Lightning Lane at Walt Disney World

[Wendy Pleakley]

LOL, perhaps they should build a 5th park that is an exact copy of the Magic Kingdom.... like having two tracks in Space Mountain to absorb the demand. Of course there will be those guests who'll only go to the 'original' MK rather than some clone, or those that will go to both to look for subtle differences, and those vloggers who want to ride both mountain ranges in a day.

(posted tongue in cheek)

Wasn't there a rumour that OLC wanted to build a twin of Tokyo Disneyland, before being told building a second park is the correct approach?

 

[SteveAZee]

Wasn't there a rumour that OLC wanted to build a twin of Tokyo Disneyland, before being told building a second park is the correct approach?

I hadn't heard that. Was the twin going to be next door to the original?

 

[matt9112]

Advanced dining was around when I went as a kid back in the 80s.


I'd argue that DHS is no longer a half day park. They replaced attractions that many would go on once and done or go on maybe once every few trips, with ones that most people will do every time they go.

I don't think a half day park exists anymore at WDW... AK is the closest and there is a ton to do if you go beyond rides.

Epcot if you dont drink and eat. Imho.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I hadn't heard that. Was the twin going to be next door to the original?

Allegedly.

 

[WaltsTreasureChest]

I have officially read the entire thread. I can say I am amazed by the number of people who knight up for Disney and this plan to increase per guest revenue spend while adding nothing new, nothing. This is 100% part of Disney’s new strategy of “micro” transactions.


This absolutely disgusts me. The lack of a fast pass included with your ticket is infuriating. The current management had a choice and they choose to hide the prices in additional fees vs truthfully exposing the price of attending a park.

This is just a big middle finger to its biggest fans.

A lot of the Disney shills are weird. You should be concerned and it’s totally in people’s right to be upset.

 

[MurphyJoe]

Hey! How about an MK of the past where classic rides and attractions that have been removed / retired over the decades are resurrected for guests to enjoy again and allow the next gen's to experience what once was. Things like 20,000 leagues under the sea maybe? Just an example.

While a popular idea on online forums, I can't see a business case being made to spend billions on a museum of previous Disney attractions. If Disney was going the duplication route of previously built experiences, I could see them doing a mash-up of Disneyland and Disneyland Paris then calling the resulting park Disneyland Orlando (thus totally confusing everyone). Blending those two together would give a similar, yet different enough, experience to the Magic Kingdom that might actually have a chance at drawing crowds from MK.

 

[NoChesterHester]

Lunch date update rumors?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Adding more rides does not decrease wait times. That’s a fan fantasy

It’s the basic building block of attraction programming. Wait times are a function of capacity. Staggering scale of new attractions to jump and maintain visitation is a common strategy across the industry.

It’s not that easy and doesn’t solve the problem the way you think it does. But… they have done that. Why do you think they added that third track at TSM, the third theater at Soarin, and rebuilt every safari vehicle to add an extra row… etc

A few things here and there don’t make up for the much larger gap.

Your point right here basically betrays the failures of your entire argument. They didn't add capacity, except that one time they did,

The same way you didn’t get everyone a chair if you bring 10 chairs to a group of 100 people. You brought some chairs but not nearly enough.

Adding ride capacity doesn't mitigate crowding or long lines. Not at all. New attractions usually generate long lines and additional attendance and just move the crowds around. As long as people want to go on the Haunted Mansion, the Haunted Mansion will have a long line. Adding TRON or Seven Dwarfs isn't going to suddenly convince people they can make a trip to MK and skip Haunted Mansion.

Those people in line for Seven Dwarfs Mine Train are skipping something else. That time they are spending at the attraction came from somewhere.

I wanted to point this out because this is the other weird failing in this line of reasoning: that the theme park market somehow works in a water-flows-uphill kind of way. If the market wanted more unique merchandise, and a less "watered down selection" then wouldn't the lack of selection result in FEWER merchandise sales? How can there be long lines at the stores, if there is less stuff to buy?

The business model changed. The focused shifted to measuring the profitability of each square foot. Overall sales didn’t jump but the number of profitable square feet increased by spreading those sales around. There can also be long lines due to the same lack of capacity. A theme park is a designed experience, not a market of competing businesses.

 

[mysto]

Lunch date update rumors?

I usually eat at 11. Do you have a restaurant proposal?

 

[rkleinlein]

People don’t suddenly stop wanting a Fastpass for Everest because they can now have one for Flight of Passage.

Adding more rides does not decrease wait times. That’s a fan fantasy

Imagine a park with two rides and 1,000 guests who want to ride them. Thats 500 people at a time in line at each ride. Now imagine the same number guests with four rides: 250 people at a time in line at each ride.

Assume (for the sake of simplicity) all rides have the same capacity/wait time per person and that I'm always at the end of the line. in scenario one, I have to wait for 1,000 ahead of me (500 x 2) and ride two rides. In scenario two, I still have to wait for 1,000 people in front of me (250 x 4) so end up waiting the same amount of time in total, but I've ridden four rides instead of two.

More rides may not decrease total wait time (assuming everyone wants to ride every single ride) but it decreases wait time at each ride so more rides can be ridden in the same amount of time.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I think you are correct, but there are nuances. The one assumption you've made that peter11435 would (I assume) argue against is the 1,000 guest number. Where I would argue the gap lies is in Park Capacity vs. Attraction Demand. The hours in the park and park capacity (i.e. how many people they actually let in that day) is the most important. However, it also assumes you have a proper balance of your attraction demand. This is why MK - and at one time Epcot - was easier to control.

The current example would be Boo Bash. You have park capacity (number of guests) and time (hours) that forces choice. MK has enough attractions perceived as in demand where people will have plenty to do. In this case, they added "attractions" (i.e. candy and cavalcades), which reduces wait times. Your example works here. Other than the price, guest satisfaction is probably pretty high here. People have options, are filling their time and any perceived "missing out" is simply because I didn't have enough time to do everything I wanted.

Let's try a different scenario. Let's do Boo Bash at Hollywood Studios where Rise (and all attractions) are just on a normal standby queue system without FP/Genie. I bet you would see a VERY different experience. Assuming the same number of guests, you would likely have 75-80% of guests queueing for Rise. Some people could wait the entire 3 hours and still not make it on. Adding more attractions here may have some minor impact on Rise - but its big impact is on guest satisfaction. The people who got on Rise first will have an amazing day - as the other attractions will have virtually no line. Others farther back will have a horrible experience (effectively only riding Rise or nothing at all). The demand is out of whack. You would need a legitimate competitor to Rise to make a major change in the wait times/number of attractions.

(The same idea also plays out at parks. MK is the "must do" for most guests. So the demand/capacity/offering calculation needs to be different there than DAK. Or, you have to focus on DAK to make it a legitimate MK competitor.)

Bottom line - adding one attraction does not equate to adding a different attraction. And, the park, capacity (actual or artificially imposed) and demand all have to play into the equation.

 

[el_super]

I think you are correct, but there are nuances. The one assumption you've made that peter11435 would (I assume) argue against is the 1,000 guest number. Where I would argue the gap lies is in Park Capacity vs. Attraction Demand. The hours in the park and park capacity (i.e. how many people they actually let in that day) is the most important. However, it also assumes you have a proper balance of your attraction demand. T

I was going to reply but basically I used up too many words to say this same thing.

The basic premise of building more attractions ignores two key concepts:

1) Attendance is not static and can change due to new additions (or even hour by hour).
2) Drawing power is the same for all attractions.

Or as a further example:

The same way you didn’t get everyone a chair if you bring 10 chairs to a group of 100 people. You brought some chairs but not nearly enough.

It's so much more complex than this though. A more accurate, but not at all comprehensive description would be: bringing 50 chairs for 20 people at 8AM, that becomes 50 people at 11AM, that becomes 100 people at 2PM, but of those 100 people, 60% of them don't want to sit on blue chairs, and 30% of them claim that the one yellow chair is the only chair worth sitting on.

Those people in line for Seven Dwarfs Mine Train are skipping something else. That time they are spending at the attraction came from somewhere.

Yes and odds are, as history has told us, that what got dropped from their day was their least favorite attraction. Ironically that tends to be the higher performing capacity attractions that have lived past their useful life.

That's why it's not at all uncommon to see a 40-60 minute wait for Mine Train, and empty seats at the Hall of Presidents or Carousel of Progress. Adding a new attraction doesn't change the desire to see Mine Train or Haunted Mansion, but it just means there's less time for something less desirable, and even less reason for the park to keep those attractions open.

 

[rkleinlein]

I think you are correct, but there are nuances. The one assumption you've made that peter11435 would (I assume) argue against is the 1,000 guest number. Where I would argue the gap lies is in Park Capacity vs. Attraction Demand. The hours in the park and park capacity (i.e. how many people they actually let in that day) is the most important. However, it also assumes you have a proper balance of your attraction demand. This is why MK - and at one time Epcot - was easier to control.

The current example would be Boo Bash. You have park capacity (number of guests) and time (hours) that forces choice. MK has enough attractions perceived as in demand where people will have plenty to do. In this case, they added "attractions" (i.e. candy and cavalcades), which reduces wait times. Your example works here. Other than the price, guest satisfaction is probably pretty high here. People have options, are filling their time and any perceived "missing out" is simply because I didn't have enough time to do everything I wanted.

Let's try a different scenario. Let's do Boo Bash at Hollywood Studios where Rise (and all attractions) are just on a normal standby queue system without FP/Genie. I bet you would see a VERY different experience. Assuming the same number of guests, you would likely have 75-80% of guests queueing for Rise. Some people could wait the entire 3 hours and still not make it on. Adding more attractions here may have some minor impact on Rise - but its big impact is on guest satisfaction. The people who got on Rise first will have an amazing day - as the other attractions will have virtually no line. Others farther back will have a horrible experience (effectively only riding Rise or nothing at all). The demand is out of whack. You would need a legitimate competitor to Rise to make a major change in the wait times/number of attractions.

(The same idea also plays out at parks. MK is the "must do" for most guests. So the demand/capacity/offering calculation needs to be different there than DAK. Or, you have to focus on DAK to make it a legitimate MK competitor.)

Bottom line - adding one attraction does not equate to adding a different attraction. And, the park, capacity (actual or artificially imposed) and demand all have to play into the equation.

I agree completely with everything you say. There are a whole host of factors which impact wait times. In my very simplistic example I was merely trying to say spreading crowds between more things means less waiting for each thing and, in turn, the ability to do more things in the same amount of time.

If everybody who walks through the gate wants to ride something, Rise of Resistance, for example, nothing--not Fast Pass, not Lightning Lane, not virtual queue, not boarding group--nothing, is going to get everyone on. In this case perhaps a virtual queue with no standby line is the best. But they shouldn't charge people for it.

One could also ask why they would build an attraction they knew would have the very highest demand but with a capacity no where close to being able to meet that demand. Rise of Resistance has less of hourly capacity than some attractions built 50 years ago when attendance was a fraction what it is now. Of course we all know the answer to that question.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

One could also ask why they would build an attraction they knew would have the very highest demand but with a capacity no where close to being able to meet that demand. Rise of Resistance has less of hourly capacity than some attractions built 50 years ago when attendance was a fraction what it is now. Of course we all know the answer to that question.

Something I've asked many times. People plan vacations in order to ride the latest headliner attraction.

Surely they can come up with a plan where resort guests are guaranteed one ride with a 4-day park hopper and limiting AP holders to a ride once every 4 visits or something.

Allowing people to buy their way onto an attraction with no wait is one thing if everyone else has the standby option. As it is, access to the ride is allocated in such a way that someone dropping thousands of dollars on a vacation might not, in theory, get on it at all.

 

[Andrew25]

It's also not always about adding more rides, but updating rides that are no longer relevant/popular. Epcot has major people eaters but they are no longer popular like before: Journey Into Imagination, Nemo, Living with the Land, Gran Fiesta Tour all have great capacity, but they aren't popular so that capacity goes to waste. Everyone wants to ride Test Track and Frozen but those have ridicously low ride capacity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's so much more complex than this though. A more accurate, but not at all comprehensive description would be: bringing 50 chairs for 20 people at 8AM, that becomes 50 people at 11AM, that becomes 100 people at 2PM, but of those 100 people, 60% of them don't want to sit on blue chairs, and 30% of them claim that the one yellow chair is the only chair worth sitting on.

That’s where you start getting into design day and design hour versus peak day and peak hour. You typically don’t design for peak because it provides enough capacity to cover 90%+ of your needs. You can ramp up and down while still maintaining a desirable level of capacity to meet a good attractions per guest per hour. But before you get into those sorts of issues you have to first recognize that you don’t have enough seats and want to actually address that root issue.

Yes and odds are, as history has told us, that what got dropped from their day was their least favorite attraction. Ironically that tends to be the higher performing capacity attractions that have lived past their useful life.

That's why it's not at all uncommon to see a 40-60 minute wait for Mine Train, and empty seats at the Hall of Presidents or Carousel of Progress. Adding a new attraction doesn't change the desire to see Mine Train or Haunted Mansion, but it just means there's less time for something less desirable, and even less reason for the park to keep those attractions open.

They don’t just become useless. They become your slack capacity where their low wait times offsets the longer waits at marquee attractions so that you average out with the desired attractions per guest per hour.

 

[rkleinlein]

I

One could also ask why they set up a system that lets some people ride this low capacity headliner every day while other guests lose the lottery and don't get to ride it. Which may help explain why they are switching the system to give a different group a better chance to ride, and leave fewer slots for APs.

I agree completely. A lottery with winners and losers is horrible.

But then do you do away with all passes, reservations, boarding groups, virtual queues? Just make everybody wait in line? Those who decide to wait three hours get on, those who don’t want to wait three hours don’t get on? Maybe that is the best.

At any rate, I’d argue that a better solution than sinking millions into my magic (or whatever it was called) and then millions more into genie, is to build headliners with greater—much greater capacities.

 

[marni1971]

This cluster won’t ruin the 50th. But as for shortly after…

For the east coast anyway.

 

[dreday3]

This cluster won’t ruin the 50th. But as for shortly after…

For the east coast anyway.

20 days after?

 

[Chi84]

I

I agree completely. A lottery with winners and losers is horrible.

But then do you do away with all passes, reservations, boarding groups, virtual queues? Just make everybody wait in line? Those who decide to wait three hours get on, those who don’t want to wait three hours don’t get on? Maybe that is the best.

At any rate, I’d argue that a better solution than sinking millions into my magic (or whatever it was called) and then millions more into genie, is to build headliners with greater—much greater capacities.

A system that forced me to wait three hours to get on a headliner would be the one thing that would break WDW for me.