News Tickets with Pre Selected Fast Passes

[flynnibus]

If an attraction can hold 2000 people per hour, and the standby queue has 2000 people in it, and I am number 2001, then I ride in one hour. I am guaranteed to be rider number 2001. With a second queue that 80% of the ride's capacity is devoted to, a minimum of 1600 additional people will also ride before me, most of which arrived after I queued and would not have been able to ride before me if there were only one physical line. The standby line would be physically longer but it's now moving 80% faster.

Now you are mixing and matching realities instead of keeping the constants... constant.

You do not get into standby based on counting people - you get into standby knowing an approximate wait time. Yes that wait time comes from queue/throughput.

But in your second situation, where you added the FP line... and act like those people weren't queued before you is where your argument fails the consistency test. By adding FP, they ARE queued in front of you. You are no longer 2001 in line.. you are 3601 in line.. and your advertised standby wait would reflect that. Your argument infers your wait was artificially boosted in a misleading way. No, your wait when you approached would not be advertised as 1hr... it would reflect the new reality of being 3600 people in front of you.

Those people did NOT 'arrive after I queued' - they were allocated prior, and your standby time already reflects their presence. The drain on capacity by FP is not sprung on you AFTER you queued.

The pace at which the line moves is one of the psychological impacts I mentioned before.

Again, I'm not saying the wait times would all be super short if the system didn't exist. It would just balance everything out and you would experience the same number of attractions as you would by utilizing the system if it's in place, so the whole thing just makes you jump through extra hoops to get the same value as you would have pre-system.

And that's where you are wrong. The concept can optimize ride count and improve it. The problem is the efficiency of the system is not linear all the way to the extremes. The challenge is their choice of operating parameters leads to many visible 'negatives' that impact customer sentiment.

 

[WDWTank]

28°21'35.94" N 81°33'35.46" W

Lol, but its not on the preselected FP+ List

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But that’s because capacity wasn’t increased as attendance climbed. If the billions of dollars spent on FP+ were instead spent on attractions, maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But that’s water under the bridge now.

Attendance and capacity are not independent variables. When Disney adds attractions, attendance increases more than it would under static circumstances, completely erasing the alleged benefit of added capacity. Adding new rides to accommodate 10,000 more people per day doesn't do you any good if 12,000 more people per day show up to ride them.

To illustrate the silliness of your theory: According to you, adding Star Wars Land should increase capacity and therefore make Hollywood Studios seem less crowded. Let's see how that works out why don't we?

 

[mikejs78]

Everyone who has ever dealt with managing Fastpass firsthand: "It is a virtual queuing system that you must use to experience the number of attractions you would if it didn't exist."

You: "Disney created a magic system that defies logic and physics and allows you to experience more attractions than are theoretically possible, here, look at this data sample from a site that gets their data directly from what Disney publicly releases."

No, I'm saying Disney created a system that absolutely conforms to logic and statistics as outlined by queing theory. Your statements show ignorance of both. Again, show me evidence that TP gets it's data from Disney.

 

[mikejs78]

Attendance and capacity are not independent variables. When Disney adds attractions, attendance increases more than it would under static circumstances, completely erasing the alleged benefit of added capacity. Adding new rides to accommodate 10,000 more people per day doesn't do you any good if 12,000 more people per day show up to ride them.

To illustrate the silliness of your theory: According to you, adding Star Wars Land should increase capacity and therefore make Hollywood Studios seem less crowded. Let's see how that works out why don't we?

Depends on what they add though. If they add a handful of C/D ticket people eaters, that aren't huge draws in and of themselves, they could increase capacity more than attendance. Otherwise your point is spot on.

 

[flynnibus]

One of the big impacts of FP+ and pre-scheduled, limited FP is it reduces the impact FP had on reducing demand by reducing tolerance for waiting. Assume a guest and two attractions... A1 and A2.

When FPs are readily available... you reduce a guest's tolerance for wait. They won't wait 2hrs in standby when they know if they just sacrifice the idea of 'riding now' in trade for a much shorter wait.. their threshold for 'what is the max amount of wait time I will tolerate' goes down. This means instead of A1 standby climbing because they got in line... they accept a FP and ride something else. This flattens out the load on A1 and improves utilization elsewhere in the park. Excess capacity elsewhere (like on A2) is used and the guest rides more rides. It's a win for everyone.

But when FPs become scarce (like limiting how many you can use.. or what you can use it on)... the reduction on wait tolerance is less. You know you can't just keep using FP... so if you want to ride.. you must be willing to accept more waits. Wait tolerance increases... standby lines will grow.

Now, add in the variable of overall spare capacity... which decreases as attendance increases. When the FP user went to another attraction, seeking something with low wait times (remember.. wait tolerance is low).. that means they probably found an attraction (A2) with spare capacity not really being fully utilized. This is great. But now imagine attendance is up... there is less excess capacity around the park to absorb these 'double queued' people. Now, the impact of FP starts to be seen not just in the A1 attraction they held the FP for.. but elsewhere in the park too. In addition, the guest is more irk'd because they can't find something with a low wait. So they are miffed because waits are UP and they increase the average standby time in A2.

What this is trying to illustrate is... this problem or benefit is not a linear, boundless thing. The consequences and impacts change as you change the variables like FP availability, FP Ratios, and overall slack capacity.

I believe the guest experience has suffered at the hands of Disney because they've done multiple things that as a net sum... hurt the guests in multiple ways vs what a more pure queue optimizing system would. They've constrained FPs, they've stuffed the parks vs overall capacity, and they increased the FP ratios to the extremes.

Arguing one variable in isolation with absolutes is ignorant and just leads to arguments passing by each other. All metrics must be in play if you want to talk absolute total results.. and the truth is that is VERY complex. (like people's wait tolerance is not uniform... it depends on the attraction in question.. and overall visiting behaviors). It's very complex to model with every variance.. but you can generalize many behaviors to get a reasonable approximation.

 

[Biff215]

To illustrate the silliness of your theory: According to you, adding Star Wars Land should increase capacity and therefore make Hollywood Studios seem less crowded. Let's see how that works out why don't we?

So are you implying that theme parks do not need to add attractions? I guess they could have kept the MK the same since 1971 and just replaced aging attractions as opposed to adding anything new if capacity doesn't matter.

Sure, new attractions draw bigger crowds initially, which is why they are built in the first place. But eventually that demand dies down some. As pointed out above, not every addition needs to be an E-ticket. Smaller attractions and shows with better capacity would help the current problems facing the parks.

SWL is going to make DHS an even bigger mess IMO, as capacity will still be lacking. Heck, even TSL is going to be a zoo out of the gate. By no means am I referencing those additions. They're honestly too little too late IMO.

 

[MrPromey]

Attendance and capacity are not independent variables. When Disney adds attractions, attendance increases more than it would under static circumstances, completely erasing the alleged benefit of added capacity. Adding new rides to accommodate 10,000 more people per day doesn't do you any good if 12,000 more people per day show up to ride them.

To illustrate the silliness of your theory: According to you, adding Star Wars Land should increase capacity and therefore make Hollywood Studios seem less crowded. Let's see how that works out why don't we?

This and this reason alone is why I'm okay with Disney adding an extra track to TSMM and an extra theater to Soarin' rather than building new experiences with that money and development effort and (at least in the case of TSMM) space. This extra capacity was rolled out with almost no fanfare which allowed it to improve capacity without increasing demand.

In your example though, if a new attraction had 900 an hour or better guest throughput and only added about 2k more people to a park a day this would still be a significant overall improvement in that park - especially if that park has long hours.

That said, in a place like Hollywood Studios where that ride represents one of the only child-friendly rides in a park already lacking rides in general, I think people frustrated they can't get on it are going to be a drag on overall guest satisfaction created by the new attraction but in a park like MK, the same attraction would actually help a lot - especially one like Slinky Dog which I've been referring to that isn't exactly a major e-ticket compared to what would be around it.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So are you implying that theme parks do not need to add attractions? I guess they could have kept the MK the same since 1971 and just replaced aging attractions as opposed to adding anything new if capacity doesn't matter.

Disney doesn't have a total capacity problem, they have a capacity distribution problem. If total annual attendance was spread evenly from month to month, week to week, day to day, hour to hour, park to park, attraction to attraction, everyone would have a very pleasant time on their WDW vacations. Disney's recent moves have clearly been in an effort to limit the peaks and fill in some of the valleys. Specific examples:

• Adding Pandora to shift guests into Animal Kingdom.
• Adding Animal Kingdom nighttime hours to shift guests out of the other three parks during parade/fireworks/show time.
• Eliminating the nighttime parade to ease nighttime congestion on Main Street.
• FastPass+ shifting guests from more popular attractions to less popular attractions.
• Surge pricing shifting people to less popular times of year.
• Putting Frozen in Epcot to shift some of the Princess crowd from Magic Kingdom to World Showcase.

Sure, new attractions draw bigger crowds initially, which is why they are built in the first place. But eventually that demand dies down some. As pointed out above, not every addition needs to be an E-ticket. Smaller attractions and shows with better capacity would help the current problems facing the parks.

In theory, sure. But it's May 2018 and Seven Dwarfs Mine Train has a 95 minute wait. That's a wait time equal to Splash Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad combined, and I think everyone would agree that those attractions are far superior. Mine Train is not an E-ticket, but I don't think you'd argue it helps absorb crowds at the Magic Kingdom.

in your example though, if a new attraction had 900 an hour or better guest throughput and only added about 2k more people to a park a day this would still be a significant overall improvement in that park - especially if that park has long hours.

I agree in theory but I don't know what that attraction looks like. People show up to see new bathrooms. They wait in line for new pins or popcorn buckets. I honestly don't know what attraction is minor enough that it can eat more people than it attracts.

 

[Casper Gutman]

No, I'm saying Disney created a system that absolutely conforms to logic and statistics as outlined by queing theory. Your statements show ignorance of both. Again, show me evidence that TP gets it's data from Disney.

hey, since you’re holding forth on queuing theory again, you never explained why my post above about fastpass essentially multiplying people in lines was incorrect. I’m curious. It might be better to explain it logically rather then imply people not versed in queue theory are morons.

Also, you told me some time ago that there was no such thing as virtual lines in queue theory. I’ve been browsing a few scholarly articles on the subject and the term virtual lines or queuing comes up several times. So I’m confused on that point.

Oh, and while data may be objective, how it is collected, analyzed, and used is very often subjective. An important point to remember.

 

[mikejs78]

One of the big impacts of FP+ and pre-scheduled, limited FP is it reduces the impact FP had on reducing demand by reducing tolerance for waiting. Assume a guest and two attractions... A1 and A2.

When FPs are readily available... you reduce a guest's tolerance for wait. They won't wait 2hrs in standby when they know if they just sacrifice the idea of 'riding now' in trade for a much shorter wait.. their threshold for 'what is the max amount of wait time I will tolerate' goes down. This means instead of A1 standby climbing because they got in line... they accept a FP and ride something else. This flattens out the load on A1 and improves utilization elsewhere in the park. Excess capacity elsewhere (like on A2) is used and the guest rides more rides. It's a win for everyone.

But when FPs become scarce (like limiting how many you can use.. or what you can use it on)... the reduction on wait tolerance is less. You know you can't just keep using FP... so if you want to ride.. you must be willing to accept more waits. Wait tolerance increases... standby lines will grow.

Now, add in the variable of overall spare capacity... which decreases as attendance increases. When the FP user went to another attraction, seeking something with low wait times (remember.. wait tolerance is low).. that means they probably found an attraction (A2) with spare capacity not really being fully utilized. This is great. But now imagine attendance is up... there is less excess capacity around the park to absorb these 'double queued' people. Now, the impact of FP starts to be seen not just in the A1 attraction they held the FP for.. but elsewhere in the park too. In addition, the guest is more irk'd because they can't find something with a low wait. So they are miffed because waits are UP and they increase the average standby time in A2.

What this is trying to illustrate is... this problem or benefit is not a linear, boundless thing. The consequences and impacts change as you change the variables like FP availability, FP Ratios, and overall slack capacity.

I believe the guest experience has suffered at the hands of Disney because they've done multiple things that as a net sum... hurt the guests in multiple ways vs what a more pure queue optimizing system would. They've constrained FPs, they've stuffed the parks vs overall capacity, and they increased the FP ratios to the extremes.

Arguing one variable in isolation with absolutes is ignorant and just leads to arguments passing by each other. All metrics must be in play if you want to talk absolute total results.. and the truth is that is VERY complex. (like people's wait tolerance is not uniform... it depends on the attraction in question.. and overall visiting behaviors). It's very complex to model with every variance.. but you can generalize many behaviors to get a reasonable approximation.

This makes a lot of sense, although I question a few of your assumptions (FP ratios to the extreme, for example). But in general this is where we need to get to in order to have a clearer idea rather than just making assertions without any attempt at looking at data and modeling. I'm perfectly willing to admit I may be wrong, but would want to see the data that shows me that I'm wrong.

I do think Disney's biggest issue was thinking they FP would allow them to hold off adding capacity, and not preparing for the attendance growth properly. They used FP as a crutch rather than as a means of distributing crowds and increasing guest satisfaction, which they could have done had they planned better.

 

[MrPromey]

In theory, sure. But it's May 2018 and Seven Dwarfs Mine Train has a 95 minute wait. That's a wait time equal to Splash Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad combined, and I think everyone would agree that those attractions are far superior. Mine Train is not an E-ticket, but I don't think you'd argue it helps absorb crowds at the Magic Kingdom.


I agree in theory but I don't know what that attraction looks like. People show up to see new bathrooms. They wait in line for new pins or popcorn buckets. I honestly don't know what attraction is minor enough that it can eat more people than it attracts.

I'd say the challenge with 7DMT is from the outside, it looks like it could be just as good as SM and BTMR and if it looks comparable and is newer, it's got to be awesome, right?.. Other people's opinions are subjective so it's hard to know until you've ridden it yourself at which point it's too late.

I like 7DMT, btw. I'd like to ride it more but I'll never wait over an hour for it which is why with having annual passes all along, I've only ever been on it twice.

In a way, Disney did too good of a job the way they fit it into the land and of course, as they're known, they way over-marketed it.

As for popcorn buckets and pins and purple walls... I've got nothing. I'm just not compatible anymore with the parts of the world that see reason in this but I probably was when I was younger.

 

[mikejs78]

hey, since you’re holding forth on queuing theory again, you never explained why my post above about fastpass essentially multiplying people in lines was incorrect.

I'm working on it. Stay tuned.

Also, you told me some time ago that there was no such thing as virtual lines in queue theory. I’ve been browsing a few scholarly articles on the subject and the term virtual lines or queuing comes up several times. So I’m confused on that point.

Not in the sense you were using it....

Oh, and while data may be objective, how it is collected, analyzed, and used is very often subjective. An important point to remember.

Very true. Which is why I'd love to see challenges to my analysis. It's admittedly a very small sample set and there are many other potential explanations. But it's a start. I'd love to see more actual data analysis interjected into this debate. Then we can get somewhere instead of having this perpetual back and forth based purely on opinion.

 

[Biff215]

Disney doesn't have a total capacity problem, they have a capacity distribution problem. If total annual attendance was spread evenly from month to month, week to week, day to day, hour to hour, park to park, attraction to attraction, everyone would have a very pleasant time on their WDW vacations. Disney's recent moves have clearly been in an effort to limit the peaks and fill in some of the valleys. Specific examples:

• Adding Pandora to shift guests into Animal Kingdom.
• Adding Animal Kingdom nighttime hours to shift guests out of the other three parks during parade/fireworks/show time.
• Eliminating the nighttime parade to ease nighttime congestion on Main Street.
• FastPass+ shifting guests from more popular attractions to less popular attractions.
• Surge pricing shifting people to less popular times of year.
• Putting Frozen in Epcot to shift some of the Princess crowd from Magic Kingdom to World Showcase.

In theory, sure. But it's May 2018 and Seven Dwarfs Mine Train has a 95 minute wait. That's a wait time equal to Splash Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad combined, and I think everyone would agree that those attractions are far superior. Mine Train is not an E-ticket, but I don't think you'd argue it helps absorb crowds at the Magic Kingdom.


I agree in theory but I don't know what that attraction looks like. People show up to see new bathrooms. They wait in line for new pins or popcorn buckets. I honestly don't know what attraction is minor enough that it can eat more people than it attracts.

I believe your bullets are all Disney's attempts to solve a problem that they created by not keeping up with capacity. We can agree to disagree on that, but take a look at WDW from 1971-1998. Attendance steadily rises through those years, and not only did the MK receive additions, but three extra parks (and more) were also added. Then look at what has been done since DAK opened in comparison, yet attendance continued to climb.

Now I don't necessarily think that a 5th gate is the answer, but allowing the parks to stagnate certainly didn't help either. FP+ has helped distribute crowds some, but for me it is at the expense of customer satisfaction. I still enjoy the parks fortunately, but I see that decreasing steadily in recent years. I hope all the new additions might help reverse that, but again I'll say that it's all coming a little too late IMO.

 

[MrPromey]

I believe your bullets are all Disney's attempts to solve a problem that they created by not keeping up with capacity. We can agree to disagree on that...

I may be wrong but it doesn't seem like you two are actually disagreeing on that.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I believe your bullets are all Disney's attempts to solve a problem that they created by not keeping up with capacity. We can agree to disagree on that, but take a look at WDW from 1971-1998. Attendance steadily rises through those years, and not only did the MK receive additions, but three extra parks (and more) were also added. Then look at what has been done since DAK opened in comparison, yet attendance continued to climb.

Now I don't necessarily think that a 5th gate is the answer, but allowing the parks to stagnate certainly didn't help either. FP+ has helped distribute crowds some, but for me it is at the expense of customer satisfaction. I still enjoy the parks fortunately, but I see that decreasing steadily in recent years. I hope all the new additions might help reverse that, but again I'll say that it's all coming a little too late IMO.

To be fair to Disney, I think a lot of people fail to realize just how shaken the entire industry was after 9/11 and again after the '08 collapse. There were macroeconomic headwinds that made long-term modeling and investment extremely challenging.

I have no survey data to back it up, but I don't think that FastPass+ is a net drag on customer satisfaction. It's unpopular on the forums because most of us were experts in making the most out of the old FastPass system so this feels like a step backwards. But I feel like most people like the anticipation that builds when you get to make your FP+ reservations in advance. It adds excitement, at least for me and my family. It's the same emotion you get when the Magical Express tags arrive in the mail. Or MagicBands.

 

[matt9112]

What are you talking about? This is, in no way whatsoever, a bad thing. It's AT WORST neutral.

proves they will keep on marching with there guest spending war. instead of working on the product.

 

[matt9112]

To be fair to Disney, I think a lot of people fail to realize just how shaken the entire industry was after 9/11 and again after the '08 collapse. There were macroeconomic headwinds that made long-term modeling and investment extremely challenging.

I have no survey data to back it up, but I don't think that FastPass+ is a net drag on customer satisfaction. It's unpopular on the forums because most of us were experts in making the most out of the old FastPass system so this feels like a step backwards. But I feel like most people like the anticipation that builds when you get to make your FP+ reservations in advance. It adds excitement, at least for me and my family. It's the same emotion you get when the Magical Express tags arrive in the mail. Or MagicBands.

what about all the people that dont get there selection and spend 3 months checking the app every day? is that fun?

 

[matt9112]

What do you think are the chances that we see packages similar to this in the (not so distant) future with much better line-ups for an added fee? Maybe a "Toy Story Land" one day pass that guarantees you Fast Passes to the three Toy Story Land attractions or a Galaxy's Edge one day pass that guarantees you Fast Passes to the two Galaxy's Edge attractions (plus Star Tours)? Obviously, both would be the cost of a standard one day pass with a pretty sizable premium added. I'd imagine selling such a pass would be a VERY hot commodity when Star Wars Land opens...

so destroy the already limited inventory of headliners ? they would need to basically take some FP capacity out of service at the 90 day windows to shift it forward to day ticket sales. unless they are ok and or plan on fast pass lines becoming longer but still shorter than stand by (this would make stand by even worse) possibly help sell FP even moree.

 

[flynnibus]

This makes a lot of sense, although I question a few of your assumptions (FP ratios to the extreme, for example)

You have to take some edge cases out of the mix when talking generalisms. Everyone loves to talk about the 'rush after an outage' 'rush after fireworks', etc when trying to debunk FP points... These are situations where the FP return volume significantly spikes vs it's normal distribution. Those are edge cases, not the norm.. so treat them as such. Certainly they exist, but they are not the center of the beam.. so don't act like that's 100% of the time.

Also, the higher the FP return ratio, the greater the impact on the standby line. Thus, when you combine factors, the potential risk for visible negative impact increases. To illustrate.. if FP ratio was only 2:1... only half the capacity is going to FP... thus if the FP return volume spikes.. say.. 50%.. total capacity is still only 75% of total ride capacity. Standby slows.. but still goes. But what if FP ratio is 10:1 by default... and your FP volume spikes 50%. Now, BOTH queues backup as there is only 10% capacity from standby FP can consume before it too starts backing up.

In short... the more FPs you hand out... the greater liability you expose yourself too. That's why 'tour groups' etc have largely never been a factor in wait times even tho they are frequently getting immediate access. There just isn't enough volume to disrupt the system long term. But the more of them there are... the greater exposure you open to them clogging up the queue significantly by hoarding capacity. And that's what happens when you increase FP distribution and ratios too high.

I'm perfectly willing to admit I may be wrong, but would want to see the data that shows me that I'm wrong.

Sorry, when you know the raw, true data is NEVER going to be available, that's just a deflection technique. You don't need the raw numbers to work through the theory.. in fact scientists prefer NOT to use the real numbers till the end We can look at the measured result... but the measurements we have are largely ancedotal obersations, aggregated over time and sources. So there is a lot of data points, but they can also be skewed by assumptions/bias. TouringPlans offers a reasonable CONSISTENT observation at least.

I do think Disney's biggest issue was thinking they FP would allow them to hold off adding capacity, and not preparing for the attendance growth properly. They used FP as a crutch rather than as a means of distributing crowds and increasing guest satisfaction, which they could have done had they planned better.

I don't think P&R's capital investment plan over the last 20 years was driven significantly by this. FP serves many purposes.. especially FP+. Disney's decade of constriction vs expansion is due to many factors. Now they are expanding again.. and FP+ is still here