To me, this is where things get tricky. Adding more rides increases operating costs and it if doesn't drive more spending to offset that what is the point of doing it from business perspective? If the new rides do drive more attendance it won't solve the capacity problem. Almost a catch 22.
If there is a wait then the capacity is being used. Yes there are ways to reduce operational throughput but they’re not really being used. People aren’t walking into Dinosaur, right up to load and then waiting for a vehicle to show up to just one side of the load platform.I don't know the answer to this. What was the theoretical capacity of Dinoland USA? What was the actual? Did actual capacity match or come close to theoretical? Even if the theoretical capacity was downgraded to "max realistic" capacity was that capacity fully realized on a daily basis?
My point is this - if they added all new rides that matched capacity of what was there before but instead of poor attractions they were attractions that actually drove attendance like Pandora/Rise/Remy/Tron/GotG would the capacity of the park INCREASE just because the actual max capacity was being utilized?
People wanting to ride whatever replaces Dinosaur doesn’t suddenly make them no longer want to ride FOP. And if whatever replaces Dinosaurs drives increased park attendance, then it increases the pressure on FOP because there are now more people on the park still wanting to ride FOP.
- Takes pressure off of FoP
If there is a wait then the capacity is being used. Yes there are ways to reduce operational throughput but they’re not really being used. People aren’t walking into Dinosaur, right up to load and then waiting for a vehicle to show up to just one side of the load platform.
Having more people in a queue can help with crowding but is not part of the capacity calculation.
People wanting to ride whatever replaces Dinosaur doesn’t suddenly make them no longer want to ride FOP. And if whatever replaces Dinosaurs drives increased park attendance, then it increases the pressure on FOP because there are now more people on the park still wanting to ride FOP.
The delta between theoretical capacity and operational capacity should not be huge. You have deeper operational issues if that is the case, once’s that will only be exacerbated by increasing demand.I agree, so here is my follow ups:
How often does Dinosaur actually have a wait vs. published? And if it's a low wait, are they loading vehicles to capacity or are they making accommodations for different party sizes?
Your last point is pretty key I think. I more desirable attraction puts more people in the queue and relieves pressure from the rest of the park. More people out of FoP and also potentially putting more butts in the Nemo show afterward.
Yes, in this talk mentioning live animals is the fact that there are a few animal enclosures in the area. I would expect that while specific animals would change to fit the new theme that there would still be some live animals in the new land.Wonder what happens to the American crocodile, Abdim's storks and Asian brown tortoises?
Maybe move to another location in the park?
The delta between theoretical capacity and operational capacity should not be huge. You have deeper operational issues if that is the case, once’s that will only be exacerbated by increasing demand.
More people in a queue is meaningless if there are more people in the park. You’re not decreasing demand elsewhere because it’s been replaced with the increased visitation.
Yes, in this talk mentioning live animals is the fact that there are a few animal enclosures in the area. I would expect that while specific animals would change to fit the new theme that there would still be some live animals in the new land.
It’s an interesting question as well whether the current species would remain at DAK or be sent to other animal facilities.
Improving transportation to and from AK would probably do more to help support a nighttime show than adding 3-4 attractions, IMO.From an AK perspective, if they can add enough rides and things to do for a full day park, they can then have a night show again and make money from more guests in the parks buying things.
not sure I agree with that... do you mean improving as in adding an additional method of park transportation there? (skyliner for example?)Improving transportation to and from AK would probably do more to help support a nighttime show than adding 3-4 attractions, IMO.
Yes. Pandora expansion is what I’ve heard.Anyone hear anything about a possible addition of another attraction being built elsewhere in AK? Not just the dinoland redo but something else as well
there was talk of a 3rd Avatar attraction at one time... not sure where that stands now however.Anyone hear anything about a possible addition of another attraction being built elsewhere in AK? Not just the dinoland redo but something else as well
Anyone hear anything about a possible addition of another attraction being built elsewhere in AK? Not just the dinoland redo but something else as well
The impact of induced demand is magnified when you’re starting out with insufficient capacity. When you’re replacing capacity then you’re just increasing demand because any improvements to utilization would be marginal.Induced demand is real, but it's not as significant as you think.
Yes, new attractions drive attendance, but they also provide additional capacity and spread crowds out. Parks will always be and feel busy... but wait-times can be managed correctly.
Disneyland exists with more than enough capacity and double DAK's attendance, and rarely do you see multiple waits over an hour.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.