-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Phicinfan
Well-Known Member
Why? its maintain or shut down. you can't just keep it going unsafely. My guess is, it was a large way to eat crowds when those that wanted to ride it did.
Starship824
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
They already do, that's why they announced only sequels during d23 lol.
Starship824
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I know we can't stop the removal of the RoA but I just hope they find another purpose for the Liberty Belle, it would be such a shame to loose that ship. I know some are suggesting bring it over to Paris since there mark twain is bad but how would they even do that?
Stripes
Premium Member
It sounds like it is necessary to me because many posts on this forum seem to be under the impression that fans are the only stakeholder Disney needs to mind.
In the past two years alone Disney has expanded Imagineering‘s headcount by over 600 people, bringing their total headcount to over 2,600. Between salary and benefits that additional 600 people is going to cost approximately $70 million per year.
There are so many variables and unexpected challenges that could and are likely to arise. It’s difficult to say with much certainty. Roughly speaking, about 2-3 years to prepare the land at a cost of approximately $30-50 million. Of course, the cost of 2-3 years of forfeited revenue from less guests booking trips than there would be if the company opened the expansion sooner also costs the company a significant amount of money.
Last edited:
Disone
Well-Known Member
No one has said this.
Interesting numbers.... Insider? Just wondering?
Correct and right there is where one should not be stating as fact that this is definitely the better way to financially serve the shareholders. Really too many variables at play to say. And for every accountant that can spin the Excel spreadsheet to Lean one side of the argument, with this many variables I'm sure there's another Excel spreadsheet Master who could spin it the other way.
easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
If safety was a concern for such a money-losing attraction, I think Disney would be more likely to have just closed it permanently than refurbished the whole thing. Closing it for repair costs way more than closing it permanently.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
My point is the double standard in their movie business VS. theme park business.
In their movie business (and actually streaming business) there is no thought of budget or spending, they over spend and hope for the best. In their movie business, their art (and their message) is king!
One of the reason they will be paving over ROA is costs; the cost to put cars there instead of actually expanding on undeveloped land, eliminating costs of maintaining ROA, TSI and the riverboat, etc. In their theme park business, the dollar is king!
In their theme park business, every penny is accounted for, cost cuts everywhere, price increases every where. The dollar is king! The guest experience is way down the list.
CoasterCowboy67
Well-Known Member
Ok so we have a lot of boat maintenance experts here all of a sudden. I'm not claiming to be one, as I'm also not the one questioning Disney's timeline on boat maintenance / repairs, or the decision to shutter an attraction shortly after a repair, like people here seem to have the authority and expertise to be able to do so?
Do we know how much the boiler repairs cost? Do we know Disney didn't think it was worth the cost to keep the boat operational (and safe) for X more months? Do we know the decision-making for said repairs is owned by the same person who then decided to remove the attraction to replace with Cars? Do we know a riverboat only needs its boilers and track replaced -- nothing else could possibly require maintenance that is expensive to fix and/or could justify its closure? Do we know the decision to shutter the boat wasn't also influenced by cost to maintain the river and island altogether?
I don't, and I don't think anybody else here knows either
Do we know how much the boiler repairs cost? Do we know Disney didn't think it was worth the cost to keep the boat operational (and safe) for X more months? Do we know the decision-making for said repairs is owned by the same person who then decided to remove the attraction to replace with Cars? Do we know a riverboat only needs its boilers and track replaced -- nothing else could possibly require maintenance that is expensive to fix and/or could justify its closure? Do we know the decision to shutter the boat wasn't also influenced by cost to maintain the river and island altogether?
I don't, and I don't think anybody else here knows either
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There’s a long history of parks replacing steam power because it’s easier and cheaper.
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost
Well-Known Member
So at this point, what now? Have people written to Disney execs to share their concerns? I sent out emails awhile ago, was going to do physical letters too but not sure if that's overkill.
We can complain here all we want, but unless we express our thoughts to Disney directly, it won't matter.
We can complain here all we want, but unless we express our thoughts to Disney directly, it won't matter.
BuzzedPotatoHead89
Well-Known Member
It’s the business model… for the Parks segment they need to show increased growth in per person spending to demonstrate “sound financial health” to investors.
This is particularly true in Florida where other key metrics - in terms of overall attendance, deluxe room sales, DVCs, etc, are dropping due to a multitude of factors. It helps to have the “per person spending” going up to be dangled as a silver lining to the investment community to demonstrate to shareholders that there’s still growth. This at least gives the appearance the parks business in Florida is strong and growing.
Removing attractions that essentially “suck up guests time on leisure activities” (in the eyes of management and shareholders) without spending an additional penny helps this metric immensely.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I agree, and Disney's movie business does not. - a double standard.
BuzzedPotatoHead89
Well-Known Member
I think they’ve been slow to adapt because they’re worried about attracting “top talent” in Hollywood. I definitely think budgets should be slashed but for a long time D+ and most streaming services were perceived as loss leaders. That time has passed a the purse strings are tightening albeit more slowly on the entertainment side.
Example: no acolyte season 2, or Willow, no more Eternals sequels, or She Hulk.
But this year has generally been a good one for Disney on film with both IO2 and D&W. Even the Fox holdovers like Alien and Apes at least are hitting break even.
But I know we’re off topic now…
Without further information, this thread enters the stage all lengthy threads enter: The Airing of Personal Grievances.
Captain Barbossa
Well-Known Member
So why is it not in a good shape, mechanically? Tell us.
I wish
CoasterCowboy67
Well-Known Member
That said, I won't pretend to know how decision-making is made at the parks. I would guess that park ops has to execute certain kinds of maintenance (safety, maintenance upkeep, etc.) because they have to meet certain deadlines / milestones given EOL of certain components -- they already have that roadmap ahead of time.
Doesn't mean park ops is concurrently complaining about the cost to maintain certain areas of the park and additional maintenance projects on their roadmap to execute that would go away if more senior leadership decided to shutter the attraction
All that to say that a recent repair isn't at odds with the decision to close an attraction. It's not disorganized decision-making, it's just a matter of timing. There's a lot that goes into it
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
The point to the recent repair was that Disney did recently evaluate the steamboats and steam train and decided to invest in them significantly in order to keep them operating.
There is lots of disorganized decision making - they went through casting, hiring, and rehearsing a brand new cast for the Pixar parade at studios - that cast never performed cause the parade was cut completely. This was within months of the decision to cut the parade - which is pretty knee-jerk and last minute for a company the size of Disney.
el_super
Well-Known Member
This was always true.
Maybe they can get a good price for it, should they decide to sell it to another company or ship the parts over somewhere else.
CoasterCowboy67
Well-Known Member
You're missing the point. You make it seem like they sat down and decided to do something with some major forward-looking strategy in mind and then randomly changed the strategy a day later. That's not how decisions are made
The boiler replacement was likely on a schedule set years prior by the original life expectancy of the equipment and maintenance reports thereafter, with very limited options for Park Ops around when they execute -- they probably have a one or two-year window to get it done (before the deadline) and then pick the best few months to close down the ride for refurb in balance with other projects, seasonality, etc. It's very possible, if not extremely likely, that this maintenance needed to happen on a certain date to avoid a safety issue or mechanical issue -- regardless of any strategy of what to do with ROA / TSI. If guests were stranded on a boat for hours and it was later revealed equipment was years past its expectancy, lawsuits would follow
When a decision is made to shutter the boat, past repairs don't matter, they are sunk costs. The conversation is focused on (1) schedule and costs for known future repairs in the coming years (which c'mon y'all, there has to be more than boilers and a track to repair and upkeep), (2) ongoing / routing maintenance outside of these repairs, and (3) the opportunity cost of what you'd spend (or make in revenue) from putting something else in its place. This is the stuff that drives strategy