Recent content by danlb_2000

Next you are going to tell me that ground breaking ceremoies aren't part of the actual site prep work.

Add a couple more docks and make it transportation.

Good catch on the rebar. I agree, it does seem to be for a retaining wall.

Could be, could also be totally unrelated to anything currently being built. Wouldn't be the first ride patent that never became a reality.

I wonder how many of the patents we have seen in the past actually made it into an attraction?

Would a fake facade need to be shown on the documents?

We don't know what condition it is in, or if it was even built to easily come apart.

The back of Everest is themed, it's just very light themeing

You are correct, my train of thought went off the tracks. :)

... and this is why I bring it up, since others are saying the exapnsion is the path to higher profits.

There is no connection between "attractions per guest per hour" and the size of your potential customer base. I am not denying that increased guest satisfaction would increase attendnace, but even with an extremely satifisfying guest experience, you will still eventually reach a point where it...

So if new parks are such a clear path to revenue, why haven't we seen one in 28 years?

None of this addresses my original comment, you can't expand without limit, how do you know when you are reaching that limit?

If they were to build out the parks enough to achieve that metric, where would the new revenue come from?

But the question is, when do you stop expanding? There is a finite customer base for any product, so as you expand you will eventually reach a point of dimishing returns.