It's a well thought analysis, but as mentioned by
@marni1971 there is the strong possibility that the complimentary FP is for a non E-Ticket.
I think
@marni1971 said that it was possible that we'd continue to get 3 Fastpasses, but not for Tier-1 attractions. So the two options might be:
- One Tier-1 FastPass per day.
- Three lesser FastPasses per day.
My speculative analysis was for option 1. I haven't figured out a framework for an analysis of option 2.
@marni1971, when you mentioned "options", did you mean that Disney is considering these two options or that guests would have a choice between these two options?
Another option is to be able to get three passes as now, but only for “lesser” attractions. The Es, and perhaps Ds, will be a separate class. Putting Fastpass on JIWF and LWTL will suddenly make perfect sense.
This also affects the locals and those with APs which serve to greatly stabilize attendance levels at the parks year round. Unlike DLR where they have too many AP holders, WDW needs the AP holder and can't afford to alienate them.
Agreed. I don't know the impact on AP holders and I don't know whether to discount the AP holders who complain about being alienated by the current FP+ system. The glass half-full argument is that they will be happier because more Tier-1 FastPasses will be available at T-30 and via Standby, especially during the off-season and shoulder season.
Finally while I agree with you that FP+ has reduced the spontaneity of trips, making them scheduled and regimented, Disney gets loads of analytical data from these to help them better understand guest behavior and habits. This was part of the reason they spent billions on MDE, to be backing off from this seems like a colossal admission of failure.
Are you sure it's a colossal admission of failure? Disney will still get the information from the one free FastPass and any purchased FastPasses. And if they get 50% uptake on paid FastPass @ $20 a pop (unlikely), that's what, an extra $500 million a year in the bank? Maybe this is one of the outshoots from all the data? And would be a reasonable tradeoff for only collecting 70%-80% of the data that they do now.
I've experienced the entire evolution of FP. I've never seen it as a system to to disenfranchise guests, though I can understand how for some guests who are unable to get them it would seem "unfair". I remember the pre-FP days where E-Tickets like splash would routinely have 120 minute waits, yes the queue moved, but EVERYONE still had to be in it for 120 minutes. Keep in mind that was also when park attendance was half of what it is today. I could only imagine the horror of popular attractions with reduced FPs given todays attendance levels.
I agree that it's a bit of Sophie's Choice given that we can't just wave our wands and have greater attraction capacity. As others have alluded to, the only (unlikely) solution that would make everyone happy is additional parks in other locations, either in the U.S. or internationally.
My only other thinking-outside-the-box solution is for the genius data scientists and behavioral psychologists to figure out some way of fooling people into being happier riding fewer attractions - in particular only riding the Tier-1 attractions once per trip.
