And that's how "Lightning Lane" got its name!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Lightning Lane at Walt Disney World
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
RichKermitFan
Active Member
I just really don’t understand changing the name from Fastpass to lightning lane. FastPass is literally what people call the alternate entrance at almost every other theme park on earth. Universal has express pass and six flags has flash pass but EVERYONE just calls it FastPass. It’s like Kleenex, Q-tip and Band-Aid. It’s become more than just the branding, it’s just become what the item is known as regardless of who presents it.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Guests have been taught that Fastpass is a complimentary service included with your park admission.
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
They call that lane the FastPass lane because of Disney. They set the name in everyone's mind because they are the industry standard when it comes to theme parks. They changed the name because for better or worse this new program is not to be confused with the old program. Give it 5 years or so and people will be calling all of those lanes in the other parks Lightening Lanes.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
As it should be!
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Not really. It was nice while it lasted. Nobody else really offers this type of service for free. And truly it wasn’t sustainable.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Fair point! Disney does not need to be exceptional, trend setting or set the bar, let's be like everyone else. If there is one entertainment organization with the revenue streams and cash flow to sustain something it's Disney. That does not matter anymore let's just be like everyone else.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
You’re missing the point. Fastpass as we knew it as a complimentary system was not sustainable. And I’m not talking about financially for Disney.
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
It cost Disney nothing so how was it not sustainable? I'd really like to know your point on that. How was it not something that just could have gone on without a termination point? What made it unsustainable?
In reality, it cost them nothing so they could have kept going indefinitely. They just saw the opportunity to add a dollar sign to it. That's all this amounts to. A cash grab. We would go to other theme parks and purchase their version of fastpass but someone would always make the comment "It sucks paying for this. Disney gives this for free.".
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Actually it’s far from accurate to say that the system costs Disney nothing. Aside from the high costs to develop and install the system, queue construction and modification, there’s also ongoing costs for maintenance, IT support, servers, and a substantial amount of labor needed to support your “free” system. Millions of dollars per year are spent on labor alone to support Fastpass.
But all of that is irrelevant because the issues with Fastpass sustainability are not related to financials. They are operational challenges based on simple supply and demand.
Two decades ago nobody had heard of Fastpass and nobody used it. One decade ago on average each guests used slightly over 1 Fastpass per day. Most recently that number has nearly quadrupled. Not to mention attendance itself has increased significantly in that same time. Guests were using the system in record numbers and having a Fastpass for major attractions was the expectation. The supply could not meet that demand.
Large amounts of guests would be unable to get fastpasses for in demand attractions. Leading to poor guest satisfaction because they felt they had to have a Fastpass to enjoy the park. The reaction is to increase the percentage of an attractions capacity available as Fastpass inventory. Great more people are able to get a Fastpass, but at what cost. Now having a Fastpass becomes significantly less advantageous. At many attractions guests are waiting upwards of 20-30 minutes with a Fastpass and those without are even more worse off. The Fastpass lines were turning into standby lines and the standby lines were at a standstill
Marketing, internet, and social media have all contributed to making everyone aware of the system, experts on its use, and convinced that Disney can not be experienced without it.
Some of these problems were increased due to advanced planning. But even at Disneyland where that wasn’t possible; guests were sometimes waiting 30-60 minutes just to get a Fastpass for Radiator Springs Racers that wouldn’t be valid until well into the evening.
Demand needs to be controlled to meet supply.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Interesting. I always understood the phrase to be work to have enough supply to meet the demand. Think of it, if the objective is to control the demand, well simply, the demand is being suppressed, diminished, reduced hence no need for supply. The demand will go elsewhere.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
You can only realistically increase supply here so much. You’ve already maxed out on available supply with existing infrastructure. You can build more but then you move into induced demand territory and it doesn’t solve the problem anyway. If there’s more attractions there’s more people that need/want/expect/demand fastpass for those attractions. People don’t suddenly stop wanting a Fastpass for Everest because they can now have one for Flight of Passage.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
This sounds a lot like an argument for increased overall capacity. I mean, FastPass might not have been sustainable without more people-eating shows and attractions and with Disney’s insane focus on forcing preplanning, but that’s a problem Disney created. And I don’t see how the new system is more sustainable - there’s no indication WDW will limit attendance or LL percentage, and every indication it will get worse, since they now have a financial incentive to push even more people to LL.
How’s this for a solution - keep the new, goug-y ticket prices, but justify them with a massive building campaign to increase capacity. And eliminate all line-jumping programs. OR price the line-jumping pass at $1000 per day per person.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
They want it a lot less if the lines for each are much shorter, and thus the lack doesn’t impact satisfaction nearly as much, if at all.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Adding more rides does not decrease wait times. That’s a fan fantasy
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Is your theory here that the increase in guests (which WDW could cap, but never mind) EXACTLY matches increase in capacity? That a park with four rides will have exactly the same waits as one with ten?
It would have been, but Disney essentially added zero capacity during the vast majority of Fastoass’ existence.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
It’s not a theory it’s a fact. If you go to a park with 4 rides you are going to want to ride all 4 rides. If the park has 10 rides you are going to want to ride all 10. And the park with 10 rides will likely have more guests looking to ride them.
Adding expensive infrastructure and then caping attendance is counterproductive to a revenue generating corporation.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Doesn’t solve the problem.
It absolutely does. People expect X rides per dollar spent for park entry. Disney for MANY years said that number was 9. The MK hasn’t added any real CAPACITY in 25 years, yet attendance has gone up dramatically. Every additional body through the gate lessens the experience in general for everyone.
For decades, Disney convinced folks that FP made their visit better. In actuality, it made it better for SOME. INITIALLY it was the folks who used it (some just didn’t). Then it was those who really took advantage of it, collecting a days worth of Fastpasses in the first few hours. When return windows were enforced, and then FP+ came along, that was when value started disappearing for all. Now, some still thought it was fabulous that they could get two good FPs. They were buying LOS tickets, and had been convinced they didn’t really need those 9 experiences. 5 or 6 was good enough. They could spend hours returning to their overpriced motel room in the afternoon to “relax” as an added feature!
That ruse began to die, and Universal was actually adding new capacity with high tech rides. Disney was forced to add Pandora and Batuu, but things were just too far gone. Then Covid came along, giving them the perfect cover to finally start charging for access like damn near every other amusement park in the world. I’d assume meetings that ultimately led to Genie and LL started in Spring of last year.
If Disney would put in a few D tickets in each park to help take capacity, it would do wonders. People rag on Kong and F&F, but they are modern D tickets in my opinion. Same with Fallon. They could have been better for sure, but they were probably all three built for less than the Tron clone. And let’s be honest, if Tron was built at Universal, the Disney lovers would say it is a lame coaster with poor theming, which it is.
Last edited: