Originally Posted By Shooba >>This is absolutely no different than the average busy day that has Splash at a 2 hour wait towards the end of the day. FP has no effect on this. It was a 2 hour line before FP, and it'll be a 2 hour slower moving line with FP.<< My impression (from reading about it) of fastpass is that it has made the stand-by lines longer. Is it true that stand-by lines today offer the same time spent in line, just with less people? If that is true, then someone arriving late in the day today would have the same opportunities they would have a decade ago. My only real experience with fastpass was in TDL, where stand-by lines were outrageous. The last time I was in Anaheim everything was a walk-on anyway.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Sure, that'd be the most "fair", just like it's been for years. But I wouldn't be happy with it that way, as obviously I'm very happy using FP to gain an advantage.<< And that's all I ask Dan. Some honesty for what the bigger picture consequences are. And as you said, it would be FAIRER. So, arguing that everybody has the option to show up early makes it fair, end of story, period, doesn't hit the mark because there are BETTER ways to do it if FAIRNESS is the criteria for the philosophy of what truly represents "good". I think FP should be removed for a number of reasons, fairness is way down the list and for the fairness aspect the solution is simple. Get rid of it. My other arguments on how it affects Disney's operations, how it affects financials of both Disney & the guest, how it compromises on what the Disney artists try to do with setting up the attractions like acts to a play, etc. are all much harder to find good solutions to. >>And yes, I know that for every FP used, someone else has to stand in a slower moving line (not LONGER, but slower).<< No, again, it's both. The line moves slower because it is held up and more often than not it occupies less queue space. It is also longer relatively for the numerous examples I have mentioned previously. It takes 400 people LONGER to cycle out of a queue when FP is operating than when it is not. >>I'm comfortable with taking advantage of this, as (wait for it - here comes the FAIR thing again!) the benefit that I'm using is openly available to all.<< And that's fine. No one is trying to be Jimminy Cricket and tell people they are wrong for using FP. Just not use their personal advantage as justification why it must be the BEST way for Disney to deal with it's overall guest population and attraction queues. I believe as a large group of us do (from the likes of Disney execs Greg Emmer to fans like Spirit), through the last seven years FP has shown that it is not the BEST way for Disney to do this. Those in Disney's marketing apparatus and those fans who, I guess, are only worried about their own visits seem to disagree. >>Under the old system, the only way I'd see the super popular rides like Splash was to do them first thing in the morning - no way I'm waiting in a 90 minute line. There were sometimes a couple of years between rides on a ride that I really do like. Now I have the option to FP and do it later, and not blow 90 minutes standing in line. I like the option, and I'm not willing to give it up.<< Of course you like the option. The thing is that it was never that black and white for Splash. There could be afternoons where the wait was minor in 1998. The weather could affect the wait time. Whatever. It was a trade-off choice for you to make and you made it. And this leads me into one of those points that I pointed out in my argument against FP that I feel are more important than the fairness question. That because you and others ride it more often now, that it's value to Disney has decreased. That it has depreciated more quickly. It is not as much of a draw as it was before. In essence, it's intangible value for Disney has taken a dive. Honestly, see where I am going with this? Why some at Disney and WDI are realizing that FP is killing these attraction's shelf-life. Hope that helps.
Originally Posted By kpwdwfan Sorry to get off the point here but does anyone else see the line problem as a case of supply and demand. In my opinion, the demand on Disney parks is high. Correct me if I'm wrong but WDW has over 20,000 hotel rooms, new DVC properties popping up all over and countless hotels off property which I believe have been putting an increased burden on the parks and lines. Yes, fast pass has added to the line problems but I beleive the lack of adding new attractions, ("E" ticket attractions) and the closing of attractions in some parks and not replacing them have also added to the problem. For example, MGM has lost Superstar Televison, the Hunchback set and now WWTBMM. Those three attractions could hold more than 1500 people at any one time. Now those people are forced into other areas of the park creating longer lines. I realize that this may be a rather simplistic way of looking at things but I beleive that this may be part of the line problem at the parks.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>This is absolutely no different than the average busy day that has Splash at a 2 hour wait towards the end of the day. FP has no effect on this. It was a 2 hour line before FP, and it'll be a 2 hour slower moving line with FP.<< I keep feeling compelled to address these kinds of points Dan. 1) Regardless, on whether something was an attraction that had to be visited before 10:00am in order to take advantage of a smaller than average queue, before FP it was first-come first-serve for all. I could use Test Track and argue the exact opposite. We will go nowhere other than to admit, which you already have, that first-come first-serve is the MOST fair way to deal with lines. 2) The same exact line w/FP takes longer and travels the queue slower than pre-FP.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Is it true that stand-by lines today offer the same time spent in line, just with less people? If that is true, then someone arriving late in the day today would have the same opportunities they would have a decade ago.<< No. It is not that exact. There are more attractions spread among the four parks then there was in 1999. Lines are seasonal and change hour-by-hour. But your close on with your point. It could be said as a hypothetical that a queue might have the same wait time as it did before FP with just less people in it. Well, this again shows that people have to make up for other's gain. They have to wait longer for what would have been a quicker line in the past. Whew, I hope that's clear.
Originally Posted By danyoung Whew - where to start? >The line moves slower because it is held up and more often than not it occupies less queue space.< True. But there are fewer people in that line. >It takes 400 people LONGER to cycle out of a queue when FP is operating than when it is not.< True. But if a pre-FP queue had 1500 people waiting an hour, a queue when FP is in use might have 500 people waiting an hour. They're still waiting an hour. Their wait has not increased. Not a minute's worth. >That because you and others ride it [Splash] more often now, that it's value to Disney has decreased. That it has depreciated more quickly. It is not as much of a draw as it was before. In essence, it's intangible value for Disney has taken a dive.< And I give that a big ol' HUH? If Splash used to put 2000 people through in an hour, and currently puts 2000 people through in an hour, where's the big diff caused by FP? All FP does is allow me, the frequent visitor who is willing to pass on an attraction if the line is too long, the ability to ride with little to no wait. While that works for me and others like me, I can't even begin to see why that diminishes the value of the attraction in any way. I've seen no numbers from Disney or elsewhere that indicate that FP has upped the daily number of riders on any given attraction. And if the number of riders are the same, then the wear and tear is exactly the same. No difference.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Sorry to get off the point here<< No worries, we all do! >>but does anyone else see the line problem as a case of supply and demand.<< NO! PLEASE NO! It can't be an issue of supply and demand because supply is fixed based on how operations chooses to staff the attraction and how many vehicles are "up". In the big picture, only demand fluctuates. >>In my opinion, the demand on Disney parks is high.<< High in comparison to what? It could be argued either way depending on what trendlines you are using. >>Correct me if I'm wrong but WDW has over 20,000 hotel rooms, new DVC properties popping up all over and countless hotels off property which I believe have been putting an increased burden on the parks and lines. Yes, fast pass has added to the line problems but I beleive the lack of adding new attractions, ("E" ticket attractions) and the closing of attractions in some parks and not replacing them have also added to the problem.<< Sure. >>For example, MGM has lost Superstar Televison, the Hunchback set and now WWTBMM. Those three attractions could hold more than 1500 people at any one time. Now those people are forced into other areas of the park creating longer lines. I realize that this may be a rather simplistic way of looking at things but I beleive that this may be part of the line problem at the parks.<< I too believe it does play a part in overall problems and trends.
Originally Posted By ChiMike <<>>The line moves slower because it is held up and more often than not it occupies less queue space.<< True. But there are fewer people in that line.>> Yes. But in practice, say for Indy or Roger more queue was taken out of use than the decrease of people. When Indy has the same old 60 minute wait and it's all held outside instead of the temple walkway on the way out of the berm, the pacing is going to be non-existant.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>True. But if a pre-FP queue had 1500 people waiting an hour, a queue when FP is in use might have 500 people waiting an hour. They're still waiting an hour. Their wait has not increased. Not a minute's worth.<< No. First, a 60 min wait is a 60 min wait. Second, As you said in the other thread peoples' thresholds come into play. You can't look at it the way you do because there are so many variables that come into play on how big a line is formed. How many people are in the park? Is it a weekend? For MK, is it a busy Monday morning? What's the weather? How booked are the hotels? Are we looking at October 2001? And on and on. You need to agree that lines develop because of multiple variables influencing the guests. If you replicate all of the variables that are in play on December 24, 1998 @ 7:00 PM and recreate them on December 24, 2000 @ 7:00 PM. Adjust for the years, yada yada, and keep the same line that was present in 1998, not more added, not less added, - Each person in that line must wait longer in 2000 w/FP. Simply, 400 people are waiting for Splash w/o FP in October 1997 and 400 people are waiting for Splash w/ FP on Easter Sunday 2005. -- To include your point -- Easter 2005 has the same people that an October in years past might have because FP. But both lines have 400 people. The Easter 2005 400 people will wait >>>>LONGER<<<<<< than the 400 people from October. It is unfair or at the very least bad show for the same amount of people to be waiting LONGER compared to relative historical standards for an attraction that has done nothing but age. Wouldn't it be easier to let first-come, first-serve play the central role in effecting these lines? A rhetorical question since most people don’t want to wait regardless of anything else, or until they can't access the same perks others might. Then admittedly they will change their tune, and I will be smiling and say "Welcome to the party" instead of saying "I told you so". I promise.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>And I give that a big ol' HUH? If Splash used to put 2000 people through in an hour, and currently puts 2000 people through in an hour, where's the big diff caused by FP? All FP does is allow me, the frequent visitor who is willing to pass on an attraction if the line is too long, the ability to ride with little to no wait. While that works for me and others like me, I can't even begin to see why that diminishes the value of the attraction in any way. I've seen no numbers from Disney or elsewhere that indicate that FP has upped the daily number of riders on any given attraction. And if the number of riders are the same, then the wear and tear is exactly the same. No difference.<< It's easy. Before FP, people were not able to visit as many attractions in a day as they can now. You will see that statement on gross dozens of Disney's PR statements, articles and collateral. Some people can keep getting FPs for Splash all day long so they never have to stand in a line for more than 5 or 7 minutes. Some others can get an entire park done quicker than they used to. This all decreases the shelf-life of these attractions. That's how it is viewed. As year and year goes by with FP, the same attraction that has been there for 15 years has less of a value placed on it by the guest. You, yourself, have already described this effect in the other thread with your threshold example. Attractions depreciate on an intangible scale just as they will on the balance sheet. FP has accelerated this depreciation because people have easier access to more and more trips on the attraction. Their own threshold has been lowered in what trade-off they are willing to make for those attractions. You see it everyday on various Disney fan boards. "Ohh, I used to wait for Indy for 65 mins., now I'll never wait 20 mins for it." FP isn't soley responsible for this. Of course not. But it has accelerated it. It is a common agrument made in some corners of Disney. Because of the culture, because of how people visit the parks, because of peoples' expectations, and because of FP, attractions cannot be designed as they used to be. That is why you see more thrills and less POTC adventures. Yes, absolutley the culture has changed, but also Disney has known that they have to build for high-repeatability value and thrills are the easiest way to deliver that. They don't want to spend 90 million and because people don't need to wait in line, attractions become old hat in 9 months. Why some champion the return of the subs because it's questionable shelf-life will be helped out some with no FP available. That's not the main reason FP is not going to be included, but it is a benefit. It will be on guests' lists farther out. That is a point that has been missing from this thread. While Disney might have always received grumbling from some about lines, lines = good for Disney. Disney does well when things have lines. Lines make people come back even though there might be threats here or there about "never again". And that is the FP crux I alluded to earlier about Disney being in a corner. 98% of guests in the 80's knew that going to Disney, especially during summer or holidays, meant LINES. It was a given and most people dealt with it and went about having a good time. However now, through their own short-sightedness, they have conditioned their guests to be VERY averse to lines. To have higher expectations that you and others have described. It's kind of like saying they are at a point of no return. Now some of their most loyal guests are coming in June and saying there is no other way to visit a Disney park W/O FP. Can't blame the guest for that attitude. And I have tried to make it clear that I don't. Blame past Disney decision makers. That is why Greg & Matt did a very good job in cutting down on FP. At Disneyland you should see that continue. Slowly and gradually. Slowly, slowly, slowly and watch the guests come around to slowly in kicking the FP habit, the expectation.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> unbelievably smug response... << Not at all. It just drives me nuts when people trot out the "But what about the children" argument all the time. I meant what I said. And nothing personal. Just at least acknowledge the someone else's argument has SOME merit, instead of always telling them that they're wrong. There's something right in everyone's point of view, even if you don't agree with their conclusions.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy And I haven't read all the responses yet. But I'm interested to see if you'll at least acknowledge that one line is better than 2, regardless of what other variables would have to be dealt with.
Originally Posted By danyoung >When Indy has the same old 60 minute wait and it's all held outside instead of the temple walkway on the way out of the berm, the pacing is going to be non-existant.< And this in my opinion is a crime. Keeping us out of great classicly designed queue elements just to accommodate FP or single riders or gay biker chicks just shouldn't be allowed.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Simply, 400 people are waiting for Splash w/o FP in October 1997 and 400 people are waiting for Splash w/ FP on Easter Sunday 2005.< No, no, no - this is where you're wrong. You don't have the same number ob people waiting in line in both situations. With FP you have 400 people in standby and maybe 1200 people coming in with FP tickets within that hour (I'm just making up numbers to make a point). But pre-FP, ALL OF THE PEOPLE were in the one line. It wasn't 400 people, it was 1,600 people. Now, if you did indeed have 400 people in line pre-FP, they'd get through in about 15 minutes. That by definition would be a very short line. With FP, those 400 people take an hour. I've said all along that the standby lines would be shorter, but would move much slower, which is not a good thing.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Before FP, people were not able to visit as many attractions in a day as they can now.< Very true. But I'll say it again - whether people go through in a 2-line FP/Standby system or a one line system, the same number of people are going through in a given day. I've seen no numbers to indicate otherwise. So there is no more wear & tear on an attraction, no greater depreciation because I, Dan, get to ride twice instead of just once. If you could show me that pre-FP that Splash had 30,000 riders a day and with FP it had 40,000 riders a day, that would be a valid point. I don't think that that is the case. >"Ohh, I used to wait for Indy for 65 mins., now I'll never wait 20 mins for it."< That doesn't mean that I used to value the ride 60 minutes worth and now only value it 20 minutes worth. It means that back then, with no choices available, if I wanted to ride I had to wait the 60 minutes. Didn't want to then, don't want to now, but I had no choice. Now I do have a choice. And if all the FP's are gone, and the standby line is 60 minutes, well yeah, I'm a bit spoiled by the current system, so I no longer want to wait 60 minutes. That doesn't mean that I want to ride any less than before - it means that if I time it right tomorrow I'll have more options to avoid that 60 minute wait. >That is why Greg & Matt did a very good job in cutting down on FP.< And I honestly have no problem with them doing this. But I don't think it was for the reasons you've outlined. I think it's simply a matter of FP being put on attractions that absolutely didn't need them. The system didn't serve to better balance the ride load - it only upset it. And with Pirates that was a case where a pre-FP line was a fast moving 20 minutes, while a FP standby line was a slow 30 or 40. Good decision to take it out.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>And this in my opinion is a crime. Keeping us out of great classicly designed queue elements just to accommodate FP or single riders or gay biker chicks just shouldn't be allowed.<< It is. It's one of many examples of how FP has brought down what some might consider the Disney quality. What's worse than people missing the queue design is making 60 mins. worth of people stand still in the sun.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>No, no, no - this is where you're wrong.<< What? I guess, like I said on the other thread, we might not be able to continue the discussion for no other reason that without being in-person one-on-one we aren't understanding each other's logic. >>You don't have the same number ob people waiting in line in both situations. With FP you have 400 people in standby and maybe 1200 people coming in with FP tickets within that hour (I'm just making up numbers to make a point). But pre-FP, ALL OF THE PEOPLE were in the one line. It wasn't 400 people, it was 1,600 people.<< I'll show the quote again that you said no, no, no to: "Simply, 400 people are waiting for Splash w/o FP in October 1997 and 400 people are waiting for Splash w/ FP on Easter Sunday 2005. -- To include your point -- Easter 2005 has the same people that an October in years past might have because FP. But both lines have 400 people. The Easter 2005 400 people will wait >>>>LONGER<<<<<< than the 400 people from October." It doesn't matter how you quantify it. How you structure the "virtual line". 400 of X WITH FASTPASS has a larger wait than 400 of X WITHOUT FASTPASS. This is why I brought up multiple variables, but I'm not sure if you saw what I was saying with that. 5000 FP tickets could have been given out, 200 FP tickets could have been given out. Capacity hasn't changed. Efficiency hasn't improved. Even if ONE (1) FP ticket is given out, on an apples to apples basis, FP makes standby wait times longer for the same amount of people in a queue. Now because of FP, are there less people in a queue on Sept. 18 2006 then there was on Sept. 18 1995? Sure. There are probably plenty of reasons why that is so. Animal Kingdom is a reason. Age of some of the attractions is a reason. And FP is certainly a reason. I understand that there are now 2 lines, one standby and one virtual. The higher point though is that standby times have not decreased. If anything they have increased. This is because of FP. People are still waiting in standby queues but they have to do so with less people waiting with them. Because there is priority given to another line other than standby, these people are waiting LONGER. I'm exhausted, I have to stand up for such a basic principle, but I have to tell you, there is no other way to pander to or justify this point. People are waiting the same amount of time as in years past with LESS people in the queue. People are waiting MORE than in years past with the same amount of people in the queue. What is going on in the virtual line is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because capacity HASN'T changed, because those people aren't waiting in the apples to apples standby. What's at heart, is that 1 for 1, 400 for 400, the wait is more. Again, a queue size of 100 people in the fall might be the standby line for people during a holiday for FP. They are both 100, but since FP is present the standby gets 100 only in holiday peak times rather than the fall. Ok. I get it. BUT, that 100 during peak time is subjected to a LONGER wait then the 100 in a pre-FP fall would have been. Whether there is 1 person using FP or 5000 FP. The wait is longer than NO FP. Will 5000 FP users make the standby longer, absolutely. But all it takes is (1) FP user to tip the scale to LONGER WAIT. >>Now, if you did indeed have 400 people in line pre-FP, they'd get through in about 15 minutes. That by definition would be a very short line. With FP, those 400 people take an hour. I've said all along that the standby lines would be shorter, but would move much slower, which is not a good thing.<< And here you are correct, but you keep implying that by their very nature the standby lines must be shorter in terms of bodies than in the past. And I'm saying that's not always the case. That depending on the season, the day of the week, the promotion, the standby waits can have just as many people (maybe not as many if FP wasn't around) as they did in the past. When that occurs those people are forced to wait longer for people who are not waiting in the line with them. Someone's gain is someone's loss. Standby waits are longer on a 1 for 1 basis. Whala.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Very true. But I'll say it again - whether people go through in a 2-line FP/Standby system or a one line system, the same number of people are going through in a given day. I've seen no numbers to indicate otherwise.<< That's simply not the case. It's not reality. An Easter 2004 can see more people in the MK than an Easter 1990. So it is not "there has been no increase in people riding attractions each day" You just can't look at it like that, I don't know what else to say. I've said a hundred times that Easter to Easter, the standby counts might have decreased thanks to FP, but the waits are still there BECAUSE of FP. It's self-defeating. Personal Threshold's are not constant. They change as the guest experiences more and more. If they were constant, then, imo, you would be correct. I'm trying to speak towards real dynamics that exsist in the parks today. People aren't willing to wait as long as they were in 1968 for POTC. Their threshold has decreased. So you can't say [whether it's FP/standby or 1 queue the lines are the same] because they are not. >>So there is no more wear & tear on an attraction, no greater depreciation because I, Dan, get to ride twice instead of just once.<< Your missing my point entirely. We're at a point now where we would have to speak live. I am not talking about GAAP standards and IRS rules on depreciation. I am talking towards appeal. I am talking towards popularity of attractions. Forget FP for right now; the more a guest experiences an attaction the less they are willing to give up whether it be time or money to go on that attraction x+1 times. Upon each, next incremental visit, the attraction becomes more familiar to the guest. The guest is willing to spend less time in line, less money to enter the park BECAUSE of that attraction, etc. etc. For popular attractions like POTC or ToT, they do not depreciate as fast in the guests' minds. Not Disney's balance sheet and income statement, but in terms of appeal & worth in the guests' minds. Being able to take more visits on one ride than when you could when the ride was only 5 years old or being able to get through the MK when in the 70s people booked 3 nights just to see the MK, make these activities, these properties depreciate faster in their appeal to the guest. >>If you could show me that pre-FP that Splash had 30,000 riders a day and with FP it had 40,000 riders a day, that would be a valid point. I don't think that that is the case.<< See above, but again it's not about these basic numbers or concepts. It's about how many more times is person A visiting Test Track on each trip down to Orlando. Test Track's ride count could maintain a constant level, it doesn't matter.
Originally Posted By ChiMike I know this might be a big leap considering I am arguing against a system that let all of us skip lines, but is there anybody else out there who agrees with me, understands what I am saying, and can explain it better?
