Lightning Lane at Walt Disney World

[LittleBuford]

You really want to be the offended party, don’t you? Posters let this whole thing drop and you dredge it up again. This started because I made a general point - line-skipping software ultimately makes things worse for everyone but Disney - and you and Chi decided to take personal offense instead of debating the effects of such systems on the parks as built. For one thing, apparently, you don’t mind huge, pressing crowds, so saying they make the parks worse doesn’t respect your perspective.

You tried to shut down debate and stated or implied implied other posters were dogmatic zealots (has anyone on the other side of the argument made similar accusations about you?) and eventually, explicitly did the thing you accuse others of doing, devaluing the opinions as the product of maladjustment. When this was pointed out, you responded with a “sorry you’re offended” pseudo-apology.

If this is misleading, show me the specific offensive passages from me or other posters you took as personal insults.

I am not personally insulted by anything you or others have said. Nor did I mean to suggest that anyone here is maladjusted, and I apologise for using language that lent itself to such an interpretation.

Not once have I tried to shut down debate. That is a gross mischaracterisation of everything I've posted.

To set the record straight:

- I enjoy WDW as it currently stands but realise that others do not. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind.
- It doesn't bother me in the slightest if people wish to complain about the parks. Have at it.
- I do not go in for retorts of the "If you don't like it, stop going" variety. It's not for me to tell others how to spend their time and money.
- I'm perfectly willing to be challenged on my perception of phenomena and situations that lie beyond myself as an individual. Whatever views I hold on things like capacity, the general utility of FP+, attraction quality, etc., are fair game as far as debate is concerned.

Now, as to what does irk (not to say offend) me:

- Being told that my own feelings about WDW are ill-founded or the result of some sort of spell that Disney must have me under. It's as if one can't be allowed to be a self-possessed, intelligent person who enjoys today's Disney.
- Being preached at for giving Disney my money by those who are doing the very same thing. It's uncalled for, not to mention hypocritical.

The last two behaviours I've listed do come across as dogmatic and zealous. I choose the words deliberately because it often feels as if some posters here consider it an article of faith that no reasonable person can hold a different view of Disney from their own. It needn't be that way, and shouldn't.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I am not personally insulted by anything you or others have said. Nor did I mean to suggest that anyone here is maladjusted, and I apologise for using language that lent itself to such an interpretation.

Not once have I tried to shut down debate. That is a gross mischaracterisation of everything I've posted.

To set the record straight:

- I enjoy WDW as it currently stands but realise that others do not. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind.
- It doesn't bother me in the slightest if people wish to complain about the parks. Have at it.
- I do not go in for retorts of the "If you don't like it, stop going" variety. It's not for me to tell others how to spend their time and money.
- I'm perfectly willing to be challenged on my perception of phenomena and situations that lie beyond myself as an individual. Whatever views I hold on things like capacity, the general utility of FP+, attraction quality, etc., are fair game as far as debate is concerned.

Now, as to what does irk (not to say offend) me:

- Being told that my own feelings about WDW are ill-founded or the result of some sort of spell that Disney must have me under. It's as if one can't be allowed to be a self-possessed, intelligent person who enjoys today's Disney.
- Being preached at for giving Disney my money by those who are doing the very same thing. It's uncalled for, not to mention hypocritical.

The last two behaviours I've listed do come across as dogmatic and zealous. I choose the words deliberately because it often feels as if some posters here consider it an article of faith that no reasonable person can hold a different view of Disney from their own. It needn't be that way, and shouldn't.

This is all reasonable. It is not how you behaved. You became indignant and personally insulting because I and other posters claimed line-skipping created many other problems for guests. In fact, looking back, I even stipulated that the systems wouldn’t be a problem if you like big crowds - which we learned several pages later, you do (or don’t mind them). So unknowingly, I actually, explicitly, accounted for your very unique tastes.

But the biggest issue here is in your last paragraph - the idea that posters here are zealots who hold it as an article of faith that no one can hold an opposing view of Disney. You are reading that into discussions where it does not exist. Essentially, despite claiming to welcome criticism of the parks, you are interpreting it as zealotry, and thus taking it as a personal insult.

 

[mikejs78]

This is all reasonable. It is not how you behaved. You became indignant and personally insulting because I and other posters claimed line-skipping created many other problems for guests. In fact, looking back, I even stipulated that the systems wouldn’t be a problem if you like big crowds - which we learned several pages later, you do (or don’t mind them). So unknowingly, I actually, explicitly, accounted for your very unique tastes.

But the biggest issue here is in your last paragraph - the idea that posters here are zealots who hold it as an article of faith that no one can hold an opposing view of Disney. You are reading that into discussions where it does not exist. Essentially, despite claiming to welcome criticism of the parks, you are interpreting it as zealotry, and thus taking it as a personal insult.

There were others on this board who were calling him selfish (and used that word). I think that is out of line. Or one comment where someone replied calling those who liked line skips or who would purchase G+ as rubes. There definitely was some conversation that went outside the bounds of civil discussion and went into personal attack.

 

[LittleBuford]

This is all reasonable. It is not how you behaved. You became indignant and personally insulting because I and other posters claimed line-skipping created many other problems for guests. In fact, looking back, I even stipulated that the systems wouldn’t be a problem if you like big crowds - which we learned several pages later, you do (or don’t mind them). So unknowingly, I actually, explicitly, accounted for your very unique tastes.

But the biggest issue here is in your last paragraph - the idea that posters here are zealots who hold it as an article of faith that no one can hold an opposing view of Disney. You are reading that into discussions where it does not exist. Essentially, despite claiming to welcome criticism of the parks, you are interpreting it as zealotry, and thus taking it as a personal insult.

I think I've been about as clear as I can be. The irksome posts, as @Chi84 has already indicated, were those that wouldn't allow us to present ourselves as living, breathing exceptions to the dictum that line-skipping systems are to everyone's detriment. When we disagreed by pointing to our own personal experiences, we were told that any advantages we saw to FP+ must be illusory. When we continued to push back, we were told that our usage was atypical and subjected to a series of vague and moralising musings about the common good.

You'll notice that I'm not claiming that anyone tried to shut down debate by repeatedly telling us that we are imagining our own enjoyment and accusing us of not thinking beyond ourselves.

 

[hopemax]

This seems to contradict the usual claim that Disney is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by crowding and has been relying on line-skipping systems as a band-aid solution to the problem.

Oh, I've no doubt they're aware of the fact that crowding is an issue in most guests' eyes. I think I recall reading that it's the single biggest complaint in surveys. What I'm not convinced of in light of this awareness is the idea that Disney would deliberately raise crowd levels to convince guests of the popularity of newly built attractions.

If that is how you interpret what I said, no wonder you think it's a contradiction.

It's not about "convincing guests" at all. It's demonstrating understanding how people react to crowds vs what they say. People assume crowds = bad; they aren't consciously aware of the multiple times they actually use crowds as a POSITIVE. One of those is that people use the presence of a crowd as a proxy for quality. If two restaurants with similar cuisine are side by side, and one has a line out the door and other has only one customer, people will, more often then not, choose the restaurant with a line because people will assume the food must be really good. A few people will prioritize speed of food delivery over food quality, but not usually. If there is a certain brand of pillows, or shoes that continually goes out of stock, people will also want to buy that thing because then they don't have to do the work of researching what is good; someone apparently already did it. People don't want to make wrong choices, especially when the item is pricy, so they direct their behaviors to things other people have already selected vs picking a more unknown quantity. But despite people wanting to choose the sure thing, as proven by seeing all the other people selecting it they don't want to wait. They don't want an empty shelf. Despite popularity, people want the thing to be available when they want it. When people say crowds are bad, they are saying, "I couldn't do the thing, at the exact moment, I wanted to do it." or "I couldn't do all the things I wanted." Therefore people want line skips because they can visualize that as a solution.

Disney wants things they can sell, and things they can market. Disney doesn't want underutilized spaces. People don't want line skips for things that only have 10 minute waits. People may not even get in line for an attraction that only has a 10 minute wait, because they have already decided... it can't be that good, where's the thing with the 45 minute ride. I want that, but only if I, personally, can get on it in 10 minutes. Therefore, Disney doesn't want 10 minute waits. So they don't intentionally build attractions with a consideration toward minimizing wait times. They look at the budget, they look at the marketability of the IP, they look at the future merchandise sales and what they get is what they get. You are asking how come new things don't alleviate crowds, I said *because they weren't designed to.* Disney doesn't say, Frozen IP is so strong it should be worthy of a 2200 pph attraction, lets build one. Disney says, we have this underutilized 1000 pph thing, lets put Frozen IP on it. The intentionality is that no one bothered to say, "It's a dumb thing to take something as popular as Frozen and stick it on a 1000 pph ride system, it will create a crowd and a lot of upset guests." Or if someone did, someone dismissed the point with, "Oh, but we'll put Fastpass on it." This is what I mean by thinking things are intentional.

FOP is supposed to be the anchor of Pandora, but again 1400 pph. Significantly less than Safaris, Everest, Dinosaur and Kali the anchors of other lands. That's what's contradictory. Alarm bells should be ringing in your ears about how you can't alleviate crowds by opening signature things that are relatively smaller vs the other things you have done. Which means they can't have been built with the intention of seriously alleviating crowds. IMO, Pandora was built not for crowds, but to extend the length of time people stay in Animal Kingdom. Disney wanted more people at AK, not less. The opposite of alleviating crowds. And if it's too many people, Disney doesn't say, oops we underbuilt this thing. It's we'll fix it with Fastpass. Or now... we can charge people, even better.

 

[LittleBuford]

If that is how you interpret what I said, no wonder you think it's a contradiction.

It's not about "convincing guests" at all. It's demonstrating understanding how people react to crowds vs what they say. People assume crowds = bad; they aren't consciously aware of the multiple times they actually use crowds as a POSITIVE. One of those is that people use the presence of a crowd as a proxy for quality. If two restaurants with similar cuisine are side by side, and one has a line out the door and other has only one customer, people will, more often then not, choose the restaurant with a line because people will assume the food must be really good. A few people will prioritize speed of food delivery over food quality, but not usually. If there is a certain brand of pillows, or shoes that continually goes out of stock, people will also want to buy that thing because then they don't have to do the work of researching what is good; someone apparently already did it. People don't want to make wrong choices, especially when the item is pricy, so they direct their behaviors to things other people have already selected vs picking a more unknown quantity. But despite people wanting to choose the sure thing, as proven by seeing all the other people selecting it they don't want to wait. They don't want an empty shelf. Despite popularity, people want the thing to be available when they want it. When people say crowds are bad, they are saying, "I couldn't do the thing, at the exact moment, I wanted to do it." or "I couldn't do all the things I wanted." Therefore people want line skips because they can visualize that as a solution.

Disney wants things they can sell, and things they can market. Disney doesn't want underutilized spaces. People don't want line skips for things that only have 10 minute waits. People may not even get in line for an attraction that only has a 10 minute wait, because they have already decided... it can't be that good, where's the thing with the 45 minute ride. I want that, but only if I, personally, can get on it in 10 minutes. Therefore, Disney doesn't want 10 minute waits. So they don't intentionally build attractions with a consideration toward minimizing wait times. They look at the budget, they look at the marketability of the IP, they look at the future merchandise sales and what they get is what they get. You are asking how come new things don't alleviate crowds, I said *because they weren't designed to.* Disney doesn't say, Frozen IP is so strong it should be worthy of a 2200 pph attraction, lets build one. Disney says, we have this underutilized 1000 pph thing, lets put Frozen IP on it. The intentionality is that no one bothered to say, "It's a dumb thing to take something as popular as Frozen and stick it on a 1000 pph ride system, it will create a crowd and a lot of upset guests." Or if someone did, someone dismissed the point with, "Oh, but we'll put Fastpass on it." This is what I mean by thinking things are intentional.

FOP is supposed to be the anchor of Pandora, but again 1400 pph. Significantly less than Safaris, Everest, Dinosaur and Kali the anchors of other lands. That's what's contradictory. Alarm bells should be ringing in your ears about how you can't alleviate crowds by opening signature things that are relatively smaller vs the other things you have done. Which means they can't have been built with the intention of seriously alleviating crowds. IMO, Pandora was built not for crowds, but to extend the length of time people stay in Animal Kingdom. Disney wanted more people at AK, not less. The opposite of alleviating crowds. And if it's too many people, Disney doesn't say, oops we underbuilt this thing. It's we'll fix it with Fastpass. Or now... we can charge people, even better.

Thank you clarifying. That makes much more sense.

 

[Casper Gutman]

There were others on this board who were calling him selfish (and used that word). I think that is out of line. Or one comment where someone replied calling those who liked line skips or who would purchase G+ as rubes. There definitely was some conversation that went outside the bounds of civil discussion and went into personal attack.

Huh - I just did a word search of the discussion… I see no use of the word rube and the first use of “selfish” was Buford accusing other people of accusing them, which doesn’t seem to have happened. Flynn replied that buying G+ wasn’t selfish, but only caring about personal experience when discussing the problems with a much larger, general operation might be. I could have missed the offending terms - can you point me in the right direction?

And no, when discussing general experience of a massive operation like WDW, being told your usage is atypical is not an insult. Surely Buford must know that not minding massive crowds is not common. I mean, I know that my use of the parks is atypical. It’s not negative, but it’s not of much use in a broader context.

 

[aaronml]

Between 10-25% bought MaxPass at DL during its run. It varied, but it was usually on the 10-15% side of the range.

Its both different crowds and a different thing because MaxPass still had free FP, but I'd say it will be somewhere between 20-40%.

Maybe early on…. but towards the end of MaxPass’s existence, around 50% of guests were using/purchasing it from what I’ve been told.

 

[LittleBuford]

And no, when discussing general experience of a massive operation like WDW, being told your usage is atypical is not an insult. Surely Buford must know that not minding massive crowds is not common. I mean, I know that my use of the parks is atypical. It’s not negative, but it’s not of much use in a broader context.

I went to quite a bit of trouble to clarify that I do not feel insulted and to specify what exactly I find irksome. I have no issue with someone telling me that my indifference to crowds is atypical, especially when I myself acknowledged as much in my first post on the topic. I really cannot be clearer than I already have been, and since the conversation has already gone round in more circles than Prince Charming Regal Carousel, I for one will be moving on.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Unless I’m mistaken (which I may well be), the parks aren’t back up to normal capacity yet. I was referring to the long-term outlook, assuming the reservation system outlives the end of pandemic mitigations.

Disney has claimed that they will use the reservation system to keep crowds at a reasonable level.

This is more clear with the changes to the annual pass program, especially in California, where the days of locals overwhelming the park on any given day unexpectedly can now be avoided.

To what degree they do this remains to be seen. However, it may be the case that if they expect low crowds on a Wednesday in January, they can cap the attendance based on the expectation and avoid being surprised. If a day books up with enough warning, they could also use this info to adjust hours and/or staffing levels and increase capacity that day.

 

[LittleBuford]

Disney has claimed that they will use the reservation system to keep crowds at a reasonable level.

This is more clear with the changes to the annual pass program, especially in California, where the days of locals overwhelming the park on any given day unexpectedly can now be avoided.

To what degree they do this remains to be seen. However, it may be the case that if they expect low crowds on a Wednesday in January, they can cap the attendance based on the expectation and avoid being surprised. If a day books up with enough warning, they could also use this info to adjust hours and/or staffing levels and increase capacity that day.

Thanks. I was under the impression that, post-pandemic, Disney will go back to accommodating the same crowds as before, with the reservation system being used solely to keep track of numbers and plan operations. It'll be interesting to see what actually ends up happening.

 

[Waters Back Side]

No, there’s a subtle difference there, especially if the return windows for LL are 1 hour like they were for FP+. That bumps it up to potentially a 3 hour timer after park opening to pull your second LL depending on your arrival time and plans.

If I waited until 10 am to book a Genie + ride and it was for 12pm, couldn't I book another LL ride right at noon since it's the 120 minute mark? Even if I do not go on the booked 12 noon LL ride until closer to 1 (1 hour window)? Unless I'm not understanding you correctly.

 

[Parker in NYC]

Thanks. I was under the impression that, post-pandemic, Disney will go back to accommodating the same crowds as before, with the reservation system being used solely to keep track of numbers and plan operations. It'll be interesting to see what actually ends up happening.

Can’t wait for whenever post-pandemic is!

 

[LittleBuford]

Can’t wait for whenever post-pandemic is!

Amen to that! I wish I could be cryogenically frozen (preferably alongside Walt under Cinderella Castle) until that day comes.

 

[hopemax]

With the reservation system, Disney seems to have also discovered the "unique guest" metric as it affects capacity for headliners. I suspect they have identified via all these new metrics that a portion of their customers are what Disney would consider "overusers." If a vacationer can't get a spot on a headliner because an AP is on their 50th ride of the year, that's a problem for Disney and the vacationer. I suspect Disney is using it as a way to pull back ride spots by limiting how many times that AP can show up. Once a week, or once a month would be better for allocating a limited quantity to more unique guests.

Current Disney, in general, seems hostile to re-rides. First it was just people wanting to ride multiple times a day, now it seems like it's escalated to Disney wanting to people to experience a ride only once per vacation. Same with these park hopping rules, which affects even vacationer's ability to re-ride. Guests can't set up multiple days of 9AM FP+ at FOP and scoot their 3 FP+ around to get them checked off ASAP so they can make 4th and 5th ones in the next park or plan on starting at DHS for Rise BGs but then hopping to the park where they really were planning to spend their day (probably Epcot or MK). These rules, you better want to spend significant morning time in the park you made a reservation for, not a "pop in / pop out" situation

 

[mikejs78]

it's escalated to Disney wanting to people to experience a ride only once per vacation.

Not sure how you're getting that.

Guests can't set up multiple days of 9AM FP+ at FOP and scoot their 3 FP+ around to get them checked off ASAP so they can make 4th and 5th ones in the next park or plan on starting at DHS for Rise BGs but then hopping to the park where they really were planning to spend their day (probably Epcot or MK).

Genie+ actually seems more conducive to that. You can easily hit a headliner or two with ILL$ and maybe one Genie+ attraction, then start stacking them for your second park.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If the addition of new lands and even gates hasn't helped, what do you think the solution is?

Additions have been less than the deficit.

The Magic Kingdom, the world’s busiest theme park has abandoned attraction, retail and dining space. Despite being touted as the “biggest expansion ever”, New Fantasyland was not and did not change the boundaries of the park, it just finally replaced 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. While the capacity of New Fantasyland’s attractions are greater than 20,000’s they are not 20,000 + 20 years of increased visitation. There is also the loss of small experiences like the canoes and keel boats, the Galaxy Palace Theater and the continued shrinking of the Tomorrowland Speedway. The Adventureland Veranda, Tomorrowland Terrace and depending on time of year Tortuga Tavern were only partially replaced by Skipper Canteen and Be Our Guest, but not much as table service restaurants allocate more square footage to each diner and have a much longer turnover so a table service restaurant is going to have about 85 - 90% of the instantaneous capacity and as little as 1/3 - 1/2 of the hourly capacity of a similarly sized quick service restaurant.

Remy’s Ratatouille Adventure is the first whole addition to Epcot since 1989. In the time since the massive attractions of Future World have been replaced with shorter experiences with less capacity. Half of the CommuniCore has been torn down to largely be replaced with landscape and walkways (and that was when the starchitect Festival Center was still a definite). Dining capacity has though increased.

The Disney-MGM Studios was specifically designed as a half day experience so that it could 1) open before Universal Studios Florida and 2) because it was seen as just enough to get people to stay an extra day. Even with two of the physically largest lands ever built by Disney (Galaxy’s Edge the largest at 14 acres and Toy Story Land at 11 acres), the park is not physically larger than it was in 1994. As already noted, Toy Story Land offer less than 20 minutes of attraction time in its 11 acres and it so poorly utilizes it’s massive size that the barbeque restaurant couldn’t be fit within its existing footprint.

Disney’s Animal Kingdom was a post Euro Disney park and just like WestCOT and the Disney-MGM Studios Europe was hacked away at as the company started to more aggressively adopt the “just enough” programming principals that remain very true to this day. Pandora is only two attractions, fewer than Beastlie Kingdomme was slated to feature. Excavator was never built. Kali River Rapids is significantly smaller than Tiger River Run. Disney’s Animal Kingdom in 2021 likely has less capacity than the park was originally programmed to have at opening.

Fixing this deep an issue means structural changes need to happen. Pressler’s business model needs to be discarded. Theme parks are a weird business, thanks to Six Flags the biggest driver of business no longer directly generates revenue. They’re not a mall, they need “underperforming“ space that lets people slow down, step away from the bustle and relax. Very few people are buying antiques or movie memorabilia at a theme park but such venues add to the experience, they’re something to stumble upon and explore, blurring the line between retail and attraction. A bit of a contradiction, but Walt Disney Imagineering needs to be trusted more to remove layers of bloat but also held accountable for what they deliver because hundreds of millions of dollars should by more than a coaster in a box. Then after all of that billions would need to be spent on rebuilding poorly designed parts of the parks and adding in a lot of capacity, mostly in the form of C and lower type experiences that won’t induce too much demand. Retail and dining also need to be added. E-Ticket would definitely be needed at the non-Magic Kingdom parks to try and even out visitation. Most importantly variety of experiences and minimal physical limitations to appeal to the widest audience, the scale, variety and access of Disneyland needs to be the model. This will easily cost billions, but it’s be less if billions had been spent on capacity and not things like NextGen. The scale of so much work will also induce demand, but you’ll never get close to catching up if you never start.

 

[hopemax]

Not sure how you're getting that.



Genie+ actually seems more conducive to that. You can easily hit a headliner or two with ILL$ and maybe one Genie+ attraction, then start stacking them for your second park.

Yes, Disney will let you ride twice IF YOU PAY. They don't want free re-rides. I'm sorry I didn't include the word free.

 

[LittleBuford]

Additions have been less than the deficit.

The Magic Kingdom, the world’s busiest theme park has abandoned attraction, retail and dining space. Despite being touted as the “biggest expansion ever”, New Fantasyland was not and did not change the boundaries of the park, it just finally replaced 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. While the capacity of New Fantasyland’s attractions are greater than 20,000’s they are not 20,000 + 20 years of increased visitation. There is also the loss of small experiences like the canoes and keel boats, the Galaxy Palace Theater and the continued shrinking of the Tomorrowland Speedway. The Adventureland Veranda, Tomorrowland Terrace and depending on time of year Tortuga Tavern were only partially replaced by Skipper Canteen and Be Our Guest, but not much as table service restaurants allocate more square footage to each diner and have a much longer turnover so a table service restaurant is going to have about 85 - 90% of the instantaneous capacity and as little as 1/3 - 1/2 of the hourly capacity of a similarly sized quick service restaurant.

Remy’s Ratatouille Adventure is the first whole addition to Epcot since 1989. In the time since the massive attractions of Future World have been replaced with shorter experiences with less capacity. Half of the CommuniCore has been torn down to largely be replaced with landscape and walkways (and that was when the starchitect Festival Center was still a definite). Dining capacity has though increased.

The Disney-MGM Studios was specifically designed as a half day experience so that it could 1) open before Universal Studios Florida and 2) because it was seen as just enough to get people to stay an extra day. Even with two of the physically largest lands ever built by Disney (Galaxy’s Edge the largest at 14 acres and Toy Story Land at 11 acres), the park is not physically larger than it was in 1994. As already noted, Toy Story Land offer less than 20 minutes of attraction time in its 11 acres and it so poorly utilizes it’s massive size that the barbeque restaurant couldn’t be fit within its existing footprint.

Disney’s Animal Kingdom was a post Euro Disney park and just like WestCOT and the Disney-MGM Studios Europe was hacked away at as the company started to more aggressively adopt the “just enough” programming principals that remain very true to this day. Pandora is only two attractions, fewer than Beastlie Kingdomme was slated to feature. Excavator was never built. Kali River Rapids is significantly smaller than Tiger River Run. Disney’s Animal Kingdom in 2021 likely has less capacity than the park was originally programmed to have at opening.

Fixing this deep an issue means structural changes need to happen. Pressler’s business model needs to be discarded. Theme parks are a weird business, thanks to Six Flags the biggest driver of business no longer directly generates revenue. They’re not a mall, they need “underperforming“ space that lets people slow down, step away from the bustle and relax. Very few people are buying antiques or movie memorabilia at a theme park but such venues add to the experience, they’re something to stumble upon and explore, blurring the line between retail and attraction. A bit of a contradiction, but Walt Disney Imagineering needs to be trusted more to remove layers of bloat but also held accountable for what they deliver because hundreds of millions of dollars should by more than a coaster in a box. Then after all of that billions would need to be spent on rebuilding poorly designed parts of the parks and adding in a lot of capacity, mostly in the form of C and lower type experiences that won’t induce too much demand. Retail and dining also need to be added. E-Ticket would definitely be needed at the non-Magic Kingdom parks to try and even out visitation. Most importantly variety of experiences and minimal physical limitations to appeal to the widest audience, the scale, variety and access of Disneyland needs to be the model. This will easily cost billions, but it’s be less if billions had been spent on capacity and not things like NextGen. The scale of so much work will also induce demand, but you’ll never get close to catching up if you never start.

Thank you for a very full and detailed answer. By your assessment, Disney faces a near-insurmountable task. I can’t see them doing half the things you list, except perhaps to bring in more guests should crowd levels ever fall. But I like many of your ideas and hope, one day, Disney embraces an approach that you feel addresses your concerns.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Thank you for a very full and detailed answer. By your assessment, Disney faces a near-insurmountable task. I can’t see them doing half the things you list, except perhaps to bring in more guests should crowd levels ever fall. But I like many of your ideas and hope, one day, Disney embraces an approach that you feel addresses your concerns.

They have to do something. There is no financial viability in billion dollar rides.