Not arguing "fair or unfair", just very sad and disappointed. 
How is that any less fair though?
It's absolutely fair if one values money over all other qualities. But if one values persistence and/or experience over money, then a whole different outcome prevails. It's not really a matter of fair or not fair. (Note that in my post, I never mentioned that word.) It is purely a discussion of which values and character traits used to prevail in an amusement park, and which ones will rule the roost going forward. By way of example, suppose at work, employees with seniority and a demonstrated skill set typically got promoted. Now, imagine if promotions were given to those who paid the boss the greatest sum of money even if they had only been on the job for a month, or had average performance ratings. Would that be "fair"? Sure. In a world where payment of money is the ultimate determiner of elevation. Both methods of promoting people are fair. They are simply different. But one of the two is the one we are most familiar with, and most comfortable with.
Old mate might also run a Ponzi scheme, or be a drug dealer, or may have just won the lottery. As soon as you allow money to be the determining factor, and then start to weigh why each person has their money, things get ugly. What isn't ugly is allowing the person who arrived first to get first pick. It works so seamlessly in most instances. Why not at an amusement park?
Do you really think that the area that was formerly used for Fireworks FPs will become a "free" area in the future? Up until April, anyone could book that preferred area. What do you think is going to happen to it?
Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
Did it make sense? Sure. Do I like it? Not a bit. We are one of those families that regularly got to the parks early and parked in those close rows. We were then able to bypass the trams and walk to the front gate. At the end of the day, we strolled right past the hordes of people waiting to board trams and went straight to our car. Will we still be able to do that? Probably not. We're certainly not going to fork over $15 extra per day to get that ability back. So now we'll either be joining those hordes or taking a much longer walk, neither of which are options we would otherwise have picked.
Why? Because money is more valuable than time? Then yes, it makes sense. But if time is more valuable than money, then no, it doesn't make sense. Think about all the circumstances where first-come-first-served is the norm compared to circumstances where people can pay to gain an advantage. To be sure, both systems are employed. So it should come as no surprise that people are supporting both.
Kevin, is the new preferred parking spaces that used to be open to all or is it spaces that were already reserved for VIP stuff like AAA?
It makes sense because Disney is a company, they're out to make money.
Time is money, and at WDW the exchange rate is typically favorable.
I'm not necessarily looking at it from any perspective or taking any side. The title of this thread is "Agree to Disagree", and here is where that becomes true. For Disney, this is a business and it will always value money. For guests, they are on vacation and will always factor in time, efficiency and experience. There are going to be times when those values intersect, and there will be times when they don't. And when they don't, you end up at the place where this thread is titled.
I think this is your best argument. Recently I visited Big Cedar Lodge in Missouri. I stayed in one of the nicer cabins they had at about $325 a night. There were 'free things' to do really nothing special, but every time I went to do an activity beyond putt putt golf it cost me another $50 or $100. I would have gladly paid $500 a night if they'd include those activities rather than nickel and diming me. Do I have the money to do all of the activities, yes. But I don't like the feeling I have that I have to take my wallet out every time I want to experience something.
There are a million facets to this argument. Another poster noted that you get benefits for staying on property etc with Extra Magic or early access to FP, but that seems more reasonable as you are GUEST of the Resort vs. a guest of the PARK. That doesn't strike me as 'exclusive' but rather more of an inclusive package for staying at Walt Disney World rather, a perk.
Can you argue that paying $150 for park access is a 'perk'? I don't think so.
A few years ago, a friend of mine said, they'd wish that Disney would create a system that would level the playing field for those who just want to come and enjoy the parks. Someone like "me" had such an advantage over others. She was talking about my level of knowledge about the parks and how things worked, what to ride, when to ride, where to stand for shows, etc caveats of the parks that made my families experience different. The thing is, I was working to create all of that. I had done the research and the leg work to make that happen and EVERYONE that came to the park could have had the exact same experience. No one was able to PAY and stand in front of me, I was orchestrating it and to many people I think (regardless of the financial resources you have) that is the difference. What I was doing, EVERYONE had access to...while my friend thinks it's more fair now, the reality is, if you don't know all the things you have to do or pay for to get access, you're worse off than before.
One other point was about paying for Dining Experiences and not having to wait to meet characters. I don't know that I see that the same way as you're paying for a meal that has 'entertainment' included. That's not paying to stand in line before me, that's paying for an additional 'experience'. If I don't want to wait to see Princesses, I show up at Rope Drop and have no line...again I make it happen
