Unfair :(

[Gina-Gina-Bo-Bina]

I meant give it a rest with insulting other peoples choices.

I don't even really think EMH for onsite guests is particularly fair. But it sure beats charging people for FOTL passes.

Other than a limited number posters, I don't think the majority of the respondents to this thread were "insulting". Some, yes, but not the bulk.

How is it UN fair? Everyone has the exact same option to book an on-site hotel and get the same access to EMH.

And Disney is a business who's goal is making money...why wouldn't they offer incentives to guests who are paying them more money by staying in their hotels?

The OP said she felt it was unfair as she was staying offsite and no ability to take advantage of the FP+ system.

I don't think anyone is saying that Disney shouldn't make money. Many of us think, though, that Disney has dropped the ball (at least during the test period) of disadvantaging offsite guests by excluding them from FP+ eligibility when many of these people booked their stays long before the FP+ test period was announced.

It is worth noting (again) that both SeaWorld and Universal successfully offer their less-limited versions of Fastpass (SW's Quick Queue and Universal's Express Pass) to both onsite guests and offsite visitors. For one group (onsite) its free. For the other (offsite) its an optional add-on. But both groups do have access to it, one way or the other.

 

[skriegerjr]

I think the difference between you and I on this issue is that I see the resorts and parks as separate entities. Since everyone pays the same amount for park tickets I feel no one should get more time in the parks or access to more rides in the parks as anyone else. If people choose to stay onsite, for whatever reason, they get perks such as better pool, Disney themes, access to DP, transportation, etc. If they stay at the GF, Poly, or CR they even have a monorail right outside their door to take them to EPCOT and MK. Those are perks that should be, and are, tied to resort tier. I don't think the parks should be included in that.

The parks and resorts aren't separate entities though, and that's the point. The resorts exist where they do, solely because of the situation at Disneyland in the beginning, when there were so many other hotels surrounding the entrance, and all that money was flowing to other businesses, not to Disney!

Think of it another way. If there weren't perks like EMH, why on EARTH would anyone pay the prices they pay for onsite hotels, just for a better pool, or theming? Everyone gets access to transportation, so that's not really a perk to me, except maybe the DME shuttle from the airport to the resort. Disney has to incentivize guests to stay with them, and spend their money with them.

 

[Turn the Page]

The parks and resorts aren't separate entities though, and that's the point. The resorts exist where they do, solely because of the situation at Disneyland in the beginning, when there were so many other hotels surrounding the entrance, and all that money was flowing to other businesses, not to Disney!

Think of it another way. If there weren't perks like EMH, why on EARTH would anyone pay the prices they pay for onsite hotels, just for a better pool, or theming? Everyone gets access to transportation, so that's not really a perk to me, except maybe the DME shuttle from the airport to the resort. Disney has to incentivize guests to stay with them, and spend their money with them.

Is that not a good enough reason to stay onsite? Like I said, I stay onsite due to theming, pools, and most of all convenience. If the parks and resorts aren't separate entities why wouldn't Disney give FOTL passes to deluxe guests and tell everyone else to have fun in the lines? Why wouldn't park admission be included with hotel stay?

Furthermore, if they weren't separate entities why wouldn't Disney say "if you want to come to our parks you stay at our hotels. No off site guests allowed?"

And I do consider the transportation a perk. Sure, everyone, whether staying on site or off site, has access to the transportation network while on property. But those staying off property have to get from the property to their hotel. When staying on site Disney transportation takes me right to my hotel. To me, that is a perk.

 

[nugov2]

Ok,my brain hurts after reading all that.

I'll throw my two cents in.

I feel the resort category, or on site vs off site, is, and should be, separate from park admission. If the same amount is paid to get into the parks then everyone should have the same perks. Everyone should have access to FP + with the same number of FP's they can reserve beforehand.

I, for one, will be sorely disappointed if Disney starts charging for perks like extra FP's a la Universal and their FOTL pass. I'm sorry, I find it smarmy and an example of disgusting materialistic narcisssim. Sorry people, you're all at a theme park. Not a single one of you is better than anyone else. Everyone should have the same access to the parks. That is why I loved legacy FP so much. Everyone was eligible for it. It didn't completely cut out lines but it drastically reduced them.
As far as the on site/off site debate good god people. Give it a rest. Some people like to stay off site, some like on site. Some people like the DP, some don't. Some like the buses, some don't. For me personally, I like staying on site because I want it to look like Mickey threw up in my room otherwise I don't feel like I am actually at Disney World when I am in my room. I want my room to match the location. I think the DP is a rip off. I would never eat nearly that much food. If they had some sort of dining plan that included only dinners or something like that I might be interested and just go to the grocery store and put food in the fridge for the other meals. As far as the buses are concerned I like them. They aren't perfect, it's true. But I have always found them very convenient in my meager experience and I like the convenience of not having to drive everywhere.

But that's just me. YMMV.

I have to disagree with that. That is life. Some can just afford their park ticket while others can eat cs and some souvenirs. Others can do ts, souvenirs only while others can add tours. I mean that is the way life works. There is the basic package and then upgrades for those who can afford it. Everyone still has access to the park, but if you want to spend money your wait is a less. I don't see an issue with it. I also don't think that it makes anyone better than anyone else because they can or cannot afford to get them. Life is equal opportunity not equal guarantee. Everyone has the opportunity to get things, just not the guarantee that they will be able to do it.

 

[skriegerjr]

Is that not a good enough reason to stay onsite? Like I said, I stay onsite due to theming, pools, and most of all convenience. If the parks and resorts aren't separate entities why wouldn't Disney give FOTL passes to deluxe guests and tell everyone else to have fun in the lines? Why wouldn't park admission be included with hotel stay?

And I do consider the transportation a perk. Sure, everyone, whether staying on site or off site, has access to the transportation network while on property. But those staying off property have to get from the property to their hotel. When staying on site Disney transportation takes me right to my hotel. To me, that is a perk.

You're right, the transportation, like I mentioned, DME, is a huge perk. And not having to pay for parking, is a perk. But those perks are also rolled into the price of the higher hotel price, vs the cost of staying off site. And EMH is ALSO one of the perks. Those perks are all designed to keep you on property and spending money with DISNEY! If they get you at the airport, and you don't need to rent a car, then you can't leave to buy cheaper supplies at a 7-11 or grocery store, so you buy from the resort gift shop. If you can't leave to go eat, you spend money to eat at their restaurants.

And a perk that many were disappointed to see reduced this year, when the evening EMH was reduced from 3 extra hours to only 2 extra hours.

When staying onsite, you are, of course, always able to either leave when EMH start, or avoid EMH parks altogether as well. One could argue that Disney offering to pick onsite guests up at the airport in a no additioinal cost shuttle that takes them to their resort, unfair. But, effectively, onsite guests are paying for that perk. Just like they're paying for EMH, it's all built into the cost of the higher priced room!

 

[maxiesmom]

Life is equal opportunity not equal guarantee. Everyone has the opportunity to get things, just not the guarantee that they will be able to do it.

I think this is one of the greatest statements ever on the Dis.

 

[Magpie]

As far as the on site/off site debate good god people. Give it a rest. Some people like to stay off site, some like on site. Some people like the DP, some don't. Some like the buses, some don't. For me personally, I like staying on site because I want it to look like Mickey threw up in my room otherwise I don't feel like I am actually at Disney World when I am in my room. I want my room to match the location. I think the DP is a rip off. I would never eat nearly that much food. If they had some sort of dining plan that included only dinners or something like that I might be interested and just go to the grocery store and put food in the fridge for the other meals. As far as the buses are concerned I like them. They aren't perfect, it's true. But I have always found them very convenient in my meager experience and I like the convenience of not having to drive everywhere.

But that's just me. YMMV.

Perfectly stated, and I couldn't agree more!

 

[pilferk]

I think the difference between you and I on this issue is that I see the resorts and parks as separate entities. Since everyone pays the same amount for park tickets I feel no one should get more time in the parks or access to more rides in the parks as anyone else. If people choose to stay onsite, for whatever reason, they get perks such as better pool, Disney themes, access to DP, transportation, etc. If they stay at the GF, Poly, or CR they even have a monorail right outside their door to take them to EPCOT and MK. Those are perks that should be, and are, tied to resort tier. I don't think the parks should be included in that.

YOU might consider them separate entities. Disney does not. They are all housed in the same corporate arm....the parks and resorts division. And while each separate entity has their own cost center(s), their contribution margin all goes to the same bucket.

Which means that ultimately, disney is going to do what it sees as best for the overall resort, and not just the parks in a vacuum.

Which is a moot point, IMHO, since they have stated that fp+ will be available to day guests! eventually. They are just not testing right now.

 

[pilferk]

Is that not a good enough reason to stay onsite? Like I said, I stay onsite due to theming, pools, and most of all convenience. If the parks and resorts aren't separate entities why wouldn't Disney give FOTL passes to deluxe guests and tell everyone else to have fun in the lines? Why wouldn't park admission be included with hotel stay?

Furthermore, if they weren't separate entities why wouldn't Disney say "if you want to come to our parks you stay at our hotels. No off site guests allowed?"

Put simply, because it would leave money on the table. Even at 100% resort capacity they would have spare "capacity" in the parks. So it makes much more fiscal sense to open that capacity up to everyone else, rather than to leave it idle.

So, the I would guess the next question is...why not big more resort capacity. The answer is....there isn't demand. So, in that sense, you end the debate between offsite and on. Some will never stay on site, at the prices or amenities disney is willing to offer. Some will never stay offsite, no matter what amenities or prices are available. And why that is varies widely across the market.

 

[Turn the Page]

Disney easily could have gone the way of Universal and Cedar Point years ago and charged for their fast pass program.

I, for one, applaud them for not doing that and I hope it stays that way.

 

[nugov2]

Disney easily could have gone the way of Universal and Cedar Point years ago and charged for their fast pass program.

I, for one, applaud them for not doing that and I hope it stays that way.

All the parks are always competing. So here is what I imagine happened. WDW puts FP for some rides in the park for free to lure more guest. Uni offers FP to all the rides for guests on site..then offers it at a price to guests. WDW sees how much money Uni is making and thinks crap we can't just remove FP and charge since we have been offering it to everyone for free for all this time. I got it lets offer a new and "improved" system. Everyone gets 3 FP for free, but down the road we will charge and still make money without the uproar. Just a theory, but that is the road I think we are ultimately going down. They get more money and most of the guests are tricked into spending money for something they were getting for free, but it still feels ok.

It is about money to all these parks at the end of the day. I don't think WDW wasn't charging b/c they feel it is the right thing to do, but they just implemented it to lure people there without realizing the profit of charging. I like WDW, but I am not under and delusions that they care more about making their guests happy vs the bottom line. They are looking for a way to do both like all other parks and this new system lets them put their hand in our pockets and still leaving the majority of guests happy in the end.

 

[Disneyholic]

I think the difference between you and I on this issue is that I see the resorts and parks as separate entities. Since everyone pays the same amount for park tickets I feel no one should get more time in the parks or access to more rides in the parks as anyone else. If people choose to stay onsite, for whatever reason, they get perks such as better pool, Disney themes, access to DP, transportation, etc. If they stay at the GF, Poly, or CR they even have a monorail right outside their door to take them to EPCOT and MK. Those are perks that should be, and are, tied to resort tier. I don't think the parks should be included in that.

That "perk" as you call it is also available to anyone onsite or offsite if they want to use it to get around WDW. The busses, Monorail and boats are NOT exclusive to the hotels they go to. Anyone can use them. Yes, it is nice to have them at the resort if you are staying there and it does make it more convenient, but since anyone can use them it really is only a perk because it makes it easier to get to the park that you are nearest. Originally you had to show a room key to use the transportation. They stopped that and started letting everyone use it, so basically it is not really a perk for the hotel guest anymore. If you are at staying offsite and go to MK and want to go to another park or a hotel for dinner, you may use any of WDW transportation to get there.

 

[Turn the Page]

That "perk" as you call it is also available to anyone onsite or offsite if they want to use it to get around WDW. The busses, Monorail and boats are NOT exclusive to the hotels they go to. Anyone can use them. Yes, it is nice to have them at the resort if you are staying there and it does make it more convenient, but since anyone can use them it really is only a perk because it makes it easier to get to the park that you are nearest. Originally you had to show a room key to use the transportation. They stopped that and started letting everyone use it, so basically it is not really a perk for the hotel guest anymore. If you are at staying offsite and go to MK and want to go to another park or a hotel for dinner, you may use any of WDW transportation to get there.

Yes, I understand that. But again, the monorail does not drop them off back at their hotel. They have to take a separate shuttle or rental car from the TTC or other park to get to their hotel.

 

[Disneyholic]

Yes, I understand that. But again, the monorail does not drop them off back at their hotel. They have to take a separate shuttle or rental car from the TTC or other park to get to their hotel.

And that's the choice they make. Nobody is forcing them to stay offsite or onsite. It is their decision and it is Disney's choice or decision to offer what they do to whom they want to.

 

[btk2333]

Is it unfair that Disney would offer desirable perks to people staying on site? I think disney WANTS people who normally would stay in a time share or off site to feel like they want the new benefits. Maybe it makes those people come only every other year instead of every year but they stay on site now and that's what Disney wants???

 

[Turn the Page]

And that's the choice they make. Nobody is forcing them to stay offsite or onsite. It is their decision and it is Disney's choice or decision to offer what they do to whom they want to.

I'm not sure you are understanding my point. All I'm saying is the transportation network that allows a guest to take a bus directly from EPCOT to their resort is a perk of staying on property. They very likely paid more to stay on property, for whatever reason, than the person who is staying off property who has to get back to take a tram from the gates to their car and then drive off property to their hotel. The direct bus is a perk of staying on site.

And yes, it is Disney's choice what perks they offer to which group of guests. This entire thread, and scores of threads on this board besides, are about how we feel about certain perks being offered to various groups of guests.

 

[Disneyholic]

I'm not sure you are understanding my point. All I'm saying is the transportation network that allows a guest to take a bus directly from EPCOT to their resort is a perk of staying on property. They very likely paid more to stay on property, for whatever reason, than the person who is staying off property who has to get back to take a tram from the gates to their car and then drive off property to their hotel. The direct bus is a perk of staying on site.

And yes, it is Disney's choice what perks they offer to which group of guests. This entire thread, and scores of threads on this board besides, are about how we feel about certain perks being offered to various groups of guests.

I stay at AKLV which is considered to be a deluxe resort. Yes it is one of the cheaper deluxe resorts, but we only get a bus to go anywhere. We don't get boats or monorails, but if we want to go to any of the other resorts that do have them we can, and so can you off-siters. Your timeshare probably also has a shuttle that takes you to and from WDW, so that is a perk from them that you could use, but find to inconvenient so you drive. Some people who stay on property drive their cars, too, because they feel WDW transportation isn't worth it. They don't ask for a discount because they don't use the transportation that WDW provides them.

As someone said earlier " It is what it is. " Disney's parks and hotels, Disney's rules.

As far as paying for FPs, that still leaves out the people who can't afford to pay more. So it is still unfair to someone. It will still be a case of the Haves and Have-nots.

 

[jctwizzer]

As some others have said...it's not exactly unfair....
However, it is elitist and that's not what Walt was about...

 

[Turn the Page]

I stay at AKLV which is considered to be a deluxe resort. Yes it is one of the cheaper deluxe resorts, but we only get a bus to go anywhere. We don't get boats or monorails, but if we want to go to any of the other resorts that do have them we can, and so can you off-siters. Your timeshare probably also has a shuttle that takes you to and from WDW, so that is a perk from them that you could use, but find to inconvenient so you drive. Some people who stay on property drive their cars, too, because they feel WDW transportation isn't worth it. They don't ask for a discount because they don't use the transportation that WDW provides them.

As someone said earlier " It is what it is. " Disney's parks and hotels, Disney's rules.

As far as paying for FPs, that still leaves out the people who can't afford to pay more. So it is still unfair to someone. It will still be a case of the Haves and Have-nots.

How do you like AKL? I would like to stay there someday. I have never even been there but the pictures look gorgeous.

My point is there are different perks people get based on tier of resort/ on site vs off site that roughly correspond to the amount of money they are paying. Everyone pays about the same to get into the parks so there shouldn't be any perks available to some people who pay the same amount to get into the parks as those who don't get the perks.

 

[curemyreed]

YOU might consider them separate entities. Disney does not. They are all housed in the same corporate arm....the parks and resorts division. And while each separate entity has their own cost center(s), their contribution margin all goes to the same bucket.

Which means that ultimately, disney is going to do what it sees as best for the overall resort, and not just the parks in a vacuum.

Which is a moot point, IMHO, since they have stated that fp+ will be available to day guests! eventually. They are just not testing right now.

I read a post referencing Disney P&R. Is that an abbreviation for the parks and resorts division you talk about?