Fast Pass Upgraded?

csaribay said:

Oh man... I've been lurking for a long while on these forums, but I just can't read anymore of this before I have my say here.

......

They both had equal opportunity here. They had the option of choosing their accommodations (and associated features with such), whereby the value customer could save up their pennies until the day they could afford a stay at deluxe resort. However, this value customer sees frequent visits over premium visits to be a greater value, and chooses to take the value resort path. There is nothing wrong with this, and they will get their FastPasses (two simultaneously) while the deluxe resort guest gets theirs (five simultaneously). The outcome is not equal, but this doesn't make it unfair in any one way shape or form.

I think that it's much easier to look narrowly at the issue than considering everything and looking at the much larger picture. Sure, there are a good number of logistic type rules that would likely be implemented (one fast pass per named E-Ticket, per three hours, for example), but if we're only looking at FastPass numbers, we're not going to learn everything we could. This is vital.

I don't think you have a high understanding of economics, but this is how things work in reality. The more you pay, the better you can expect your experiences to be in the long run. Class distinction is not a bad thing, especially in a free world where people can jump classes as often as they provide for themselves.

Click to expand...

Excellent post!!! :wave:

I have a 3 inch stack tall of fastpasses by the TV :lookaround

PhotoDave219 said:

I have a 3 inch stack tall of fastpasses by the TV :lookaround

Click to expand...

you saved them up good for you i have no problem with that...


wait arent they dated anyway?

PhotoDave219 said:

I have a 3 inch stack tall of fastpasses by the TV :lookaround

Click to expand...

Most impressive... mine is only 1/4 of an inch

PagingTomMorrow said:

true thats a bigger picture but its not the WHOLE picture

ok i skimmed through that and what i got is basically "MAGIC!!!so long as its cost efficient"

...

maybe its the ramblings of the son of a hippy, maybe its just idealistic youth, but for the sake of my own sanity and well-being i have to believe that humanity isnt that materialistic

Click to expand...

Alright so, first you're "too lazy to read" the whole entire passage, and now you skim it. Not only managing not to see the point easily presented to you, but also to take it to a personal level. It's fine to disagree, but incomprehensible to take it to a personal level. I somehow knew this is how you would react.

Let's make this clear. Yes, many factors go into determining someone's position in money and social class. Let me tell you something- I'm not the product of a privileged upbringing, where I can just ask mommy and daddy dearest for anything my heart whines for. My social class is middle America, average in pretty much every way. I'll get what I need, a little of what I want, and be happy for it.

I'll also make this much clear: I am a high school student. I'm not afraid to admit that much, nor am I afraid to admit that I have put myself in the position to make a relatively great sum of money for someone my age in the course of one year (making as much as the total income of one of parents). Sure, that's extremely idealistic, but that's also the reality I live in. If I were to dedicate more time to work than I do school, than I would make more than the sum of my parent's collective income year over year. I'm a firm believer that anyone can raise social classes and make life better for themselves if they try: I did, without any obligatory pressure to actually do such (I work because I enjoy doing so).

If you take this as materialistic, then you need a reality check. Money is truly not everything, but in a capitalist society where some pleasures in life are dependent on where you are situated in your own life, having money to pay a premium price to have a premium experience is not wrong.

I'll say that again. It's not wrong. It's not materialistic.

I also refuse to take this to a personal level. If you have to do such to make an argument sway your way, you don't have much an argument at all.

csaribay said:

Alright so, first you're "too lazy to read" the whole entire passage, and now you skim it. Not only managing not to see the point easily presented to you, but also to take it to a personal level. It's fine to disagree, but incomprehensible to take it to a personal level. I somehow knew this is how you would react.

Let's make this clear. Yes, many factors go into determining someone's position in money and social class. Let me tell you something- I'm not the product of a privileged upbringing, where I can just ask mommy and daddy dearest for anything my heart whines for. My social class is middle America, average in pretty much every way. I'll get what I need, a little of what I want, and be happy for it.

I'll also make this much clear: I am a high school student. I'm not afraid to admit that much, nor am I afraid to admit that I have put myself in the position to make a relatively great sum of money for someone my age in the course of one year (making as much as the total income of one of parents). Sure, that's extremely idealistic, but that's also the reality I live in. If I were to dedicate more time to work than I do school, than I would make more than the sum of my parent's collective income year over year. I'm a firm believer that anyone can raise social classes and make life better for themselves if they try: I did, without any obligatory pressure to actually do such (I work because I enjoy doing so).

If you take this as materialistic, then you need a reality check. Money is not everything (not even half, really), but in a capitalist society where some pleasures in life are dependent on where you are situated in your own life, having money to pay a premium price to have a premium experience is not wrong.

I'll say that again. It's not wrong. It's not materialistic.

I also refuse to take this to a personal level. If you have to do such to make an argument sway your way, you don't have much an argument at all.

Click to expand...

and it still manages not to be fair. and i am a firm subscriber to the idea that everyone deserves to have what the richest people can afford... if only once

TAC said:

Maybe that city kid is actually gratful that he had the opportunity to go to Walt Disney World at all. As opposed to the spoiled rotten snotty brat rich kid that whines about everything and being taken away from his Sony Playstation, because his parents take him to WDW for the upteenth time.

Since you think it's so "sickening," why don't you become part of the solution? Why don't you pay for an "inner-city" kid to experience WDW?

Since you are "in calculus," maybe you should trade places with that "inner-city" kid because he can't have the experience to go to a school that offers more than "applied math."

Click to expand...

one step ahead of you... while i cant do that i do plan on doing the peace corps once im out of college. while its not gonna make a huge difference im gonna do what i can

Guys, lets keep this civil, or the thread will be closed. thanks.

wdwmagic said:

Guys, lets keep this civil, or the thread will be closed. thanks.

Click to expand...

appologies

PagingTomMorrow said:

and it still manages not to be fair. and i am a firm subscriber to the idea that everyone deserves to have what the richest people can afford... if only once

Click to expand...

That's funny... I remember attempts at a utopian society in the early 1900's that suscribed to this philosiphy that failed poorly.

wannab@dis said:

Why is it not fair? Stay on property, get some perks... stay in a higher level resort and get even more perks. Nothing unfair about it.

That said, I would assume this is still a rumor and it was based solely on a pending* patent.

Edit: Fairly sure it was pending, but not positive.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be fair because some people don't have to stay on property, why should a local with a Annual Pass be any different than someone staying at a Deluxe resort. So for them to be able to use the 'major' perks of a Deluxe fastpass then they would have to get a room on property while they only live 5 minutes from Disney to begin with...

TAC said:

So if it's not going to make a huge difference, why do it? You complain about Disney being unfair, yet the only thing you are going to do is join the peace corps ? Which, by your own admission isn't going to make much of a difference.

Click to expand...

and what are you doing to help out mother theresa?

PagingTomMorrow said:

and what are you doing to help out mother theresa?

Click to expand...

Mother Teresa is dead... not much he CAN do to help her out.

Robfasto said:

It wouldn't be fair because some people don't have to stay on property, why should a local with a Annual Pass be any different than someone staying at a Deluxe resort. So for them to be able to use the 'major' perks of a Deluxe fastpass then they would have to get a room on property while they only live 5 minutes from Disney to begin with...

Click to expand...

What about EMH? This is perk for resort guests only isn't it?

One might also argue that by living in such close proximately to WDW you would have so many more options in when and how much you could go to the parks that a fast pass wouldn't be so important to you.

Lauriebar said:

What about EMH? This is perk for resort guests only isn't it?

One might also argue that by living in such close proximately to WDW you would have so many more options in when and how much you could go to the parks that a fast pass wouldn't be so important to you.

Click to expand...

Uh oh.... If I recall correctly..... there was a looooong thread started not too long ago about this. It wasnt too pretty... :lookaroun

LilDucky said:

Uh oh.... If I recall correctly..... there was a looooong thread started not too long ago about this. It wasnt too pretty... :lookaroun

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember that thread!!:wave:

Not trying to stir it up, just responding to Rob's comment. I realize that we are beating a dead horse here. I guess I'll let sleeping dogs lie. No more monkeying around. Two birds in the hand... :lol:

Lauriebar said:

Not trying to stir it up, just responding to Rob's comment. I realize that we are beating a dead horse here. I guess I'll let sleeping dogs lie. No more monkeying around. Two birds in the hand... :lol:

Click to expand...

Oh I knew you werent!! :wave:

I immediately thought of that other thread when I first read this one too :wave:

It seems to me its in Disney's best interest to keep the fast pass guidlines as simple and easy to understand as possible. There already is a sense of mystery and confusion among newbies and foreigners.

While we don't know how a system of this type would be set up, I think there are some fairly basic issues with it that need to be overcome.

First of all, even though the number of fastpasses a non-deluxe resort guest could obtain wouldn't have changed, there would be an overall decrease in the number of fastpasses available to them. Fastpasses are a finite resource. If deluxe-guests could get multiple/unlimited fastpasses, they'd exhaust the supply faster than they do in the current situation. This would therefore decrease the number available to non-deluxe resort guests. Unless I'm missing something, the only way to remedy this would be to increase the overall number of fastpasses available, thus creating huge standby lines.

Next, I can anticipate a guest-relations nightmare when dealing with returning guests. If a guest who had used fastpass under the current system were to visit the parks under this theoretical system, he or she might be annoyed that what was previously a completely free system is now a system affected how much a guest has payed. "If it was free before, why should I have to pay for it now?" True, the arguments of "you get what you pay for" and "Well, the number of fastpasses you can obtain hasn't changed" could be used, but try using this sort of logic on an angry guest. It isn't pretty.

Finally, (and this one might not make a whole lot of sense...but here goes) there's the issue of classism among resort guests. When a guest pays to stay in a Disney resort, they are really paying for two seperate sets of benefits: the benefits of being a Disney resort guest, and the benefits of being a guest at a particular Disney resort. The Disney resort guest benefits generally apply only to things outside of the bounds of their particular resort (EMH, transportation system, etc.). These benefits are the same regardless of which resort the guest is staying at. Then, there are the resort-specific benefits (better pools, more restaraunts, etc.) that generally apply only to things inside that specific resort. These resort-specific benefits do not positively or negatively affect the experience of guests staying at other resorts. A tiered fastpass system would be a resort-specific benefit that would theoretically have a negative effect on the experience of guests at other resorts. This would be yet another guest relations nightmare. (Hope that was relatively clear...)

Sorry if I've been a little long winded on this, and I do believe that those defending the possibility of this type of system have made some good points ("Disney can do what they want," for example), however, I really do think that this would create more problems than benefits.

I am calling for a violation of a modified Godwin's Law invalidating that portion of the arguement dealing with slavery.

So as not be accused of thread drift, both points seem to have validity. However, one makes logical sense (i.e. it is an extra perk that you can choose or not choose to pay for) and one makes emotional sense (i.e. "That's not fair"). If this system is implemented both reactions will be present in the parks, just as they are present here.

However, it seems that Disney is savy enough to market this correctly to ease frictions, based on past marketing, of which I can't think of any examples at the moment.