Walt Disney World Holiday Season 2024

[peter11435]

When the LL gets backed up because (downtime, more people redeeming the entitlement at the same time, guests being allowed to redeem their entitlement after their designated window, DAS, etc) the ratio is changed to prioritize LL.

That is an increased demand for the attraction. More people want on via LL = more demand.

The ratio always prioritizes LL, as it should. DAS is already accounted for in LL allotment and guests redeeming late or at the same time are still guests that were included in the original LL allotment. That doesn't mean there is more demand for the attraction. But yes, this will temporarily increase the ratio of LL and cause standby lines to temporarily increase. So what’s your point? This has nothing to do with encouraging additional LL sales. And generally the original LL backup decreases the perceived value for those who have purchased it.

 

[monothingie]

The ratio always prioritizes LL, as it should. DAS is already accounted for in LL allotment and guests redeeming late or at the same time are still guests that were included in the original LL allotment. That doesn't mean there is more demand for the attraction. But yes, this will temporarily increase the ratio of LL and cause standby lines to temporarily increase. So what’s your point? This has nothing to do with encouraging additional LL sales. And generally the original LL backup decreases the perceived value for those who have purchased it.

Amazing how you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. (It’s not increased demand for the attraction but a temporary increase in the number of people wanting to utilize the attraction.)


How do you figure they came up with each attraction specific admittance ratio?

Do you think that they just randomly picked a number? Or did they analyze the usage and determined an admittance ratio which insured a maximum wait time in the standby queue under normal operating circumstances and average attraction demand? What do you bet that number was just enough to make the lightning lane option look very attractive.

 

[Chi84]

Does it really matter all that much? People in standby see the LLs flying by while they’re waiting. I doubt the change in ratios is the driving force behind the purchasing decision.

 

[ToTBellHop]

The ratio always prioritizes LL, as it should. DAS is already accounted for in LL allotment and guests redeeming late or at the same time are still guests that were included in the original LL allotment. That doesn't mean there is more demand for the attraction. But yes, this will temporarily increase the ratio of LL and cause standby lines to temporarily increase. So what’s your point? This has nothing to do with encouraging additional LL sales. And generally the original LL backup decreases the perceived value for those who have purchased it.

How do you have this much patience?

 

[peter11435]

How do you have this much patience?

I’m starting to think he must be purposely trolling.

 

[peter11435]

Amazing how you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. (It’s not increased demand for the attraction but a temporary increase in the number of people wanting to utilize the attraction.)


How do you figure they came up with each attraction specific admittance ratio?

Do you think that they just randomly picked a number? Or did they analyze the usage and determined an admittance ratio which insured a maximum wait time in the standby queue under normal operating circumstances and average attraction demand? What do you bet that number was just enough to make the lightning lane option look very attractive.

lol. I’m not talking out of both sides you’re just misunderstanding either intentionally or otherwise.

It’s not more guests wanting to utilize the attraction and I never said it was. It’s a LL backup usually due to the attraction accommodating less guests than planned (usually because of a downtime). The total number of guests having a LL hasn’t changed.

There are no attraction specific LL ratios. The LL ratios are consistent across all attractions and I’ve already said that. And those base ratios were the same for FP+ and FP before that. They were not created or changed for LL. They were created to balance having an appropriate number of FP while still keeping the Standby line moving at a steady pace. It had nothing to do with making paying seem more attractive or encouraging additional sales. FP was a free service for years while these same ratios were in use.

 

[monothingie]

lol. I’m not talking out of both sides you’re just misunderstanding either intentionally or otherwise.

It’s not more guests wanting to utilize the attraction and I never said it was. It’s a LL backup usually due to the attraction accommodating less guests than planned (usually because of a downtime). The total number of guests having a LL hasn’t changed.

So it’s completely not possible that during a given time period of normal operations that the LL doesn’t experience an additional load?

There are no attraction specific LL ratios. The LL ratios are consistent across all attractions and I’ve already said that. And those base ratios were the same for FP+ and FP before that. They were not created or changed for LL.

Absolutely there are different attraction specific ratios. Low capacity high demand attractions like Peter Pan would have an untenable LL wait time, as compared to the HM which is a high capacity high demand attraction.

They were created to balance having an appropriate number of FP while still keeping the Standby line moving at a steady pace. It had nothing to do with making paying seem more attractive or encouraging additional sales. FP was a free service for years while these same ratios were in use.

And then they monetized it. Everything about LL is maximizing guest spending. To say that Disney is just leaving money on the table with system designed solely to extract it from guests is naive.

 

[peter11435]

So it’s completely not possible that during a given time period of normal operations that the LL doesn’t experience an additional load?

I never said that. I specifically said usually caused by downtimes. Obviously sometimes the LL experiences higher loads at certain times due to guests arriving at different rates than planned, downtimes at other attractions, etc. Either way the total number of LL guests hasn’t changed, just their distribution.

Absolutely there are different attraction specific ratios. Low capacity high demand attractions like Peter Pan would have an untenable LL wait time, as compared to the HM which is a high capacity high demand attraction.

That’s simply not true. Ratios are not attraction specific. The LL ratios used at Peter Pan are exactly the same as those used at the HM. However, the amount of LL distributed for an attraction like Peter Pan is significantly less than for an attraction like the HM.

Everytime you respond you just prove how little you know. You think you understand things and have created an entire false reality based on your lack of knowledge.

 

[Chi84]

Everything about LL is maximizing guest spending. To say that Disney is just leaving money on the table with system designed solely to extract it from guests is naive.

LLs aren’t their only system though. I’m sure they’re trying to achieve a balance that leads to the greatest guest satisfaction.

WDW doesn’t have the ride capacity for a successful ride reservation system. That doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to make their guests happy.

 

[Starship824]

You think you understand things and have created an entire false reality based on your lack of knowledge.

 

[monothingie]

That’s simply not true. Ratios are not attraction specific. The LL ratios used at Peter Pan are exactly the same as those used at the HM. However, the amount of LL distributed for an attraction like Peter Pan is significantly less than for an attraction like the HM.

Did I say that the LL inventory was uniform? Clearly a low capacity ride will have lower allotment. Again you putting words in my mouth.


When was the last time you rode PP or 7DMT or other low capacity attractions to observe that the throughput is different and that there is a significantly larger LL admission to standby queue admission under normal operating conditions than other higher capacity rides.


BTW I’m still waiting for your 4 or more factors that have affected Holiday crowd sizes and wait times. Should I keep holding my breath expecting an actual answer from you?

 

[peter11435]

LLs aren’t their only system though. I’m sure they’re trying to achieve a balance that leads to the greatest guest satisfaction.

Exactly. WDW exists to extract money from its guests (and always has regardless of what some want to believe). Disney has hundreds of ways to extract money and LL is just one. Disney doesn’t want to intentionally make guests in Standby wait ridiculously long times because it lowers guest satisfaction and intent to return (less money) and it’s time they can’t be spending money in shops and buying snacks (less money). Everything is a balance.

 

[peter11435]

Did I say that the LL inventory was uniform? Clearly a low capacity ride will have lower allotment. Again you putting words in my mouth.

I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. I was explaining why the ratios can be (and are) the same across attractions regardless of capacity. You claimed that low capacity attractions would have exorbitant LL queues if they used the same ratio. That’s not true because they have lower allotment of LL that is specifically determined to maintain that same ratio.

When was the last time you rode PP or 7DMT or other low capacity attractions to observe that the throughput is different and that there is a significantly larger LL admission to standby queue admission under normal operating conditions than other higher capacity rides.

Under normal operating conditions they use the exact same LL ratios. Im not guessing.

BTW I’m still waiting for your 4 or more factors that have affected Holiday crowd sizes and wait times. Should I keep holding my breath expecting an actual answer from you?

You would intentionally misunderstand those too. Also I didn’t say those factors affected crowd size. I said those factors are affecting wait times independent of crowd size.

 

[monothingie]

Exactly. WDW exists to extract money from its guests (and always has regardless of what some want to believe). Disney has hundreds of ways to extract money and LL is just one. Disney doesn’t want to intentionally make guests in Standby wait ridiculously long times because it lowers guest satisfaction and intent to return (less money) and it’s time they can’t be spending money in shops and buying snacks (less money). Everything is a balance.

Except LL brought in almost a three quarter billion in revenue since its inception. So maybe there’s a little bit more attention given to LL.

 

[monothingie]

I wasn’t putting words in your mouth. I was explaining why the ratios can be (and are) the same across attractions regardless of capacity. You claimed that low capacity attractions would have exorbitant LL queues if they used the same ratio. That’s not true because they have lower allotment of LL that is specifically determined to maintain that same ratio

Well then maybe they are quicker to move to another phase under normal operating conditions.

.

Under normal operating conditions they use the exact same LL ratios. Im not guessing.

Which are? Specifics please.

You would intentionally misunderstand those too. Also I didn’t say those factors affected crowd size. I said those factors are affecting wait times independent of crowd size.

So no then?

 

[lentesta]

Here’s an interesting question for

Except LL brought in almost a three quarter billion in revenue since its inception. So maybe there’s a little bit more attention given to LL.

It's probably $700MM/year domestically at this point.

 

[Thank15]

It's probably $700MM/year domestically at this point.

Do you have any idea how much of that is new revenue vs revenue that’s shifted from other business units like dining?

 

[lentesta]

Do you have any idea how much of that is new revenue vs revenue that’s shifted from other business units like dining?

I don't, although I'm working on an analysis of that for a manifesto ... I MEAN BLOG POST ... that should be out next week.

I'm told Disney's restaurant margins are > 50%.

I believe (because I was told) that third parties have a general rule where the cost to produce an item can't be more than 25% of its listed price. So a $16 appetizer costs $4 in labor and ingredients to produce.

I'm guessing 25%-ish of the $16 goes to rent, utilities, insurance, etc. Granted, Disney's its own landlord, but they have building maintenance to consider.

The margins on digital goods is pretty close to 100%. I'm guessing the cost of running Lightning Lane is ~$25MM annually, which would put margins at 97%.

 

[bwr827]

Do you have any idea how much of that is new revenue vs revenue that’s shifted from other business units like dining?

Using a sample size of one family (ha), on our recent trip I estimate we shifted ~90% of our Lightning Lane spending directly from dining.

 

[Trueblood]

I'm told Disney's restaurant margins are > 50%.

I believe (because I was told) that third parties have a general rule where the cost to produce an item can't be more than 25% of its listed price. So a $16 appetizer costs $4 in labor and ingredients to produce.

You might be conflating some numbers there.

My understanding is that the rule of thumb is to triple the food cost of an item, and that markup covers facilities, labor, etc. More sophisticated businesses will average that markup across the menu, which is why you see lasagna (<$1 to make a portion) sold for $20 at spots like Carrabba's.

The average net profit margin for full-service restaurants is something like 10%. If Disney can pull 50%, that's astonishing.