Fastpass Expansion and Throwaway Rooms, a thought

[brad813]

I am not one to really follow the rumor mill too much, or put too much faith in it, but with the controversial Fastpass expansion to some closeby hotels being a possibility in the near future, I would like to share one thought I had this morning. We all have complained, myself included, about the throwaway room problem. I was one of those looking for the kind of reservation people use as throwaway rooms. It occurred to me that the reason Disney may have to expand the 60 day fastpasses out to limited hotels, and if I am right it is a very good reason, is they may be finally be fixing throwaway room problems by offering an alternative option. Over the next couple of years we will see a few big attractions open, and Toy Story Land and Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge will be especially popular. I think Disney simply needs it's on property inventory open now and is looking for ways to do that and offer more incentive to those who stay at nearby hotels. It is really the only logical reason they would offer 60 day fastpasses for any off-site property, that they would benefit from it in the long run, and I see this as the only real way they would benefit at this point.

 

[rstevens333]

That's a good theory. I assumed the FP+ expansion was to outsource "value" rooms, so the average on-property reservation goes up in cost, but making inventory more accurate is a real win too.

 

[Hoodie]

I said that from the start. It's become a huge problem.

 

[Q-man]

We think alike.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/g...0-day-fp-booking.3642617/page-3#post-58373151

 

[HopperFan]

Been out of loop awhile ............ has ANYONE other than the one site said anything close to verify this?

 

[rteetz]

Been out of loop awhile ............ has ANYONE other than the one site said anything close to verify this?

Nope.

 

[HopperFan]

Nope.

Thank you.

I'll believe this when I see it.

 

[writerguyfl]

Thank you.

I'll believe this when I see it.

I feel the same way. I stopped reading the dedicated thread on that topic because it felt like people were getting overly upset about a rumor. I'll worry (or celebrate since I tend to stay at the hotels that might gain benefits) when it moves past the unsubstantiated rumor phase.

 

[HopperFan]

I feel the same way. I stopped reading the dedicated thread on that topic because it felt like people were getting overly upset about a rumor. I'll worry (or celebrate since I tend to stay at the hotels that might gain benefits) when it moves past the unsubstantiated rumor phase.

I think Disney would be shooting themselves in the foot. For many (like me) the 60 day is one of the very few perks of staying onsite.

 

[Lightsoutx12]

If Disney does really go through with this there has to be something they are going to replace it with for guests staying on property. I know I have seen many on here suggest a 90 day window, but is that maybe too much? Or will Disney just say tough luck and everyone (except AP holders ) get a 60 day window.

 

[HopperFan]

If Disney does really go through with this there has to be something they are going to replace it with for guests staying on property. I know I have seen many on here suggest a 90 day window, but is that maybe too much? Or will Disney just say tough luck and everyone (except AP holders ) get a 60 day window.

Disney doesn’t have to give guests an extra perk if they decide to sell an offsite perk. They can just argue you are still getting much more.

 

[DavidHobart]

I posted a couple of weeks ago a theory behind this: monetizing the extra hotel demand for Toy Story and especially Star Wars, which Disney can't possibly serve itself with its 85-90% capacity utilization:

"So expanding access to FastPass+ at 60 days, but charging hotels offering it for the privilege of doing so, would add essentially costless and riskless revenue, which by my back-of-the envelope calculations could easily drop another $100 million a year to Disney World’s bottom line."

 

[Roxyfire]

I posted a couple of weeks ago a theory behind this: monetizing the extra hotel demand for Toy Story and especially Star Wars, which Disney can't possibly serve itself with its 85-90% capacity utilization:

"So expanding access to FastPass+ at 60 days, but charging hotels offering it for the privilege of doing so, would add essentially costless and riskless revenue, which by my back-of-the envelope calculations could easily drop another $100 million a year to Disney World’s bottom line."

Agreed, as others have said Disney might be a little regretful about being in the hotel business. So by allowing other partner hotels to do this, it allows WDW to rake in the revenue they might otherwise be missing but they don't have to commit to building hotels, just licensing the FP access.

 

[tlmadden73]

First, why is a "throwaway room" a problem?
It's not a problem for Disney. They sell a room and don't even have to clean it.
It's not a problem for other Disney guests. Someone bought a room (or campsite), and just didn't use it (no different than if something happened and they had to cancel last minute). What difference is it to another Disney guest what I do with the room after I have reserved and paid for it?

If the benefits you get from a Disney resort room, is worth buying a room, but not utilizing it, what's the problem? There is no loophole here. There is no "gaming the system." (like there was with Fast Passes and multiple MDE accounts). You are paying for something (and simply not using ALL of it.). Who is harmed? If I go to McDonald's and buy a Happy Meal and just throw away the food to get the toy, is that a problem? (wasteful, but is it a problem?)

I did a throwaway room at the campsites in March. It was a no brainer. If I was going to pay $20/day/car for two days of parking, then why not look into a throwaway room?The cost of the site (around $90 at that time) was pretty much break even on the cost of parking for two families for those two days. Add in the free magic bands (2.0 that none of us had yet), 60 day fast Passes and access to EMH, it wasn't a waste of money at all. (I was only going to the parks for two days anyway this trip). I paid for the site fully, I just never utilized it. I could have used it (and we almost considered it), but we had better accommodations off-site (a giant multi-family condo unit only 15 minutes away).

As for your original question, I don't think offering 60-day fast passes to the offsite hotels will solve the throwaway "problem" unless they give off-site hotels access to FREE parking as well. The cost of parking is really what makes the throwaway room worth the cost in most cases.

I really don't see Disney giving these perks to off-site hotels unless those hotels are paying them a TON of money for that privilege.

Giving 60-day fast passes to other hotels seems like a logisitical nightmare - support calls, complaints that you can't get a FP for Ride X even at 7:00 AM on their 60-day mark, etc. etc. etc.

 

[JaxDad]

First, why is a "throwaway room" a problem?
It's not a problem for Disney. They sell a room and don't even have to clean it.
It's not a problem for other Disney guests. Someone bought a room (or campsite), and just didn't use it (no different than if something happened and they had to cancel last minute). What difference is it to another Disney guest what I do with the room after I have reserved and paid for it?

If the benefits you get from a Disney resort room, is worth buying a room, but not utilizing it, what's the problem? There is no loophole here. There is no "gaming the system." (like there was with Fast Passes and multiple MDE accounts). You are paying for something (and simply not using ALL of it.). Who is harmed? If I go to McDonald's and buy a Happy Meal and just throw away the food to get the toy, is that a problem? (wasteful, but is it a problem?)

I did a throwaway room at the campsites in March. It was a no brainer. If I was going to pay $20/day/car for two days of parking, then why not look into a throwaway room?The cost of the site (around $90 at that time) was pretty much break even on the cost of parking for two families for those two days. Add in the free magic bands (2.0 that none of us had yet), 60 day fast Passes and access to EMH, it wasn't a waste of money at all. (I was only going to the parks for two days anyway this trip). I paid for the site fully, I just never utilized it. I could have used it (and we almost considered it), but we had better accommodations off-site (a giant multi-family condo unit only 15 minutes away).

As for your original question, I don't think offering 60-day fast passes to the offsite hotels will solve the throwaway "problem" unless they give off-site hotels access to FREE parking as well. The cost of parking is really what makes the throwaway room worth the cost in most cases.

I really don't see Disney giving these perks to off-site hotels unless those hotels are paying them a TON of money for that privilege.

Giving 60-day fast passes to other hotels seems like a logisitical nightmare - support calls, complaints that you can't get a FP for Ride X even at 7:00 AM on their 60-day mark, etc. etc. etc.

Although I understand your points, I can see where throwaway rooms could be a problem for Disney and other guests.

Although Disney sells the room, maybe a guest who would have come to Disney did not, because no rooms/campsites were available that fit their needs. Disney just lost all other revenue associated with that guest.

It can also be a problem for other guests. I have friends who are avid tent campers, and they frequently complain that they can't get a site at Fort Wilderness. I suspect this is at least partially due to throwaway rooms. They have stayed at other campgrounds or skipped trips altogether (see above). They would prefer to stay at Fort Wilderness, but can't.

 

[tlmadden73]

Although I understand your points, I can see where throwaway rooms could be a problem for Disney and other guests.

Although Disney sells the room, maybe a guest who would have come to Disney did not, because no rooms/campsites were available that fit their needs. Disney just lost all other revenue associated with that guest.

It can also be a problem for other guests. I have friends who are avid tent campers, and they frequently complain that they can't get a site at Fort Wilderness. I suspect this is at least partially due to throwaway rooms. They have stayed at other campgrounds or skipped trips altogether (see above). They would prefer to stay at Fort Wilderness, but can't.

Right, unfortunately how do you enforce that? They have moved towards online checking .. which makes this even easier.

I do understand the frustration. It is a shame that people who want to legitimately want to camp can't get a site, but that is like anything in our current world. Make reservations early. Want to go see a concert or sporting event? Good luck getting face value tickets as ticket broker and resellers gobble up tickets shortly after they go on sale even though they have ZERO intention to "use" the ticket for its actual purpose.

Disney can probably fix it by requiring increasing the price of campsites or decreasing the amount of people who can share a campsite. It basically needs to be at a price point where it isn't "worth" it. Staying at a Value resort really isn't worth it for a throwaway because you only get 4 people and 1 car.
What really made it a good "deal" is that we had 9 people (in two separate cars). Because of the $20 for parking, this was basically like buying a parking pass ($80 for two cars over two days) with a ton of extra benefits for only $10 more.

Heck, I could see Disney just monetizing the throwaway room even more and just making it an add-on like park hoppers.
Spend $30/day/car and get free parking, for two days, magic bands for the family and 60-day fast passes if staying offsite.
Would you pay $10/day to get 60-day fast passes if you are staying offsite?
I could see them doing this over allowing 60-day fast passes at good neighbor hotels (unless they will get some crazy premium paid by those hotels for that benefit).

Or make it where minimum stays of two nights or more to get resort benefits, but that may alienate a lot of customers as well that want an affordable Disney vacation on property.

 

[brad813]

Although I understand your points, I can see where throwaway rooms could be a problem for Disney and other guests.

Although Disney sells the room, maybe a guest who would have come to Disney did not, because no rooms/campsites were available that fit their needs. Disney just lost all other revenue associated with that guest.

It can also be a problem for other guests. I have friends who are avid tent campers, and they frequently complain that they can't get a site at Fort Wilderness. I suspect this is at least partially due to throwaway rooms. They have stayed at other campgrounds or skipped trips altogether (see above). They would prefer to stay at Fort Wilderness, but can't.

I do understand the frustration. It is a shame that people who want to legitimately want to camp can't get a site, but that is like anything in our current world. Make reservations early. Want to go see a concert or sporting event? Good luck getting face value tickets as ticket broker and resellers gobble up tickets shortly after they go on sale even though they have ZERO intention to "use" the ticket for its actual purpose.

Disney can probably fix it by requiring increasing the price of campsites or decreasing the amount of people who can share a campsite. It basically needs to be at a price point where it isn't "worth" it. Staying at a Value resort really isn't worth it for a throwaway because you only get 4 people and 1 car.
What really made it a good "deal" is that we had 9 people (in two separate cars). Because of the $20 for parking, this was basically like buying a parking pass ($80 for two cars over two days) with a ton of extra benefits for only $10 more.

Heck, I could see Disney just monetizing the throwaway room even more and just making it an add-on like park hoppers.
Spend $30/day/car and get free parking, for two days, magic bands for the family and 60-day fast passes if staying offsite.
Would you pay $10/day to get 60-day fast passes if you are staying offsite?
I could see them doing this over allowing 60-day fast passes at good neighbor hotels (unless they will get some crazy premium paid by those hotels for that benefit).

Or make it where minimum stays of two nights or more to get resort benefits, but that may alienate a lot of customers as well that want an affordable Disney vacation on property.[/QUOTE]

I actually fall into the category that needs the campsites or value rooms just to be able to afford to stay on property, and throwaway rooms do actually affect my ability to find an affordable space on property. Any money saved by staying off property gets eaten up by the $30 round trip to get an Uber. With Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge opening in 2019(and I will be visiting the parks for that in late 2019), it will exacerbate already existing problems with throwaway rooms by increasing demand for the EMH that comes with them. It's simple business logic. High demand and low supply drives prices up, but in the case of throwaway rooms it artificially creates demand. My assumption is that Disney knows they will need those rooms and are likely using a limited fastpass expansion to help recover inventory. It is in their best interests to crack down on it, or at least offer an alternative, at this point. I am not saying that it's not ok during the off season(if Disney has one), but it will cause problems in the busy seasons for sure, especially will all of the new attractions coming. Of course, Universal's Nintendo Land will also help pull some of the traffic from Disney, at least for the first year it's open, but once the shimmer of something new is gone people will return to their old standby vacations(something I don't have since I tend to do a different vacation each time, but in the case of Disney I have four trips planned over the next two years).

 

[Keels]

So ... just for hee-haws, I went and looked at FP+s. I do not have a reservation for a resort stay, but I was able to make FP+s at Animal Kingdom for 60 days from today. The only thing I have is a Platinum Plus AP.

 

[rteetz]

So ... just for hee-haws, I went and looked at FP+s. I do not have a reservation for a resort stay, but I was able to make FP+s at Animal Kingdom for 60 days from today. The only thing I have is a Platinum Plus AP.

I am only allowed to book 30 days out with a regular Platinum.

 

[Keels]

#PicsOrItDidntHappen