A lot of speculation on the Starcruiser losing money if it doesn't hit a certain capacity, but is this based on anything concrete? Does anyone actually know what the running costs are?
Well that is basic business sense. Things have operating costs... nothing runs for free, especially when it includes hospitality and entertainment.
But the notion that anything less than 100% is now critical is not basic business sense, and actually runs counter to it. So this is a classic sense of people taking a slice of truth and getting hyperbolic with it to jump to some biased conclusion.
They would know running 100% occupancy isn't a sustainable thing, even with unmet demand... so execs would know that approving a business plan that only made money at 100% is a fantasy.. and no regular exec would buy into that.
Unless they also know that running at a loss would be the norm, and is to be expected. And that not only runs opposed to most Disney pricing of late.. it would REALLY not make sense for a product intentionally priced as an exclusive. So this notion too has basically a zero probability.
So none of that makes any sense and anyone pushing that is just blowing smoke.
What is their real break-even point... that would be real insider information. We don't even know really how much staff they have. But any practical business plan would have an expected occupancy rate that is not only a forecast, but one that is believed to be achievable... and they'd setup a pricing structure that was inclusive of their cost and forecast needs.
I mean.. this isn't some guy that just woke up and said "I'm gonna start a hotel today!" - They have professionals managing this.. and even if they sucked, they would have financial analysts telling them they are crazy.. long before the thing opened.