Because that's what the word "similar" means:If you say the scale of cuts are smaller, then I don't know how you can say its similar to the 90s. The late 90s was bad for the park, so again I don't know you can say its similar.
But ok, if you say so.
No one said otherwise.
Except this doesn't resemble anything like the 90s and early 00s, so again I don't know how you can say its similar.
Um, you did:
Now you're just being disingenuous. Of course there are resemblances to the 90s and 00s. That's just silliness to say there aren't.
Please quote the post where I said "APs are not financially valuable."
Agree to disagree.
Now who is being disingenuous.
Well, unless my junior high school English teachers lied to me...
And my point was that I'm sorry but you are incorrect in your assessment of APs value to the company, no matter how you word it.
But then, I don't know you can make a claim that every year is higher when this year it has been lower 3%. Your prediction should be year to year, yet you already conceded that this year will be flat. You can't make an argument based on the average of the last decade. It is unlikely this year will see a increase in attendance unless attendance in the current quarter exceeds 3% significantly, which from what we've seen, APs aren't back in force.I don't know how you can say that when the year isn't over yet.
For the last decade, except for 2012 and 2016, the attendance at DL has steadily increased:
Disneyland attendance US 2023 | Statista
Attendance at Disneyland in the U.S. has seen growth over the past decade. That is until the coronavirus pandemic when visitation saw a sharp declinewww.statista.com
If anything 2019 will likely be flat to slightly lower just like in 2016. Which still over the average of the last decade is still a yearly increase.
In order to make that conclusion, you have to know what my assessment of AP value is, which you don't.
First, that is down 3% across the entire domestic parks including WDW. Second, that is only for the most recent quarter not the entire year, this year isn't over yet. So you can't claim the entire year will be down when the year isn't over.
I'm basing it on what you posted. Your post indicates that to you the company sees less value for APs then the daily ticket purchasers, and there is just no data that proves that.
There is actually plenty of data that makes it very difficult to conclude otherwise.
I haven't claimed anything, but you claimed a lot like this year will increase like every other year it has increased.
Please provide this data, and I'll be happy to look it over. But with Iger's recent statements that specifically state that DLR attendance was only down due to APs being blocked. That indicates that APs are even more valuable to the company than anyone thought.
I think you missed the point with Iger's statement (which you also misquoted - he did not say that was the "only" reason attendance was down).
I'm sorry but I don't extrapolate that same data as you do based on blockout and price increases (which by the way were across the board not just on APs). So again agree to disagree.
I didn't say anything about price increases. You seem to have a habit of saying I (and Bob Iger) said things that we actually never did.
The answer to this is obvious. Because the AP program makes them money. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are worth more than paying guests.
That is not at all where the idea stems from. I have never heard anyone make this argument. I've certainly never made it.
This makes no sense at all. Why would they get rid of a program that makes them money, just because it makes them less than other tickets?
