Why wait times have gotten crazy

[3DisneyFanz]

Of course the argument holds up. There were fewer FP-'s issued than FP+'s. With FP+ the rides are about 50% FastPass and 50% standby. Under FP- they were around 20% FastPass and 80% standby. The lines were mostly standby. There would be a few FastPass people skipping by. That's why it was so great. It was a small resource that most guests did not use. So if you were one of those who used it, you were golden. Seriously. That's the only reason it was so great. If 90% of guests used it, you'd only have been able to get 1 in a day with the old level of distribution and rides not yet set up for FastPass. Now with FP+ almost all guests ARE using it. It comes to them, on their phone. All the guests in their target demographic already carry a smartphone anyways, and they all use it regularly to post on Facebook, take pictures, and yes, use the Disney app to pick and change rides. It's so easy it's naturally gotten wide acceptance.

This very fact that it's gotten such a wide acceptance and usage is exactly what's making it suck so bad for the few people who don't like it. When it was their (our) own private system, it was great. Now that everyone else uses it too, it's hard to get a larger share for ourselves.

Net result, we have to adapt. Evolve. Change strategies for a new system.

That's a whole different argument. You can't compare the two sytems on a 1 to 1 basis based on that assumption. Of course I don't think they've ever announced percentages so it's all speculation. That said I agree that they've released more which increases wait times for both lines which makes the system problematic whether you use the system or not. You just can't say it simply more people using it based on all the other factors.

 

[LindsayGorg]

Your comment is interesting. I see some people reporting longer waits than what is posted and some shorter waits. I don't doubt that both are true and wonder if that's a sign of Disney tinkering with the queues in some way. Maybe they distribute more fastpasses for certain rides at times for a variety of reasons.

Only in one instance was it obvious that it was FP+. We got in line for Kilimanjaro with posted 15 minute wait. We caught up with the end of the line and then didn't move for at least 30 minutes (I stopped timing at that point out of frustration). During that time, the FP line was full and constantly moving. We ended up waiting just under an hour by my estimation. Other than that time, I assumed it was just that Disney couldn't keep up with the masses of people jumping in line when they saw a short wait time, because we'd get in line for posted 15 and wait more like 30. Splash we got in line posted 10 and waited 45. I was under the impression they inflated wait times so you felt like you waited less and were therefore happier, but we never experienced that.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I don't understand the comments I've seen to the effect of "Even Disney seems surprised at the crowds." Really? How could that possibly be true? Doesn't Disney know how many people have made FP's for a given day in each park? How could they then be "surprised" or "caught off-guard" by the crowds? This is especially true if FP utilization is up as much as people seem to think. If very few people arrive at the park that day with no FP's, then Disney really has NO excuse for not having proper staffing and ride capacity to handle said crowds. I don't mean to sound angry, I'm just really confused about how Disney could be "surprised" by all of these people.

Apparently they just don't know how to use their own data so they had to invent a whole new system to break things just so they could get some amazing new data that they already had access to.

 

[tlmadden73]

I don't see why the answer simply isn't just MORE attendance. Isn't daily attendance numbers known somewhere?

More people are going (especially in the "off" times) .. due to parties (because more "known" and popular) .. discounts .. etc. It probably takes a few years for word of mouth about these parties to work its way around .. plus the discounts or things like "Free dining" hooking people in.

Add in that new FantasyLand isn't THAT old and people are still coming to see the new rides there.

Plus the economy has gotten better (for some) compared to years 5-10 years ago .. so people are vacationing more.

 

[Planogirl]

Only in one instance was it obvious that it was FP+. We got in line for Kilimanjaro with posted 15 minute wait. We caught up with the end of the line and then didn't move for at least 30 minutes (I stopped timing at that point out of frustration). During that time, the FP line was full and constantly moving. We ended up waiting just under an hour by my estimation. Other than that time, I assumed it was just that Disney couldn't keep up with the masses of people jumping in line when they saw a short wait time, because we'd get in line for posted 15 and wait more like 30. Splash we got in line posted 10 and waited 45. I was under the impression they inflated wait times so you felt like you waited less and were therefore happier, but we never experienced that.

Wow, wait times being that much longer would be very annoying.

I really think that Disney is constantly tinkering with things. Ugh.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't see why the answer simply isn't just MORE attendance. Isn't daily attendance numbers known somewhere?

More people are going (especially in the "off" times) .. due to parties (because more "known" and popular) .. discounts .. etc. It probably takes a few years for word of mouth about these parties to work its way around .. plus the discounts or things like "Free dining" hooking people in.

Add in that new FantasyLand isn't THAT old and people are still coming to see the new rides there.

Plus the economy has gotten better (for some) compared to years 5-10 years ago .. so people are vacationing more.

There have been reports that attendance is up but only a small amount. It's hard to know what the true attendance is though.

 

[Happy_2_B]

A little OT, but, the more I think about it, does anyone think that Disney will soon make FP + a resort guest only feature? Seems like it could be a major selling point in the on-site, off-site decision.

If I was working for Disney and had some say on FP+ utilization- it would go something like this:

The 60 day window for on site guests would stay pretty much the same with a few tweaks as noted later in this post- as would the three FP+ selections at 30 days for offsite guests.

For those onsite guests staying at a value resort, they would get one additional FP+ selection per day. Those at moderates would get 2 additional selections per day, and those at deluxes would get three additional selections per day.

On site value guests would continue to get the current 60 day window, moderates would get a 61 day window, and deluxe guests would get a 62 day window. If these changes were made- the Disney resorts would probably sell out year round. Will be interesting to see what they do in the future with the FP+ system, but this seems to me to be a viable option.

 

[ArwenMarie]

If I was working for Disney and had some say on FP+ utilization- it would go something like this:

The 60 day window for on site guests would stay pretty much the same with a few tweaks as noted later in this post- as would the three FP+ selections at 30 days for offsite guests.

For those onsite guests staying at a value resort, they would get one additional FP+ selection per day. Those at moderates would get 2 additional selections per day, and those at deluxes would get three additional selections per day.

On site value guests would continue to get the current 60 day window, moderates would get a 61 day window, and deluxe guests would get a 62 day window. If these changes were made- the Disney resorts would probably sell out year round. Will be interesting to see what they do in the future with the FP+ system, but this seems to me to be a viable option.

Are there enough FPs to give onsite all of those extras without depleting the pool entirely for offsite at 30 days?

 

[flicx]

Are there enough FPs to give onsite all of those extras without depleting the pool entirely for offsite at 30 days?

Judging by the current increases that have occurred in wait times. My opinion would be no!

 

[Happy_2_B]

Are there enough FPs to give onsite all of those extras without depleting the pool entirely for offsite at 30 days?

Don't know about entirely- but they would be severely limited- which is the point. Stay with Disney, get perks- stay offsite, wait in lines for the best attractions. Period. In my scenario- I work for Disney, not Howard Johnson's, Holiday Inn or Hilton. If Disney did this they would be at, or close to, capacity at all resorts all year long. I noticed your other post and that you believe they haven't done it yet because they want to strike a balance between onsite and offsite. Disney doesn't owe offsite guests anything- and by giving offsite the same number of FP+s there is no incentive to stay onsite other than the 60 day window- and we pay for that privilege. IMHO there will come a day when there are distinctions made- and it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be my exact scenario- but Disney isn't stupid and understands the need to provide incentives for on site guests to keep them on property for their vacation. It is extra resort income, more food income (in my scenario I don't work for McDonalds or IHOP, either), etc. This scenario has possibilities, and Disney will do what it needs to do so that people stay on property.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Don't know about entirely- but they would be severely limited- which is the point. Stay with Disney, get perks- stay offsite, wait in lines for the best attractions. Period. In my scenario- I work for Disney, not Howard Johnson's, Holiday Inn or Hilton. If Disney did this they would be at, or close to, capacity at all resorts all year long. I noticed your other post and that you believe they haven't done it yet because they want to strike a balance between onsite and offsite. Disney doesn't owe offsite guests anything- and by giving offsite the same number of FP+s there is no incentive to stay onsite other than the 60 day window- and we pay for that privilege. IMHO there will come a day when there are distinctions made- and it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be my exact scenario- but Disney isn't stupid and understands the need to provide incentives for on site guests to keep them on property for their vacation. It is extra resort income, more food income (in my scenario I don't work for McDonalds or IHOP, either), etc. This scenario has possibilities, and Disney will do what it needs to do so that people stay on property.

I don't disagree with you that they are entitled to do whatever they choose. If they want to make it an all-inclusive, onsite-only experience, they can do that. My point was (in the earlier comment you referenced) that they still need/want offsite business. If they didn't, they would close the gates to offsite. That's the balance they have to strike...between rewarding onsite and not alienating offsite.

With regards to giving extra FPs to onsite, I actually expected them to do that in the beginning, but I think they realized that they didn't have enough supply or they would have done it already IMO. There are already tiers in two parks due to low supply of headliner FPs. I think the current system is what will be in place going forward if for no other reason than they would have changed things already, they made other changes as testing went on.

 

[maxiesmom]

If I was working for Disney and had some say on FP+ utilization- it would go something like this:

The 60 day window for on site guests would stay pretty much the same with a few tweaks as noted later in this post- as would the three FP+ selections at 30 days for offsite guests.

For those onsite guests staying at a value resort, they would get one additional FP+ selection per day. Those at moderates would get 2 additional selections per day, and those at deluxes would get three additional selections per day.

On site value guests would continue to get the current 60 day window, moderates would get a 61 day window, and deluxe guests would get a 62 day window. If these changes were made- the Disney resorts would probably sell out year round. Will be interesting to see what they do in the future with the FP+ system, but this seems to me to be a viable option.

Disney tries hard to keep the resort levels separate from the parks. That is, someone staying at a Value isn't deserving of less of a park experience than someone staying at a Moderate. I'm hoping they keep it that way. I have stayed at all levels, and sometimes I just feel like the more fun, in your face themeing of the Value resorts. I shouldn't be punished in the parks for that.

 

[Happy_2_B]

My point was (in the earlier comment you referenced) that they still need/want offsite business. That's the balance they have to strike...between rewarding onsite and not alienating offsite. I think the current system is what will be in place going forward if for no other reason than they would have changed things already, they made other changes as testing went on.

I agree- the system will remain the same for the foreseeable future. However, once the renovations and building projects are getting close to completion- I think we will see a change. In the bigger picture, the legacy and FP+ systems have been in constant flux since inception- with changes made all the time- and the system will remain fluid. Universal gives huge incentives to onsite guests- Disney will follow as soon as they are able to accommodate the additional demand that will be created by providing more on site incentives while 'throwing a bone' to offsite guests as well. Time will tell, I guess.

Disney tries hard to keep the resort levels separate from the parks. That is, someone staying at a Value isn't deserving of less of a park experience than someone staying at a Moderate. I'm hoping they keep it that way. I have stayed at all levels, and sometimes I just feel like the more fun, in your face themeing of the Value resorts. I shouldn't be punished in the parks for that.

The scenario provides for additional incentives at each tier. No one is punished- they would just receive more incentives as they committed to spending more money. I have stayed at all levels, too- and you're kidding yourself if you believe your experience is the same at All Stars as it is at the GF. The park experience in my scenario would match the resort experience- that's the way it should be IMHO. Spend more, reap more incentives.

 

[maxiesmom]

[QUOTE="Happy_2_B, post: 54629805, member: 559425"

The scenario provides for additional incentives at each tier. No one is punished- they would just receive more incentives as they committed to spending more money. I have stayed at all levels, too- and you're kidding yourself if you believe your experience is the same at All Stars as it is at the GF. The park experience in my scenario would match the resort experience- that's the way it should be IMHO. Spend more, reap more incentives.[/QUOTE]


But someone could be spending longer at a Value, therefore spending more money.

I didn't say the experiences are the same, just that sometimes I prefer a Value experience over a Deluxe or Moderate experience. I don't agree that how a room costs per night should have any bearing on what you can or can't do in the parks.

And honestly, I would rather stay at any of the Values than the Grand Floridian.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I agree- the system will remain the same for the foreseeable future. However, once the renovations and building projects are getting close to completion- I think we will see a change. In the bigger picture, the legacy and FP+ systems have been in constant flux since inception- with changes made all the time- and the system will remain fluid. Universal gives huge incentives to onsite guests- Disney will follow as soon as they are able to accommodate the additional demand that will be created by providing more on site incentives while 'throwing a bone' to offsite guests as well. Time will tell, I guess.



The scenario provides for additional incentives at each tier. No one is punished- they would just receive more incentives as they committed to spending more money. I have stayed at all levels, too- and you're kidding yourself if you believe your experience is the same at All Stars as it is at the GF. The park experience in my scenario would match the resort experience- that's the way it should be IMHO. Spend more, reap more incentives.

Having stayed at both AS and GF I'm not sure I'd really be that nutso about how much better the experience was at GF. We don't hang out at the resort and getting anywhere other than MK is a PitA. The only deluxe level resort we really felt we got a significantly better experience was AKL. There was something cool about sitting out on the balcony watching the giraffes eat breakfast. Of course it was also ankole cattle breeding season and we could have lived without the noise that accompanies that.

 

[Happy_2_B]

But someone could be spending longer at a Value, therefore spending more money. I don't agree that how a room costs per night should have any bearing on what you can or can't do in the parks. And honestly, I would rather stay at any of the Values than the Grand Floridian.

Different strokes for different folks. My AKL CL room for 10 nights this December is almost 5K with an AP discount. If we only went for four days, someone staying at an AS resort would have to be there over two weeks to match that 4 day stay dollar amount. We will have to agree to disagree as to whom should receive, or not receive, more incentives. Universal does it- and IMHO Disney will, too- as soon as their attraction infrastructure can support it. If we have learned nothing else about Disney, at least we know they 'keep up with the Jonses'. Just ask Busch Gardens how their zoo/safari is doing now that the AK is operational

 

[hopemax]

Don't know about entirely- but they would be severely limited- which is the point. Stay with Disney, get perks- stay offsite, wait in lines for the best attractions. Period. In my scenario- I work for Disney, not Howard Johnson's, Holiday Inn or Hilton. If Disney did this they would be at, or close to, capacity at all resorts all year long. I noticed your other post and that you believe they haven't done it yet because they want to strike a balance between onsite and offsite. Disney doesn't owe offsite guests anything- and by giving offsite the same number of FP+s there is no incentive to stay onsite other than the 60 day window- and we pay for that privilege. IMHO there will come a day when there are distinctions made- and it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be my exact scenario- but Disney isn't stupid and understands the need to provide incentives for on site guests to keep them on property for their vacation. It is extra resort income, more food income (in my scenario I don't work for McDonalds or IHOP, either), etc. This scenario has possibilities, and Disney will do what it needs to do so that people stay on property.

Disney only has enough rooms on property to service HALF of their yearly attendance. Are you really suggesting Disney tells 50% of people to suck it, to gain a 5-10% gain in resort occupancy? The lost revenue from that group, would swamp any revenue gained by selling those additional rooms. If you truly want what's best for WDW, that comes with the understanding that off-site visitors are a huge part of the business and WDW can't hit revenue and attendance targets without them.

 

[Planogirl]

Don't know about entirely- but they would be severely limited- which is the point. Stay with Disney, get perks- stay offsite, wait in lines for the best attractions. Period. In my scenario- I work for Disney, not Howard Johnson's, Holiday Inn or Hilton. If Disney did this they would be at, or close to, capacity at all resorts all year long. I noticed your other post and that you believe they haven't done it yet because they want to strike a balance between onsite and offsite. Disney doesn't owe offsite guests anything- and by giving offsite the same number of FP+s there is no incentive to stay onsite other than the 60 day window- and we pay for that privilege. IMHO there will come a day when there are distinctions made- and it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be my exact scenario- but Disney isn't stupid and understands the need to provide incentives for on site guests to keep them on property for their vacation. It is extra resort income, more food income (in my scenario I don't work for McDonalds or IHOP, either), etc. This scenario has possibilities, and Disney will do what it needs to do so that people stay on property.

You are right that Disney doesn't owe offsite people anything but those people don't owe Disney anything either. Disney has to strike a logical balance or those offsite people could just go elsewhere.

 

[Planogirl]

Different strokes for different folks. My AKL CL room for 10 nights this December is almost 5K with an AP discount. If we only went for four days, someone staying at an AS resort would have to be there over two weeks to match that 4 day stay dollar amount. We will have to agree to disagree as to whom should receive, or not receive, more incentives. Universal does it- and IMHO Disney will, too- as soon as their attraction infrastructure can support it. If we have learned nothing else about Disney, at least we know they 'keep up with the Jonses'. Just ask Busch Gardens how their zoo/safari is doing now that the AK is operational

What Universal does is not the same thing. Anyone can buy Express passes but you are advocating limiting what certain levels of visitors can do. Someone staying in a value resort couldn't buy extra fastpasses under your scenario but I can spend extra money to enjoy the Express feature at Universal no matter where I stay.

I don't like this type of elitism and to me it is that. People have many reasons for staying where they stay and it doesn't always involve cost. In fact if we just go by cost maybe those staying in the Grand Floridian should get more fastpasses than someone staying at AKL.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think one of the key reasons the parks "feel" more crowded, and this was referenced on the blog post cited earlier, is that the FP+ system has gobbled up so much of the ride capacity the standby lines never move. This results in the long standby wait times which actually repel people from the line and keep it kind of short. The FP+ lines themselves don't hold people for long, so where you used to have a lot of the crowd physically tied up in the lines, they are now out in the park making it feel more crowded.

We used to have a great system with the old FP's...we'd have a runner to go get more FP's and mixed with a good touring plan we'd hit everything we wanted in a day, especially since the second tier rides still had reasonable waits.

Has anyone had success with a FP+ runner handling kiosk duties?

I believe a part (and maybe only small) of why they went to a stricter system could be because of how some guests did use the system in that way. I wouldn't see that as taking advantage of the system because there was never any rules against this however they are making it more "fair" at least in their minds for all guests. Give all guests 3 fastpasses in advance instead of guests who arrived too late in the day and didn't have a chance at getting them meanwhile those who arrived early and with runners were able to get 10 or more (when used very effectively). That being said I've heard many a complaint about the stand-by waiting being so long now after FastPass+ came around.