Would you pay for more fast passes?

[Chuck S]

I used FP+ on my trip earlier this month. It is a nice system...but really, crowds o this trip only required FP for the most popular rides, I was glad to have a FP+ for Soarin', Toy Story Mania, Kilimanjaro Safari and Space Mountain...but really most other rides, even the E-ticket rides, were almost a walk-on in the mornings. I really found myself with too many scheduled FP+. I was never a big planner, but did make FP+ arrangements for almost every day of my 8 night trip. I will not do so in the future. The longest wait time I had was about 30 minutes, and that was for lunch at BOG.

I would not pay for FP+ beyond the current system.

 

[tjkraz]

Where it starts to fail is when guests use FP multiple times in the same attraction, get in other lines while Fastpass is holding their position, etc. when they otherwise would have gone on the attraction only once. THIS is what makes the standby line overall longer.

This is really the key to understanding the entire FastPass system.

When guests are using FP as simply a way of avoiding standing in line, it works fine and doesn't add any volume to the system. Instead of walking through the queue, you could be shopping, dining or sitting on a park bench. But you're still just "IN" one line at a time.

However, when guests get a FP and then use Standby for another attraction, they're actually "waiting" in two lines simultaneously. That ADDS rider volume to the entire park system.

You really have to separate the two concepts of waiting in line vs. actually riding the attraction. FP does effectively serve as a means of avoiding (boring) wait time, but the attraction still needs to accommodate that guest.

And I think FP+ might actually change this for the better, due to the limits on usage (not saying the limits themselves are good, but in terms of the flow).

In theory, I agree with that. In addition to limiting the doubling-up, it eliminates the need to criss-cross the parks grabbing FP tickets and allows guests to choose their own return times. All added benefits.

The real challenge is trying to convince guests that they'll still be able to ride just as many attractions even if they are using Standby more than they have in the past.

 

[doconeill]

This is excellent logic, but I would like to add something-- maybe implied by this post, but maybe not... If the fp was eliminated, a person who enters the sb line, with the same total number of riders (fp plus sb), will move through the line faster than when the lines are separate due to the elimination of the preferred rider status given to the fp line.

With only stand by, the wait is determined by the number of people in front of you when you enter. With the fp-- at any given time the line may become inundated with a mass fp rush, bringing your progress to a virtual halt.

So in actuality, a 2 per second load could be anywhere from 2 per second in standby to almost zero. I have counted one to ten in some situations (sb to fp) That makes for a slow sb.

It's all an average, though. In the case of 50% FP issue, it averages to 1/second from the Standby line. At times it will be 2. At times it will be 0. But it averages out to 1 - it has to, to maintain the 2/second overall loading. Otherwise it is operating at less efficiency anyways, and thus all the averages run lower.

As I've always said (even back when they allowed late FPs and how that didn't really matter), the _perception_ of how the time passes is different when you are "stop and go" vs. moving constantly. A shorter line that takes 30 minutes from end to end with stop and go feels longer than a longer line that takes 30 minutes, but you keep moving the whole time.

 

[beer dave]

It's all an average, though. In the case of 50% FP issue, it averages to 1/second from the Standby line. At times it will be 2. At times it will be 0. But it averages out to 1 - it has to, to maintain the 2/second overall loading. Otherwise it is operating at less efficiency anyways, and thus all the averages run lower.

As I've always said (even back when they allowed late FPs and how that didn't really matter), the _perception_ of how the time passes is different when you are "stop and go" vs. moving constantly. A shorter line that takes 30 minutes from end to end with stop and go feels longer than a longer line that takes 30 minutes, but you keep moving the whole time.

so this is assuming that in any given hour, 50% of the rides capacity is issued to fp? that makes sense, that in an hour sb would load 1 per second, on the average. Then by this logic, if fp was eliminated, all lines would move twice as fast. I think I may be becoming a fan of eliminating fp all together.

 

[The Lorax]

Seems to be a lot of chatter that the purpose of the new FP+ is to find a way to monetize fast passes. So let's say you get three free in advance but have to pay for more than that. Universal you pay up to $90 per day for unlimited FP on top of your entry. Would you pay and if so what would be your price?

Voted No, we spend enough to get through the gates, plus food, plus gifts, etc.

 

[doconeill]

so this is assuming that in any given hour, 50% of the rides capacity is issued to fp? that makes sense, that in an hour sb would load 1 per second, on the average. Then by this logic, if fp was eliminated, all lines would move twice as fast. I think I may be becoming a fan of eliminating fp all together.

Not exactly. The attraction still has the same capacity. The line cannot move faster than the capacity allows, Fastpass or not.

If you eliminate Fastpass, then that capacity is fully dedicated to the single formerly standby line, and it moves faster...but it is also longer because the people who had Fastpass before need to be in the standby line to ride as well. Again, in the simplified case - you can be in the standby line OR have a Fastpass, not both at the same time - the standby line would take exactly the same amount of time to get through to the load point whether there was Fastpass or not, on average. Because the capacity of the attraction hasn't changed.

 

[doconeill]

Voted No, we spend enough to get through the gates, plus food, plus gifts, etc.

I think that's the biggest argument against it. I've already paid a lot for the ticket (and transportation, and where I'm staying, etc.) - why should I pay EVEN MORE just to "enjoy" the park I've already paid for?

 

[Mike Mouse]

I think that's the biggest argument against it. I've already paid a lot for the ticket (and transportation, and where I'm staying, etc.) - why should I pay EVEN MORE just to "enjoy" the park I've already paid for?

Totally agree. Disney isn't the cheapest vacation destination and if they decide to do that, then they need to drop their admission ticket prices or ill be going less and waiting in a lot more long lines

 

[tjkraz]

so this is assuming that in any given hour, 50% of the rides capacity is issued to fp? that makes sense, that in an hour sb would load 1 per second, on the average. Then by this logic, if fp was eliminated, all lines would move twice as fast. I think I may be becoming a fan of eliminating fp all together.

Disney doesn't disclose such information but I've been lead to believe FastPass rider percents can exceed 80% on the busiest days. Really, Disney can hand out as many FPs as the attraction will allow. Standby times will balloon accordingly and guests can decide whether they wish to wait in those lines or not.

Not exactly. The attraction still has the same capacity. The line cannot move faster than the capacity allows, Fastpass or not.

If you eliminate Fastpass, then that capacity is fully dedicated to the single formerly standby line, and it moves faster...but it is also longer because the people who had Fastpass before need to be in the standby line to ride as well.

Standby lines being longer without FP isn't necessarily true.

Consider a park with just two attractions: Buzz and Space Mountain for simplicity sake. Under the current system, I get a FP for Buzz and wait Standby for SM. That grants me almost immediate access to Buzz but my standby wait for SM is considerable because all of the people with FastPasses for SM are essentially bypassing me in line.

Now eliminate FP. What happens? Every guest in the park can choose to only be in ONE of the TWO attraction queues at a time. In my case, perhaps I still choose Space Mountain first. But my wait time is much shorter because there are no FP holders to get ahead of me in line.

In both examples, the standby lines are about the same length because guests can only be in one at a time. With FP, you're waiting a long time for one attraction and a short time for the other. Without FP, wait time is pretty much evenly balanced between the two.

It would take a computer model to really understand the impact of FastPass on an entire theme park. But my understanding suggests that the primary benefits of FP are:

1) Psychological. Instead of waiting in a long Standby queue, I'm free to browse the park, it shops or eat a meal.
2) Economic...for Disney. Same as above, instead of having me trapped in a queue where I can't do anything but look at the guy in front of me, I'm free to spend money elsewhere in the parks.

Depending on how efficiently some guests use FP, there could be some time savings along the way. However, without FP all of the standby waits would be much shorter and guests would avoid the current need to run around grabbing FP tickets & structure their day around those uncertain return times.

 

[TDC Nala]

I think that's the biggest argument against it. I've already paid a lot for the ticket (and transportation, and where I'm staying, etc.) - why should I pay EVEN MORE just to "enjoy" the park I've already paid for?

Universal already does this - if you don't stay at one of their 3 resorts (the new one coming up won't have the same perk as the original 3) or pay for the privilege of the express pass, you're in the standby lines, every time.

 

[doconeill]

Standby lines being longer without FP isn't necessarily true.

Consider a park with just two attractions: Buzz and Space Mountain for simplicity sake. Under the current system, I get a FP for Buzz and wait Standby for SM. That grants me almost immediate access to Buzz but my standby wait for SM is considerable because all of the people with FastPasses for SM are essentially bypassing me in line.

Now eliminate FP. What happens? Every guest in the park can choose to only be in ONE of the TWO attraction queues at a time. In my case, perhaps I still choose Space Mountain first. But my wait time is much shorter because there are no FP holders to get ahead of me in line.

In both examples, the standby lines are about the same length because guests can only be in one at a time. With FP, you're waiting a long time for one attraction and a short time for the other. Without FP, wait time is pretty much evenly balanced between the two.

It would take a computer model to really understand the impact of FastPass on an entire theme park. But my understanding suggests that the primary benefits of FP are:

1) Psychological. Instead of waiting in a long Standby queue, I'm free to browse the park, it shops or eat a meal.
2) Economic...for Disney. Same as above, instead of having me trapped in a queue where I can't do anything but look at the guy in front of me, I'm free to spend money elsewhere in the parks.

Depending on how efficiently some guests use FP, there could be some time savings along the way. However, without FP all of the standby waits would be much shorter and guests would avoid the current need to run around grabbing FP tickets & structure their day around those uncertain return times.

That's why I restricted my example to just one attraction. I can't predict how many people will get in another line, or go shopping instead. But it is to basically illustrate the line dynamics in general.

I believe the lines will still end up longer...not as long as the simple example, but longer than currently. But also, as I said, it will move faster.

I still remember 2.5 hours for Splash, pre-Fastpass.

Universal already does this - if you don't stay at one of their 3 resorts (the new one coming up won't have the same perk as the original 3) or pay for the privilege of the express pass, you're in the standby lines, every time.

Yes, but Disney doesn't. The impact at Universal is minimal in my experience. They don't have as many guests, and have more attractions per park that could be considered "E-tickets" to spread them out.

If Disney were to do it, it would definitively impact the guests who can't pay for it, and I might as well go to Universal more.

 

[tjkraz]

I still remember 2.5 hours for Splash, pre-Fastpass.

This (or a variation) seems to be the most frequently used argument against FP elimination. But it's also nearly impossible to quantify in any meaningful way.

A lot has changed over the last 15 years. Popularity of certain attractions ebbs and flows over time. Crowd levels vary greatly from one date to the next. Ride control systems have advanced, allowing for more vehicles on the track and faster load times. Vehicles themselves have been modified to allow for greater rider capacity.

At Disneyland I can immediately think of two rides replicated at WDW which do not have FastPass: Buzz Lightyear and Toy Story Mania. For Buzz, the queue often extends well outside the ride building itself yet the wait time rarely exceeds 15 minutes. TSM waits typically hover around 40 minutes. Even during the summer months.

I don't want to discount the psychological and practical advantages of FastPass. There are many things preferable to waiting in long lines, particularly during periods of peak attendance. But it's pretty obvious that the shorter waits experienced when using FP are offset by longer waits on both non-FP attractions and in Standby queues for those which do support FP.

 

[doconeill]

At Disneyland I can immediately think of two rides replicated at WDW which do not have FastPass: Buzz Lightyear and Toy Story Mania. For Buzz, the queue often extends well outside the ride building itself yet the wait time rarely exceeds 15 minutes. TSM waits typically hover around 40 minutes. Even during the summer months.

Similarly, a frequent argument for the difference that DL has a very different audience with a higher percentage of locals who aren't trying to maximize their attraction times due to limited length stays, etc.

But I'd also argue that of any attraction, TSM is hurt the most by Fastpass. It has a very low capacity compared to its popularity, and even the Fastpass queue doesn't bypass as much of the queue as it would at other attractions.

 

[tjkraz]

Similarly, a frequent argument for the difference that DL has a very different audience with a higher percentage of locals who aren't trying to maximize their attraction times due to limited length stays, etc.

But I'd also argue that of any attraction, TSM is hurt the most by Fastpass. It has a very low capacity compared to its popularity, and even the Fastpass queue doesn't bypass as much of the queue as it would at other attractions.

Certainly there are many subtle differences between WDW and DL. But in terms of the attractions that DO have FastPass at both, similar trends are evident.

At rides like Space Mountain, Splash, BTMR, Indiana Jones, etc., guest usage is pretty much the same as WDW. You'll get FP return times which are anywhere from 1 hr to 4+ hours later, depending upon crowd levels. And standby waits are often 30, 60, 90+ minutes depending upon the attraction and season.

 

[StarWarsJez]

IMO Disney needs to start investing in some great new rides before even thinking about putting prices up.

Seriously, how many years has it been since we last got a new E ticket ride at WDW?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

IMO Disney needs to start investing in some great new rides before even thinking about putting prices up.

Seriously, how many years has it been since we last got a new E ticket ride at WDW?

2005...and it doesn't even work

 

[amberpi]

I'd definitely pay up to $90 more a day or pay for a Deluze room not unlike what Universal has. In fact, when we do a couple of days at Universal, we will switch hotels (at the first bit of vacation usually), we will stay on Universal property just for the perks. Stayed at Portofino many, many times and just tried the Royal Pacific. Looking for another stay at the Portofino in a few months I think to stretch out a work conference!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I'd definitely pay up to $90 more a day or pay for a Deluze room not unlike what Universal has. In fact, when we do a couple of days at Universal, we will switch hotels (at the first bit of vacation usually), we will stay on Universal property just for the perks. Stayed at Portofino many, many times and just tried the Royal Pacific. Looking for another stay at the Portofino in a few months I think to stretch out a work conference!

They were hoping you'd say that...

 

[amberpi]

They were hoping you'd say that...

First off, sorry for any typos. I'm the worst as my post above suggests.

Its a money vs. time issue as are most in life, right?

I love WDW and could easily spend a week a few times a year there. My husband is a 3-4 days tops for both WDW (we do go a few times a year, its only and hour flight for us) and Vegas and we additionally do lots of other travel so days away from the office are at a premium. For us, having the option to pay more to have a better/easier trip is a no brainer due to time constraints. If I could pay more (especially at MK) to get through all the rides (we don't really do the shows anymore, we've seen them, they aren't re-dos for us) we enjoy and still have some pool time and time to enjoy Epcot in the evening; that would significantly improve our experience for the time we are spending. I'm honestly surprised WDW hasn't implemented this already as its a known desire from some patrons for years. Would everyone need/want this option? Of course not. But there is definitely a subset of vacationeers who would enjoy it. When WDW's competitors are monetizing it, why shouldn't WDW?

IDK, just my thoughts and how I would react to it being implemented. I know some don't feel like its quite egalitarian enough, but WDW was built to build profits, ya know?

 

[mom2aandj]

I think that's the biggest argument against it. I've already paid a lot for the ticket (and transportation, and where I'm staying, etc.) - why should I pay EVEN MORE just to "enjoy" the park I've already paid for?

I hear that, but feel the opposite. We go a lot over spring break, an expensive air fare time. So for my family of four to even fly down to WDW, we have already spent approx. $3000. We like to rent DVC points, so again, we've already sunk a lot of $$ into our trip. If I could spend what is comparatively a little more $$$ and get that much of a better experience, I would. I have been considering the VIP tour where the guide takes you through every FP line/back doors just so I can stop worrying about how FP+ will work for us this March. Not keen to have a stranger accompanying our group all day though honestly. If I could just have the unlimited FP without the guide I would have already signed up!