FastPass+ Most Certainly Not Coming Back As It Was

Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
The only ones that didn't are Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and Spaceship Earth (according to the article, at least). They also all saw an increase (albeit a small one) in wait times, although since two of the three are omnimovers it shouldn't have affected them too much.

It's not that it's a bad study (it isn't), it's that it's not especially applicable to a discussion of standby only lines, especially considering 7 years have passed and I imagine far more people have realized they can load up on FP+ all day instead of only using the 3 you can book in advance.
I called on him once today already, but perhaps @lentesta has an updated version to share, or can comment further on the matter.
 
Last edited:

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I called on him once already, but perhaps @lentesta has an updated version to share, or can comment further on the matter.

The other issue I see with the numbers is that they were only using holidays for the comparison, thus it was when the parks were at their busiest and wait times are already much higher across the board for all attractions. It's less likely to have an effect on very busy days since many waits are already more or less maxed out (as discussed above). While the biggest attractions tend to have relatively consistent waits on any given day, the smaller attractions usually have correspondingly smaller waits as attendance decreases. It's too bad they didn't also run the data against normal days and some of the "slow" days to see if that led to larger fluctuations.

I find this stuff interesting; I love statistics.
 
Last edited:

flynnibus

Premium Member
The other issue I see with the numbers is that they were only using holidays for the comparison, thus it was when the parks were at their busiest and wait times are already much higher across the board for all attractions. It's less likely to have an effect on very busy days since many waits are already more or less maxed out (as discussed above). While the biggest attractions tend to have relatively consistent waits on any given day, the smaller attractions usually have correspondingly smaller waits as attendance decreases. It's too bad they didn't also run the data against normal days and some of the "slow" days to see if that led to larger fluctuations.

I find this stuff interesting; I love statistics.

its really the other way. You want to look at days where there is saturation so the alt queues are used the most. Wait tolerance is highest on peak days too (because there is little alternative). Basically the system is stressed the most.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
its really the other way. You want to look at days where there is saturation so the alt queues are used the most. Wait tolerance is highest on peak days too (because there is little alternative). Basically the system is stressed the most.

But when the wait times are already essentially maxed out, there's little room for fluctuation. If people are generally only willing to wait 50 minutes for Winnie the Pooh (it's of course more complicated than that and dependent on various factors, but for simplicity's sake), the wait time is going to be around that number on the busiest days regardless of whether FP is in use so you're not really getting useful data about how the system affects things. You see that with some of the headline attractions that have roughly the same wait times on any given day regardless of how busy the park is overall.

I see what you're saying though -- that you may not get useful data the other way either. If a ride like Winnie the Pooh has low wait times, there's no incentive for people to use the FP system at all.

Regardless, without being able to compare it to a day with commensurate crowd levels and standby queues only with no FP at all, it doesn't tell you much.
 
Last edited:

lentesta

Premium Member
I called on him once today already, but perhaps @lentesta has an updated version to share, or can comment further on the matter.

We're all booked at the moment, so doing an update isn't something we can get to. We make our wait-time data available for free here, if anyone wants to give it a shot.

My guess was that other external factors also affected wait times. For example, I think MDE listing DINOSAUR near the top of its (alphabetized) attractions list affected its wait times. It reminded people that ride existed and drove more guests to use FP on it, than if they'd had to hike back to a remote corner of the park (twice). And that drove up standby times.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Obvious statement from someone who has been at WDW three times since COVID hit: there has been reduced capacity at MK (clearly) in which we were only able to do MK one of our 5d this recent trip and there was no FP. For most of the day in our two recent trips October and June, HM has had the same lines (30-50min) as when we visited the previous summer during FP. I suppose you can say that it doesn’t need FP, but it’s not much better without it (in our experience)
Was your June trip after they brought the ride back to full capacity? I'm pretty sure they were skipping every other Doombuggie previously.
 

CastAStone

Assistant to Bob Chapek
I will never get past people arguing over how math works. I’ve demonstrated a simple proof in these threads about fast pass and wait times, it’s not something you can argue about, it’s just how math works.

but y’all would rather argue, so carry-on.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I will never get past people arguing over how math works. I’ve demonstrated a simple proof in these threads about fast pass and wait times, it’s not something you can argue about, it’s just how math works.

but y’all would rather argue, so carry-on.
I haven't seen your math specifically, but it's actually a fairly complicated meth problem that relies on a lot of queuing theory. It's very easy to change one assumption or one variable and skew the results to the outcome that you want. I've seen many different attempts to use math to illustrate a point about FastPass over the years on this board, including from myself, that of all produce different outcomes. I'm not saying your math is wrong necessarily, as I said I haven't seen it, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. Yes, it is math, but if you don't have the right equation in your result will be skewed.
 

CastAStone

Assistant to Bob Chapek
I haven't seen your math specifically, but it's actually a fairly complicated meth problem that relies on a lot of queuing theory. It's very easy to change one assumption or one variable and skew the results to the outcome that you want. I've seen many different attempts to use math to illustrate a point about FastPass over the years on this board, including from myself, that of all produce different outcomes. I'm not saying your math is wrong necessarily, as I said I haven't seen it, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. Yes, it is math, but if you don't have the right equation in your result will be skewed.
Yes, one would have to be really good at math to do it right. 😜
 

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
Without FP the stand by line is continously moving. The wait time seems shorter then it is. Particularly true if the queue has some themeing.
But it's still less time than it would be if you were on the FP line. Fast moving 60 minutes takes every bit as much time as a slow moving 60 minutes.

They can't make all lines like Wizarding World of Harry Potter where the lines for rides are as much of an attraction as the line itself.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
But it's still less time than it would be if you were on the FP line. Fast moving 60 minutes takes every bit as much time as a slow moving 60 minutes.

They can't make all lines like Wizarding World of Harry Potter where the lines for rides are as much of an attraction as the line itself.
A continuously moving 60 minute line feels faster than a barely moving 60 minute line. You're not staring at the same spot for several minutes at a time.

Same thing if there is stop and go traffic on the highway and you get off and take an alternate route. It might take the same time or even longer but will feel shorter because you are constantly moving.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I see what you're saying though -- that you may not get useful data the other way either. If a ride like Winnie the Pooh has low wait times, there's no incentive for people to use the FP system at all.

Quoting my own post only because I had another thought about this point.

Since FP+ requires guests to book 30 or 60 days in advance, many rides like the aforementioned Winnie the Pooh were getting a bunch of FP+ bookings even on non-busy days, simply because guests wanted to have 3 booked. If the bigger attractions didn't have any available when they were looking, they were going to get something.

That has to have affected some of the wait times on less busy days, although I have no idea how much.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
We're all booked at the moment, so doing an update isn't something we can get to. We make our wait-time data available for free here, if anyone wants to give it a shot.

My guess was that other external factors also affected wait times. For example, I think MDE listing DINOSAUR near the top of its (alphabetized) attractions list affected its wait times. It reminded people that ride existed and drove more guests to use FP on it, than if they'd had to hike back to a remote corner of the park (twice). And that drove up standby times.
Thank you!
 

MisterPenguin

🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧Fully Pfizered!🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧
Premium Member
Original Poster
Switching from arguing about "longer waits" to "feels longer" is the very definition of moving the goal posts.

Yes, a one hour wait in a moving line *feels* shorter than an one hour wait in a line barely moving. But, they're both one hour long.

The case was being made that FP made all the lines longer. Proof was shown it doesn't.

So, new goal posts: Lines that *feel* longer.

While we're at it, let's address another fallacious canard: When complaining about FP+, the focus is on the people in standby and how only one of them gets on the ride for every 10 FP guests, and thus, they have a super long wait. So, um..., what happened to the FP+ guests? For the thousand people who had a one hour wait, there were ten thousand FP+ guests with almost no wait. Doesn't their experience count?

The wait time for all guests is the average wait of everyone both in standby *and* the FP line. When you include everyone in the math... the average wait time didn't increase.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
The case was being made that FP made all the lines longer. Proof was shown it doesn't.

No it wasn't? No one's posted anything here that comes even remotely close to proving that.

I've noticed you sometimes argue in bad faith. You don't do it all the time, and you're clearly smart enough to not need to resort to it, so I don't know why you do -- it undermines the point you're making when you just ignore data/evidence that potentially undercuts that point. It should be part of the analysis.

Regardless, the point about overall wait times possibly not being affected for the average guest because of FP usage is could be true. That's not really what was being discussed, though. I don't think anyone (or at least not me) was suggesting the FP system was evil or something -- it's actually been great for me and I would be happy to have it stay -- but there's nothing wrong with being curious about its effects and wanting actual hard data (which apparently doesn't exist, except probably in internal Disney figures).
 
Last edited:

acup313

Active Member
No it wasn't? That's been very clearly established; what were you reading?

You have a bad habit of cherry picking numbers to back up what you want to believe and ignoring anything that shows otherwise.

Regardless, the point about overall wait times possibly not being affected for the average guest is likely true because of FP usage. That's not really what was being discussed, though.
The study using actual data has been posted a few times. There was not cherry picking of numbers. It was using real data. Also, the only evidence provide by the other side is that lines feel longer.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
The study using actual data has been posted a few times. There was not cherry picking of numbers. It was using real data. Also, the only evidence provide by the other side is that lines feel longer.

No it hasn't. That study was comparing FP+ to regular FP, as was discussed ad nauseum. It's not statistically useful in determining whether FP increased standby times for a million reasons.

People don't understand statistics. I'm not even arguing that FP has made the lines longer -- I don't care if it has or hasn't. I'm just interested in statistics and find the numbers fascinating. No one has shown any kind of data that proves anything in either direction, unless it was dozens of pages ago and not anything that's been posted in the past day or two.
 

acup313

Active Member
No it hasn't. That study was comparing FP+ to regular FP, as was discussed ad nauseum. It's not statistically useful for a million reasons.

People don't understand statistics and how they work. I'm not even arguing that FP has made the lines longer -- I don't care if it has or hasn't. I'm just interested in statistics and find the numbers fascinating. No one has shown any kind of data that proves anything in either direction, unless it was dozens of pages ago and not anything that's been posted in the past day or two.
The stats in the study are really good. Your point about the two types of FP is valid though. Someone did bring up that some of the rides in the study never had legacy FP, so for those rides you are comparing FP+ to no FP. The other issue is that with increasing capacity attendance happening with FP+ implementation it is hard to tease out what caused the increase in wait times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom