that money? My fear is that after all the adjustments are implemented, we will have a system that is modestly different from what we had before, one that could have been made by making one left turn at minimal cost instead of three right turns at tremendous cost, and will siphon money away from other much needed areas such as maitenance and new attractions. It's going to take Disney a long time to bounce back from this expenditure. Park discretionary spending is going to be very tight for quite a while. Avatar may have been green-lighted. But it will be tough getting much else past the bean counters for the remainder of this decade.

I agree with you for the most part, but there are a few ways to interpret the silence from Disney concerning new projects.

a) The reports were true: Disney really did overreact to the MM+ cost overruns by putting the brakes on upcoming projects -- and that hasn't changed.

b) That overreaction did occur, but it was a temporary effect. Disney has had time to mull over their options, and announcements will be coming in the near future (maybe at the next D23 Expo?).

c) The reports of an overreaction were false. In recent years, Disney (and the theme park industry in general) has simply been keeping their cards very close to the vest. So much information leaks onto the internet that they want to keep some control over it, and make official announcements as late as possible.

All I am saying is that b and/or c may be accurate, and the fact that Disney is working to modify FP+ to keep its fans happy is a promising sign.

However, if the deafening silence from Burbank continues for another year or two, that will be worrisome indeed.

 

[mcd2745]

Of course not. But this is why there is a Civil War. Are people who commit to spending an entire day at a park supposed to give way to people who saunter in at 5:00? FP+ seeks to put people who stroll in at 5:00 on even FP footing as people who arrived at 9:00 a.m.. There is a natural tendency to think that the investment in time that one commits to a park should factor in to their ability to enjoy the park. When someone is waiting in a 60 minute line at 11:00 a.m. because immediate access to that ride is being held in reserve for someone who may or may not arrive at 5:00, a level of frustration is inevitable . Of course this system helps the late arriver. The question is, should that person be helped? Giving 3 FPs to someone who is in a park for two hours and ten minutes while giving the same 3 FPs to someone who is in the park for 12 hours is anything but intuitive. The recent change is supposed to move to cure this problem, but there wouldn't have been a problem to cure if FP+ had been better thought out. For example, had they retained the "every two hours" restriction on reserving FPs, people who arrived at 5:00 could get and
use 3 FPs, but only if they stayed in the park past 9:00 instead of 7:05.

Why? Is park admission "daily" or do you pay "by the hour"?

One could argue that from Disney's perspective, they should "reward" (not the best word, I admit) the person who was only there 2 hours and 10 minutes. For the same admission, they had to provide much less and dedicate far more resources to that guest as opposed to the guest there for 12 hours. Of course, the other side of the argument is that it is much more likely that the guest there for 12 hours has dropped some additional coin during that time.

I just don't necessarily agree with the idea that the person who arrives at RD is "entitled" to more. That person will always be able to do more anyway, just by the nature of things. So why do they feel they need additional benefits, and at the expense of other guests - guests who paid the same admission (more or less) - regardless of what time they show up?

 

[JimmyV]

Why? Is park admission "daily" or do you pay "by the hour"?

You pay by the hour. Not for the admission fee, per se. But incidental expenditure increases the longer one stays in the park. A person in a park for 10 hours will spend more, on average, than the person who does the commando "hit and run" of three FP attractions in 2 and a half hours and then heads back to Marriott World.

One could argue that from Disney's perspective, they should "reward" (not the best word, I admit) the person who was only there 2 hours and 10 minutes. For the same admission, they had to provide much less and dedicate far more resources to that guest as opposed to the guest there for 12 hours.

It doesn't work that way. If Disney was opening the park just for you, and holding it open just for you, then yes, the employees could show up 15 minutes before you arrive and leave 15 minutes after you leave, and they could shut off the electricity as soon as you leave. But the park is going to be fully operational whether you are in it or not. And they would rather have you in it.

Of course, the other side of the argument is that it is much more likely that the guest there for 12 hours has dropped some additional coin during that time.

Yep. See above.

I just don't necessarily agree with the idea that the person who arrives at RD is "entitled" to more.

It has nothing to do with when you arrive. It has to do with how long you stay. Under FP-, you could pull a new FP every 2 hours. If a park was open from 9:00-8:00, a person in the park from 10:00-8:00 could pull 5 FPs. Someone in the park at RD who left at 4:00 could pull 4. It wasn't RD that got the person the extra FP. It was the person's investment in time (which almost always coverts to money).

 

[jade1]

No doubt. But is making things better for late arrivers on 12/31 a good enough reason to overhaul the system for the other 364 days of the year?

5PM arrival on NYE? Agreed, but way more than just NYE would the headliner FP's have been gone, probably almost all year for most.

You honestly think arriving at 5PM FP+ would only be beneficial NYE?

Of course not.

Then why did you say the other 364 days of the year?

You pay by the hour.

It has nothing to do with when you arrive. It has to do with how long you stay. Under FP-, you could pull a new FP every 2 hours. If a park was open from 9:00-8:00, a person in the park from 10:00-8:00 could pull 5 FPs. Someone in the park at RD who left at 4:00 could pull 4. It wasn't RD that got the person the extra FP. It was the person's investment in time (which almost always coverts to money).

We travel peak so even though FP's were long gone by 3PM-we usually had 10 to 12 hours of park time left-all with no FP's at all. I'm sure a lot if not most of the guests that opened the park left after 10 to 12 hours, or split the day into two 5 or 6 hour tours. FP+ will disperse more evenly to the 3 equal paying, equal time commitment groups IMO. If some commit all 18 hours to the park-they will have more opportunity to reserve more than 3 FP+ as well as hit SB first thing-especially if EMH AM.

I still think they are just modifying FP- by allowing all guests to "preselect" 3 FP, then it's just FP- after your 3rd, only with a choice of attractions and times avail from the kiosk (hopefully the app one day) instead of the FP- machine. Also any cancellations will now show up as available through the day instead of just being wasted as in the past.

I think the benefit will be greater peak weeks because of the insanity those weeks, but also think the slow months will have many more kiosk choices available-and maybe more reserved ahead of time.

 

[su_A_ve]

So we are reverting back to how FP used to work. FP+ was designed to schedule your rides at the time you wanted. Now, you want to schedule them for first thing in the morning in order to be able to pull more later.

But the crux is - when is this going to be in effect? Summer? Fall? 2015?

 

[mickeysgirl17]

What I don't get is people doing high fives and patting themsleves on the back saying "Yea, Disney listened" when, the survey's were SET UP months ago.

Uh, no, if they listened this wasn't it.

I don't get it either. This entire new fp+ system sucks. Even with the new changes coming, I still don't like it. I was happy with fp before. Many people were. Vacations to Disney are going to be full of stress. Trying to get your restaurant ADRs, and now also trying to get your fp reservations, plus trying to get more at kiosks in the parks...you have to literally plan everything in advance to take advantage of this system. Its my hope that Disney will realize what a huge mistake this was and will eventually brings back the old system. If the purpose of this was to make more money, they could of figured out a better way.

You pay by the hour. Not for the admission fee, per se. But incidental expenditure increases the longer one stays in the park. A person in a park for 10 hours will spend more, on average, than the person who does the commando "hit and run" of three FP attractions in 2 and a half hours and then heads back to Marriott World.

Completely agree. I think Disney added this new change regarding getting more fp in the park after you use the 3 you booked from home to keep people in the park longer. The longer you stay, the more likely you will spend more money.