Apparently I dislike FP+...alot

[itchin2go]

I get in a car and drive 1200 miles each way with a 2 yr old and I want him to be able to ride SDMT too. Just having to get up early and drive 45 minutes sounds like heaven to me. Guess it's all a matter of one's perspective, isn't it?

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether the new system is fair ... or fairer than the old one.

I can only imagine how impossible legacy fp's would be to get as popular as this ride seems to be.

And yet, with legacy FP, each person going to WDW on any given day would have exactly the same chance at getting that FP as the next guy.

Popularity is just a distraction. The fact remains that if I book a 4 day trip at a Disney resort, I don't have the same chance at that FP for SDMT as another guest booking for 14 nights. And the 14 night guest doesn't have the same chance as the 20 night guest. And the offsite guest who links their tickets to MDE at 30 days doesn't have as good of a chance as the 4 night guy. And the one who plans their trip at 14 days out doesn't have as good of a chance as the 30 day offsite guy. How much clearer can this be?

Real life example: Even in its early days, I (whether I stayed offsite or onsite), I never had a bit of trouble pulling a FP for Toy Story. We had 3 trips since TSMM opened, and I pulled a FP for it every trip. Now, offsite guests trying to book at 30 days are having trouble booking FPs for Toy Story. I feel like that's pretty close to comparing apples to apples, and it's clear, there's no level playing field.

 

[Nancyg56]

I think what you're saying is that it's a more level playing field FOR YOU. That's not a level playing field at all! That means the playing field is tilted in your favor, and consequently, that the new system is not as good for *some* others. Just look at your first clause: "We are exclusively on site guests...". Right there, you're acknowledging that the playing field is NOT level for offsite guests. It's also not level for onsite guests who have a short stay, say 2 or 3 days. It's certainly NOT level for those who can't purchase advance tickets and/or link them to MDE. "It's more level for me" doesn't mean "level" at all!

You are right about length of stay. My last stay was 7 nights and I was able to get everything I wanted. I don't think a stay 1/2 that span would have been as easy. Offsite definitely are at a distinct disadvantage, and gaining FP for the day of will not allow for the headliners at convenient times during the peak seasons.

I agree that the system has plenty of room for improvement, but it is beneficial for a lot of people.

 

[Disneylover99]

And yet, with legacy FP, each person going to WDW on any given day would have exactly the same chance at getting that FP as the next guy.

Popularity is just a distraction. The fact remains that if I book a 4 day trip at a Disney resort, I don't have the same chance at that FP for SDMT as another guest booking for 14 nights. And the 14 night guest doesn't have the same chance as the 20 night guest. And the offsite guest who links their tickets to MDE at 30 days doesn't have as good of a chance as the 4 night guy. And the one who plans their trip at 14 days out doesn't have as good of a chance as the 30 day offsite guy. How much clearer can this be?

Real life example: Even in its early days, I (whether I stayed offsite or onsite), I never had a bit of trouble pulling a FP for Toy Story. We had 3 trips since TSMM opened, and I pulled a FP for it every trip. Now, offsite guests trying to book at 30 days are having trouble booking FPs for Toy Story. I feel like that's pretty close to comparing apples to apples, and it's clear, there's no level playing field.

Well said and perfectly clear to me.......fp+ is not a level playing field.

 

[practicallyperfect77]

Well said and perfectly clear to me.......fp+ is not a level playing field.

I agree. Not level. It benefits some not others. I have no problem admitting it is helpful in some scenarios but as Angel Ariel has pointed out numerous times, the fact that you can start day 2 of your vacation out with a clean slate is rather bothersome. Heck I had FPs for TT last Thur that were from 6:30-7:30 (thought we would stay in epcot all day, but then found out my bro in laws mom was coming in at 3 instead of 8:30. Tried for 4 days to move them up but couldn't. So we didn't ride TT. Luckily kiddos first trip and they don't know what they are missing. But I am positive that under FP-, arriving at the park by 8:50 am (we heard them open the park as we were going through bag check) I could have gotten a FP- that worked for us. Oh well. As others have said, the system does work for some but definitely doesn't for others.

 

[Suvadoo]

My brain is literally exploding at the idea the FP+ is more fair than FP- . Ok, not *literally* literally, but I may be getting a headache.

People who are staying offsite or who have APs can't get 7DMT, A&E, other meet n greets, fireworks, or parades (and sometimes ETWB and often TSMM, the holy grail and savior of FP+) FP+ AT ALL and this is more fair?

This is really starting get absurd. I just want to be able to get a FP+ for mine train so I don't have to make my husband sit with the baby for 60+ minutes while I wait in line, or wake up at 6 am so I can get the kids up and drive the 45 minutes to WDW for rope drop. But whatever. I'm sure the ride will still be there when my infant is weaned and new rides have been built to take some of the demand away. (New rides. Ha! See, at least I still have my sense of humor!)

It's truly amazing to read some of the logic behind these posts. Have you seen the posts that claim FP+ is so much easier to use than FP? You might want to tie a plastic bag on your head prior to reading, brains can be difficult to clean up!

 

[cakebaker]

Well said and perfectly clear to me.......fp+ is not a level playing field.

Before we all get too carried away and turn fiction into fact- if the "level playing filed" claim is being attributed to me- I never said it.

I said it's more level than legacy fp for me and I think for others as well. And I definitely stand by that.

The lean, what there is of it, leans to a different group than it used to and that's the source of all this anger and frustration. It's hard to lose what you used to have.

 

[itchin2go]

And exactly what I was referring to when I used the word savvy. There were more tricks to be used than that though. I was out of the loop on some of them, but it wasn' hard- IF you knew the tricks and were willing to use them.

With FP+, the field has leveled out- other than an extra 30 days to book for on site guests- which I used to think was huge and have since discovered it's not all that much of an advantage- there are no little hidden tricks or gimmicks. And I suspect it's the source of great frustration to many people- understandably so.

Before we all get too carried away and turn fiction into fact- if the "level playing filed" claim is being attributed to me- I never said it.

[bold added by me, for clarity]

 

[cakebaker]

Well said and perfectly clear to me.......fp+ is not a level playing field.

Went back and looked and I have never said it was completely level. My point has always been, that even with the things that make it favor some over others, I think it's more level than fp was in terms of allowing more people to be able to experience the attractions. I do think an edge is given to on site guests, and that's Disney's choice. The issue of should there be perks afforded to on site guests is a separate issue from the workability of fp+, but other than that, it has solved problems that were inherent to fp, making it a more level playing field.

The fact that 2 rides and 1 m&g are difficult to get- even at 60 days for some people- doesn't take away all the other things it does to allow more people access to the attractions.

 

[Angel Ariel]

And that would be why I think the new system is more fair and you don't.

Actually, it may be why you think the system is more fair/level, but my personal experience with legacy availability is *not* why I think FP+ is a less level playing field. My opinion on whether or not FP+ is a level playing field is completely separate from my thoughts/feelings on legacy, as I believe I specifically said earlier in this thread.

I was also pretty clear earlier in this thread that I wasn't saying that *either* system was more level than the other - that they were both *equally* unlevel, just that they each favor different demographics.

I don't believe a system is level or fair when many people are shut out of even the opportunity of obtaining a FP+ because all available inventory for an attraction is gone before they are even eligible to try for it.

My thoughts on that have nothing to do with touring style, or what can be done to mitigate that inevitability, or any other variable that a subjective guest introduces. My thoughts on that are strictly concerning the systems themselves, not how people would choose to use them.

It's not just more fair for me, it's more fair for people who travel during the busy season and people who park hop.

I'm not sure that *everyone* who travels during those times would necessarily agree with you.

 

[cakebaker]

I'm not sure that *everyone* who travels during those times would necessarily agree with you.

Probably not- I think that's a given.

 

[Disneylover99]

I said it's more level than legacy fp for me and I think for others as well. And I definitely stand by that.

noun: level playing field
Definition - a situation in which everyone has a fair and equal chance of succeeding.

You talk about how FP is a level playing field for you and some others.....but not everyone.

If you said FP+ was more "beneficial" for you and some others, then I completely understand.

 

[Suvadoo]

noun: level playing field
Definition - a situation in which everyone has a fair and equal chance of succeeding.

You talk about how FP is a level playing field for you and some others.....but not everyone.

If you said FP+ was more "beneficial" for you and some others, then I completely understand.

Exactly, FP+ is more beneficial for some and really crappy for others. I don't see anything that is fair about the system. Off site and local AP pass holders have a 30 day booking window. If everyone had the same booking window then it might be fairer. Maybe Disney should reduce everyone's booking window to 30 days.

 

[cakebaker]

noun: level playing field
Definition - a situation in which everyone has a fair and equal chance of succeeding.

You talk about how FP is a level playing field for you and some others.....but not everyone.

If you said FP+ was more "beneficial" for you and some others, then I completely understand.

It's really semantics at this point- my original point is that I think fp+ allows more people access to single rides on more attractions, where fp allowed multiple rides for fewer people. FP+ evens things out among more people in that regard-

So if I were going to further define it- I'd say it spread the wealth better- but as I said, this is surely a matter of semantics at this point.

 

[Suvadoo]

It's really semantics at this point- my original point is that I think fp+ allows more people access to single rides on more attractions, where fp allowed multiple rides for fewer people. FP+ evens things out among more people in that regard-

So if I were going to further define it- I'd say it spread the wealth better- but as I said, this is surely a matter of semantics at this point.

Actually, it's spread the wealth to the on-site guests who have booking priveledges 60 days out. Face it, you benefit with FP+, others don't. Not exactly fair , but very beneficial to you.

 

[cakebaker]

Actually, it's spread the wealth to the on-site guests who have booking priveledges 60 days out. Face it, you benefit with FP+, others don't. Not exactly fair , but very beneficial to you.

I avoid the use of the word "fair" and no, I wouldn't say "very" beneficial. It gets me 2 rides that are hard to get- sometimes-. And for that, I pay a pretty price. It's not free.

Perhaps they should sell 60 day access for those who stay off site- the difference per day between an off site condo and a 2 bedroom villa seems "fair" to me. 2 br villas can run 600 a day, with a discount. From what I've gathered on these boards, a 2 br condo with better amenities can run- say $150 a night.

7 night stay- $450 per day- there's your charge for a 60 day window. Just a guess of the actual costs, so let's just make it $300 per day for that window. Then we can talk "fair" and not "fair".

 

[mom2rtk]

I avoid the use of the word "fair" and no, I wouldn't say "very" beneficial. It gets me 2 rides that are hard to get- sometimes-. And for that, I pay a pretty price. It's not free.

Perhaps they should sell 60 day access for those who stay off site- the difference per day between an off site condo and a 2 bedroom villa seems "fair" to me. 2 br villas can run 600 a day, with a discount. From what I've gathered on these boards, a 2 br condo with better amenities can run- say $150 a night.

7 night stay- $450 per day- there's your charge for a 60 day window. Just a guess of the actual costs, so let's just make it $300 per day for that window. Then we can talk "fair" and not "fair".

The breakdown in this argument is that you think paying more for a room should entitle you to more in the parks.

Many don't agree with that.

 

[itchin2go]

It's really semantics at this point- my original point is that I think fp+ allows more people access to single rides on more attractions, where fp allowed multiple rides for fewer people. FP+ evens things out among more people in that regard-

So if I were going to further define it- I'd say it spread the wealth better- but as I said, this is surely a matter of semantics at this point.

The semantics are the ones you chose!

YOU are the one who mentioned a more level playing field. Some of us have been arguing that we don't agree with this, and then you announce that you never said it was a level playing field. When it's pointed out that you did, and the definition is pointed out to you, you say it's just semantics. They're YOUR semantics. If you don't think the playing field is more level, then don't pick those words.

 

[cakebaker]

The breakdown in this argument is that you think paying more for a room should entitle you to more in the parks.

Many don't agree with that.

It wasn't me who made that decision, although I do agree with it- Staying on site should get you more perks is an idea I wholeheartedly agree with. It's Disney's choice as to how they choose to market their product.

 

[Suvadoo]

It wasn't me who made that decision, although I do agree with it- Staying on site should get you more perks is an idea I wholeheartedly agree with. It's Disney's choice as to how they choose to market their product.

You're right that was Disney's choice, but you keep saying how FP+ has leveled the field or is somehow more equitable for most guests. But this is a total joke! You benefit, it's better for YOU. It's not better for the majority of park-goers since most of this population is staying off-site. Your Marie Antoinette approach to justifying the level playing field of FP+, doesn't work.

You don't want fairness from Disney, you want theme park priveledges since you are staying on-site. Disney Resort stay= more FP+ access.

 

[cakebaker]

... but you keep saying how FP+ has leveled the field or is somehow more equitable for most guests....

Never said most guests-

You benefit, it's better for YOU. It's not better for the majority of park-goers since most of this population is staying off-site.

I'm pretty sure that's one of the major reasons for the perks being given- to increase the percentage of on site guests- eventually it will help more park goers as they decide that staying on site is worth it. For now, it's much better for me and others- I have no way of knowing what percentage of people that is- but it's my opinion that many who were locked out before are now getting access. Those that got before, may be getting less access. It balances out.

Your Marie Antoinette approach to justifying the level playing field of FP+, doesn't work

.

I think that's a bit overboard on the description but nonetheless- it's Disney's approach, not mine. I just like their approach.

You don't want fairness from Disney, you want theme park priveledges since you are staying on-site. Disney Resort stay= more FP+ access.

I want the product they offer. If they change it and I no longer want it, I won't buy it. I won't stomp my feet and scream and demand they do what I want and claim they're going to hell in a hand basket because they aren't doing what I want.

I think you're missing the original point- when I said it made the playing field more level, I'm not talking about reserving fp+'s. I'm talking access in the parks. For those who don't do rope drop for whatever their reasons- and for those who park hop- access was limited due to a lot of things whether they were on site or off.

Now more people can walk into the park anytime of the day and still get to ride headliners without having to guess if there's a fp. I believe, even though there are 2 rides that are in short supply for some, more people are able to enter the parks late in the day and get fp+'s than were able to get them with fp. Because before, few people were able to do that.

Looking at the actual history of what rides ran out of fp's and when, confirms what I personally experienced.