Lightning Lane at Walt Disney World

[ImperfectPixie]

Buzz, not Walt. This is stuff you could take a class on two weeks ago at the Orange County Convention Center during the IAAPA Expo. And while Disney ignored certain contemporary industry standards, others they did not, and after decades of trying Disney hasn’t actually found a working alternative to just having enough capacity.

That doesn’t fix the underlying issue of insufficient capacity.

I meant the ratios of different types of attractions, dining, entertainment, activities, high quality guest services, etc. etc.

And I'm in complete agreement with you.

 

[BrianLo]

It was discussed here and that's what I personally experienced on my recent visit. Had to wait until 0700 every day. The app even told me my ticket wasn't eligible to buy in advance. I'm Platinum.

I’ve figured that out, maybe this is what @RSoxNo1 is having troubles with. You have to set up ‘your day’ first. Where you tell it your preferences You can’t click the little link to buy Genie Plus from the get go. After you do that I found that link worked.

No idea how I put that together between 6:55-7am in bed, but there you go.

Edit - albeit I’m on just a regular ticket and not an annual pass, but for whatever reason I’m also having that error. My ticket was rebooked from 1.5 years ago.

 

[flynnibus]

It's a fundamental part of the equation here. Do you really think that the MK is at 100% of ride capacity every day? You can't have a serious discussion about theme park operation without considering which under-performing attractions need to be removed.

Wanting utilization to be high so you get max value of everything you have is not the same as your mantra about new attractions only make things worse. Stop with the unilateral non-sense that when debunked you start retreating to all the reasons why the absolute statement is garbage.

Sure there is efficiency in the existing park to be had - but even if they were running at 100% across the board it still wouldn't solve the deficiency problem. Getting CoP and Philharmagic to be 100% for instance won't be enough to close the gap. Disney already tried this with the FP expansion.

Nor would identifying the weakest performers and pruning them - because that will put even more demand on the left overs. So not only do you need to prune them, but you need to replace them with something that will create demand for the attraction (else it goes unused).. but in your head demand -> more crowding.

Disney was doing this - but kept putting in replacements with poor capacity while letting attractions with great capacity stagnant.

The deficiency vs the static crowd levels is still there. The attendance levels make the inbalance worse. Disney's lower capacity replacements make it worse. Disney's line-skips make it worse. Disney's reduction in shows/parades makes it worse.

Driving utilization is only progress - the unused capacity in the park today is not enough on its own to make up for the overall loss of activities and the increased crowd loads.

Disney needs attractions (shows/activities/dining/rides/experiences) that absorb people if they want to let this many people into the parks. Their existing roster is not enough. So you either add capacity, or remove people... or continue to live with the misery.

Disney has increased its customer counts while decreasing its capacity and letting capacity sit idle because of bad product. The solution has to be create new people sponges or get rid of some people.

 

[Patcheslee]

I mean... it's not too off the mark. If the problem is that too many people want to ride the Haunted Mansion, just build another Haunted Mansion right next door. It sounds silly, but Disney actually HAS done something like this already. I'm sure more than one person thought building Walt Disney World was going to forever fix the crowding problems at Disneyland too.

Or, of course, they could just increase the pricing until the demand is in line with the supply. Disney would rather deal with managing capacity within the parks, than trying to fix the notion that the parks are too expensive for the common family though.

Didn't Disney spend quite a bit adding another track to Toy Story Mania? Added added to Soarin' etc. They seem to have some ability to add capacity without having to build a complete separate ride on everything.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They've spent billions in the last decade adding attractions to AK, DHS and Epcot. So are the crowding problems at MK fixed now?

They won't be because people still want to see the Magic Kingdom because it's the classic Disney experience. People spend $10k on a vacation to have their picture taken in front of the castle. Pandora and Star Wars are just a bonus.

This is not some immutable truth. Visitation to EPCOT Center used to be closer to parity with the Magic Kingdom. Tokyo DisneySEA is closer to Tokyo Disneyland than other second gates are now. The Magic Kingdom is also the park with the most stuff to experience.

This whole analogy doesn't translate to the theme park world though. If you have 160 people that want to see the Haunted Mansion, and you tell 60 of them that they have to see TRON instead, would they accept that Tron is an adequate substitute?

It rests on the idea that all theme park attractions are equal. That one experience can be substituted for another. That's not really how it works though.

Have you never visited the parks with other people? People make substitutions all of the time. If a wait is too long people absolutely go and do something else. Demand shifts and spreads out and all you have to do is look to see it in action.

The point still stands. You can't simultaneously have a ride that is so great it reduces the demand for the other attractions, but also doesn't attract a crowd on it's own. That's not how attractions work

No, the point does not stand. Smaller experiences fill in the day and are part of a mix of offerings.

Yeah, but here we are some 25 years later, still complaining about crowding in the parks. Indy is still (one of) the most popular rides at Disneyland. For all the capacity added at Disneyland, you would think that things like reservations and Fastpass wouldn't be needed, but that isn't true at all.

Attendance hasn’t remained constant in that time. Capacity hasn’t kept up but Disneyland was already in a much better place so those things are not as necessary.

Is there any example of a time where adding new attractions fixed the crowding problems? Like ever?

Again, crowding is relative. But what business would want to limit growth? More capacity means more tickets can be sold.

 

[hopemax]

It's true. That's why adding new attractions has never solved the crowding problem. How many new attractions have been added since 1955 and here we are, 60 some years later still complaining the place is too crowded.

I almost thought that Fastpass documentary would have settled this.

If adding new rides doesn't improve the capacity situation, then decreasing capacity shouldn't make things worse. Only every time a ride goes out of service we see the bad, every time a ride closes for rehab we see the bad. We see Disney refuse to do timely rehabs because they know the bad, deep in their operational souls. We know closing things is bad because people redistribute themselves to what remains. New things works exactly the same way, people spread out. People DO make different choices. Yes, this means that attractions that can't pull their weight should be re-evaluated if they need major refurbishment ala DLR's Tiki Room or removed, which is something else Disney won't do because it doesn't result in more vacations booked.

The argument is that the new things just bring more people. I think people overestimate how many new people it brings in. And this is why Disney hasn't keep up on building capacity. They aren't hitting their ROI numbers in terms of new resort stays, tickets, etc. You do get some more AP and DVC visits, but it doesn't budge the needle in the same way that simply changes in the "kids aging into Disney" and the percentage of parents with the disposable income and willingness to come does. And is a much cheaper way for Disney.

In another post you mentioned building elsewhere hasn't helped MK. And that is true. The primary thing that will help MK's capacity is building at the MK, because everyone will always go to the MK at least once. Maybe you can pull away some park hoppers or people visiting 2 or 3 times.

There is never going to be a magic bullet solution to this problem, but eliminating the things that would actually help because they aren't magic bullets is a surefire way to make sure things don't get solved. It's layers of things, and many layers of them because the sinkhole Disney has ignored is now so big. All expensive, so Disney won't. Even though Disney is definitely not widget building, on some level it still is. If you can sell 50,000 widgets based on current demand, but you only can make 25,000 widgets no one ever says "don't try to make more widgets it won't solve anything." Even though if the widget was readily available on a shelf and not so much work to attain, the true demand is 70,000. Everyone says, figure out how to increase production or your competition will. For theme parks that's attraction capacity. If you can't increase widget production, then its prices sky high and rationing. Which is apparently the path Disney has chosen.

And I still don't type as fast as the rest of some of you...

 

[ImperfectPixie]

This is not some immutable truth. Visitation to EPCOT Center used to be closer to parity with the Magic Kingdom. Tokyo DisneySEA is closer to Tokyo Disneyland than other second gates are now. The Magic Kingdom is also the park with the most stuff to experience.

Have you never visited the parks with other people? People make substitutions all of the time. If a wait is too long people absolutely go and do something else. Demand shifts and spreads out and all you have to do is look to see it in action.

No, the point does not stand. Smaller experiences fill in the day and are part of a mix of offerings.

Attendance hasn’t remained constant in that time. Capacity hasn’t kept up but Disneyland was already in a much better place so those things are not as necessary.

Again, crowding is relative. But what business would want to limit growth? More capacity means more tickets can be sold.

I keep saying that all the random pop-up entertainment, the games like Sorcerers, etc. pull people out of competing for capacity that requires a butt in a seat...have enough things like those throughout the parks, and it adds up quickly and also makes the day feel more well-rounded for the guest.

 

[Patcheslee]

I keep saying that all the random pop-up entertainment, the games like Sorcerers, etc. pull people out of competing for capacity that requires a butt in a seat...have enough things like those throughout the parks, and it adds up quickly and also makes the day feel more well-rounded for the guest.

One of my favorite memories wasn't even a ride. It was DD8 playing checkers in MK with a group of college students on one's birthday. We could have spent a couple hours doing that alone.

 

[el_super]

Wanting utilization to be high so you get max value of everything you have is not the same as your mantra about new attractions only make things worse. Stop with the unilateral non-sense that when debunked you start retreating to all the reasons why the absolute statement is garbage.

What's been debunked? Disney's business actions for the last 20 or 30 years? Riiiight. The only think that's been debunked is the idea that Disney needs to add new attractions. The way people here keep thinking this is the obvious solution, you'd think Disney would have gone out of business already. Too bad for you, they haven't.

Sure there is efficiency in the existing park to be had - but even if they were running at 100% across the board it still wouldn't solve the deficiency problem. Getting CoP and Philharmagic to be 100% for instance won't be enough to close the gap. Disney already tried this with the FP expansion.

Nor would identifying the weakest performers and pruning them - because that will put even more demand on the left overs. So not only do you need to prune them, but you need to replace them with something that will create demand for the attraction (else it goes unused).. but in your head demand -> more crowding.

Actually to be fair, I have talked before about the specific cases where adding capacity would help. Adding things like additional capacity to specific attractions (like Dumbo, Soarin and Midway Mania) can help reduce the crowding/wait times because you're increasing capacity without increasing overall demand on the system.

The other alternative is to add capacity with rides that frankly, aren't all that great. You can add additional spinner rides like Magic Carpets or Toy Story Land, Little Mermaid, Pixar Pier or maybe, arguably, even Ratatouille. They provide filler attractions to eat up time and reduce the number of headliners a party will get to see. That's definitely a strategy that makes sense, and something Disney has done recently.

That's not what people are asking for when they say "more attractions please" though. They want more E-Tickets. E-Tickets require more crowd management though. That's the zero sum-game here.

And from a guest experience perspective, how many people really want more C-Ticket level attractions? They serve an important purpose in a healthy theme park roster, but if people are being shunted to the lesser experiences, they are both disappointed in the lesser experience, and disappointed they didn't get the greater experience.

Disney was doing this - but kept putting in replacements with poor capacity while letting attractions with great capacity stagnant.

Generally I agree, but I think the conventional wisdom is that the audience wouldn't want to sit for a theater show like Carousel of Progress or Hall of Presidents. The price Disney would have to pay to produce one of those shows today, is just completely out of line with any value or return they would get in the parks. There's probably a lot of room to debate the argument of where to draw the compromise between "high capacity" and "innovative ride system people want to see" but I think it's fair to say that theater attractions are NOT where it is.

Disney needs attractions (shows/activities/dining/rides/experiences) that absorb people if they want to let this many people into the parks. Their existing roster is not enough. So you either add capacity, or remove people... or continue to live with the misery.

Disney has increased its customer counts while decreasing its capacity and letting capacity sit idle because of bad product. The solution has to be create new people sponges or get rid of some people.

Yeah I see how we're talking about two different things here, although they are definitely related. I generally agree with those statements. At a macro level, there are way too many people going to the parks. At a micro level though, whether the park has 15 million people a year, or 19 million people a year, there will always be a 60+ minute wait for Space Mountain.

It will really be interesting to see if adding Tron convinces people they don't need to ride Space Mountain to have a good time, but I somehow think that won't work out that way.

Going back to the macro level though, it's really interesting to think that the attendance has increased to the point where ride capacity is suffering, because ultimately that should be self correcting, but it hasn't. How long has the overcrowding been an issue in the parks? Why have people continued to flock to the parks if they aren't able to get on the attractions they want? You'd think something would have broke in the last 10 years but here we are...

 

[el_super]

I keep saying that all the random pop-up entertainment, the games like Sorcerers, etc. pull people out of competing for capacity that requires a butt in a seat...have enough things like those throughout the parks, and it adds up quickly and also makes the day feel more well-rounded for the guest.

Ok as an example, take a time when you were playing Sorcerers, and think about what you would have been doing in that time instead. Would you be willing to give up riding Mansion or Pirates or Space Mountain or Mine Train in order to play? Or did you give up some other ancillary experience instead (like sitting on a bench or visiting a theater attraction).

The whole key to solving the capacity issue is making less people want to ride the headliners. To basically devalue them in some way.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Ok as an example, take a time when you were playing Sorcerers, and think about what you would have been doing in that time instead. Would you be willing to give up riding Mansion or Pirates or Space Mountain or Mine Train in order to play? Or did you give up some other ancillary experience instead (like sitting on a bench or visiting a theater attraction).

The whole key to solving the capacity issue is making less people want to ride the headliners. To basically devalue them in some way.

We generally do weeklong trips with daily hopping and multiple MK visits, so missing a few rides on one of our MK visits really isn't a big deal...we seek out what we want to do at any given time. Including playing checkers for over a couple of hours.

One of my favorite memories wasn't even a ride. It was DD8 playing checkers in MK with a group of college students on one's birthday. We could have spent a couple hours doing that alone.

HA! See above!

 

[flynnibus]

What's been debunked? Disney's business actions for the last 20 or 30 years? Riiiight. The only think that's been debunked is the idea that Disney needs to add new attractions. The way people here keep thinking this is the obvious solution, you'd think Disney would have gone out of business already. Too bad for you, they haven't.

And this feeble attempt at making Disney's continued success tied to their management of attraction footprint is just yet another in the long string of logic fails from you.

If Disney didn't think they didn't need more attractions they wouldn't have built New Fantasyland, Pandora, added AK entertainment, Star Wars, etc. All of those were expanding the roster. The point is it's not enough when you spent 15years choking off what you already had and your additions are largely constrained themselves in their ability to soak up people.

Actually to be fair, I have talked before about the specific cases where adding capacity would help. Adding things like additional capacity to specific attractions (like Dumbo, Soarin and Midway Mania) can help reduce the crowding/wait times because you're increasing capacity without increasing overall demand on the system.

The other alternative is to add capacity with rides that frankly, aren't all that great. You can add additional spinner rides like Magic Carpets or Toy Story Land, Little Mermaid, Pixar Pier or maybe, arguably, even Ratatouille. They provide filler attractions to eat up time and reduce the number of headliners a party will get to see. That's definitely a strategy that makes sense, and something Disney has done recently.

That's not what people are asking for when they say "more attractions please" though. They want more E-Tickets. E-Tickets require more crowd management though. That's the zero sum-game here.

No - people have countered your unilateral statements every time with topics about adding other things (not just E-tickets) but you repeatedly drop in with your generalized nonsense. Attraction capacities, loss of venues, loss of distractions, high-demand but low throughput, stagnant attractions, lack of supporting cast attractions have all been brought up EVERY TIME you throw this stupid grenade out there.

The people actually talking about theme park ops and management are not just asking for more E-tickets... which is why people scorned when Toy Story land was scaled back... etc... not because there wasn't 2 E-tickets.

And from a guest experience perspective, how many people really want more C-Ticket level attractions? They serve an important purpose in a healthy theme park roster, but if people are being shunted to the lesser experiences, they are both disappointed in the lesser experience, and disappointed they didn't get the greater experience.

Yet again you go with the logic fail. The fact it's a C-level attraction doesn't equate to disappointment. Bad attractions equate to disappointment. Guests are accustomed to a balanced attraction roster - people NEED it physically. This is not some new unproven format. And it's no coincidence that every major theme park includes a variety of experiences in both scale and kind of experience.

Generally I agree, but I think the conventional wisdom is that the audience wouldn't want to sit for a theater show like Carousel of Progress or Hall of Presidents.

what 'conventional wisdom' is that? People keep begging to have Indy Stunt Show back... a 30+yr old show for crying out loud. Entertainment is not just in the form of large scale immersive experiences. But it needs to be good entertainment - if it sucks, the format is irrelevant.

Yeah I see how we're talking about two different things here, although they are definitely related. I generally agree with those statements. At a macro level, there are way too many people going to the parks. At a micro level though, whether the park has 15 million people a year, or 19 million people a year, there will always be a 60+ minute wait for Space Mountain.

Popular attractions will always have the highest waits - yes... but the more diffused the demand, the less contention with the crowd load you have. Which is exactly why the wait times in Disneyland for similar attractions can be radically different than MK.

And we are talking exactly about your statement about adding attractions just creates more demand and is a negative in a already crowded park. If that's not what you mean, well then your problem is with your words, not with us talking about different things.

Going back to the macro level though, it's really interesting to think that the attendance has increased to the point where ride capacity is suffering, because ultimately that should be self correcting, but it hasn't.

Self-correcting? People still goto Disney based on the reputation and its spot in american culture. Population is up, lots of new bodies, lots of new visitors. Don't forget attendance is a net function, not just about how often people return.

How long has the overcrowding been an issue in the parks? Why have people continued to flock to the parks if they aren't able to get on the attractions they want? You'd think something would have broke in the last 10 years but here we are...

Uhh.. did you forget Disney spent the last 8 years and billions trying to shuffle people around to keep the dike together? Or how they spent billions on DCA to try to get people to stop making DCA a 3hr pitstop?

This isn't a spot we've been in for 10 years unchanged. Your arguments are just so awful.

 

[el_super]

We generally do weeklong trips with daily hopping and multiple MK visits, so missing a few rides on one of our MK visits really isn't a big deal...we seek out what we want to do at any given time. Including playing checkers for over a couple of hours.

Do you go multiple days because you NEED to in order to experience everything you want, or because you want to?

 

[UNCgolf]

What's been debunked? Disney's business actions for the last 20 or 30 years? Riiiight. The only think that's been debunked is the idea that Disney needs to add new attractions. The way people here keep thinking this is the obvious solution, you'd think Disney would have gone out of business already. Too bad for you, they haven't.

If the idea that Disney needed to add new attractions had been debunked, they wouldn't have suddenly gone on a panicked spending spree over the past few years to add a bunch of new attractions after adding nothing for a decade.

Using your logic, they would have been better off continuing to add nothing. So are you suggesting Disney management was wrong to add a bunch of new attractions?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Do you go multiple days because you NEED to in order to experience everything you want, or because you want to?

Definitely a mix of both. We also visit Epcot multiple times on our trips. We aren't "Disney Commandos"...we like to ride the rides, of course, but we also enjoy the entertainment, just walking and enjoying the ambiance...the whole experience...which is why one of our "let's have some down-time even though we're in MK" breaks turned into playing checkers and chit-chatting with other guests for a couple of hours. (Our boys are 10 and 15...and they like to take it all in, too...they were the ones playing most of the checkers.)

 

[el_super]

And this feeble attempt at making Disney's continued success tied to their management of attraction footprint is just yet another in the long string of logic fails from you.

Logic fails? I'm literally just explaining to you what Disney has already done. What is the more logical answer here: that Disney is completely inept at running a theme park, or you have an incomplete understanding of the decisions they are making. You want to believe that Disney is inept, because you're already decided you are right, but honestly, Disney has access to more information, more understanding and more knowledge on the situation than you do.

If Disney didn't think they didn't need more attractions they wouldn't have built New Fantasyland, Pandora, added AK entertainment, Star Wars, etc. All of those were expanding the roster. The point is it's not enough when you spent 15years choking off what you already had and your additions are largely constrained themselves in their ability to soak up people.

So as justification for how they haven't added enough, you list out literally billions of dollars of expansion they have completed. But it's never enough right? They added Pandora, and it had 4 hour long lines. They added Star Wars and it had four hour long lines. They will add Tron and it will have four hour long lines. And the only answer you can conjure is ... let's just keep adding more. It's not the adding more that's the problem, it's the FOUR HOUR long line.

No - people have countered your unilateral statements every time with topics about adding other things (not just E-tickets) but you repeatedly drop in with your generalized nonsense. Attraction capacities, loss of venues, loss of distractions, high-demand but low throughput, stagnant attractions, lack of supporting cast attractions have all been brought up EVERY TIME you throw this stupid grenade out there.

People always complain about losing attractions and shows, but Disney isn't cutting things that are drawing a crowd. They are cutting things that are not meeting their numbers/expectations. Yes things are a little cloudy here because of COVID, but let's be honest: they closed Stitch instead of Pirates because they actually know which rides are working.

The people actually talking about theme park ops and management are not just asking for more E-tickets... which is why people scorned when Toy Story land was scaled back... etc... not because there wasn't 2 E-tickets.

I disagree. I think people were just disappointed in Toy Story because it wasn't a billion dollar expansion. Within the fan community there is definitely an expectation that every attraction added needs to be a blockbuster E-Ticket mega-attraction because that's what they want to see. I'm glad you agree, that isn't true.

Yet again you go with the logic fail. The fact it's a C-level attraction doesn't equate to disappointment. Bad attractions equate to disappointment. Guests are accustomed to a balanced attraction roster - people NEED it physically. This is not some new unproven format. And it's no coincidence that every major theme park includes a variety of experiences in both scale and kind of experience.

Yeah we both agree here on the importance of C-Ticket attractions, but the biggest problem here is that, to reduce demand on the E-Ticket attractions, you have to supplant them with those C-Ticket experiences. That's where the disappointment comes in.

Think of it this way: if you went back to a ticket book approach, where people are doled out a certain number of E Tickets and C -Tickets, you could fix the demand profiles in the park overnight. People would generally hate it though, if they were told they could only do X number of E-Tickets in a day.

Or you could have a Fastpass system that allows you a certain number of Tier 1 attractions and Tier 2 attractions.

Or you could have a system where, if you want to experience the Tier 1, you have to dedicate either more time or more money to do so.

what 'conventional wisdom' is that? People keep begging to have Indy Stunt Show back... a 30+yr old show for crying out loud. Entertainment is not just in the form of large scale immersive experiences. But it needs to be good entertainment - if it sucks, the format is irrelevant.

Conventional Wisdom in this case is that a high capacity attraction/venue (like a theater show, or a tour ride), do not generate the same level of demand as something like a roller coaster or whatever-new-technology system Disney has this week.

I think the Indy Stunt Show is something that can be attributed to COVID changes that aren't meant to be permanent.

Popular attractions will always have the highest waits - yes... but the more diffused the demand, the less contention with the crowd load you have. Which is exactly why the wait times in Disneyland for similar attractions can be radically different than MK.

Yeah but taking the example of Disneyland. Disneyland has more attractions than the MK, but is the crowding issue any less at Disneyland? Is a 60 minute wait at Space Mountain somehow different than the 60 minute wait at MK? Isn't Genie+ going to cost MORE money at Disneyland, even if they generally have more supply? How does that work?

And we are talking exactly about your statement about adding attractions just creates more demand and is a negative in a already crowded park. If that's not what you mean, well then your problem is with your words, not with us talking about different things.

I'm not trying to say that it's entirely a negative, I'm saying it doesn't address the crowding problems. It doesn't solve the problem here people are trying to use to justify additional attractions.

This isn't a spot we've been in for 10 years unchanged. Your arguments are just so awful.

Again which is it... is Disney adding capacity and we have a crowding problem, or is Disney NOT adding capacity and we still have a crowding problem. How can you see it as both at the same time?

 

[Patcheslee]

What's been debunked? Disney's business actions for the last 20 or 30 years? Riiiight. The only think that's been debunked is the idea that Disney needs to add new attractions. The way people here keep thinking this is the obvious solution, you'd think Disney would have gone out of business already. Too bad for you, they haven't.




Actually to be fair, I have talked before about the specific cases where adding capacity would help. Adding things like additional capacity to specific attractions (like Dumbo, Soarin and Midway Mania) can help reduce the crowding/wait times because you're increasing capacity without increasing overall demand on the system.

The other alternative is to add capacity with rides that frankly, aren't all that great. You can add additional spinner rides like Magic Carpets or Toy Story Land, Little Mermaid, Pixar Pier or maybe, arguably, even Ratatouille. They provide filler attractions to eat up time and reduce the number of headliners a party will get to see. That's definitely a strategy that makes sense, and something Disney has done recently.

That's not what people are asking for when they say "more attractions please" though. They want more E-Tickets. E-Tickets require more crowd management though. That's the zero sum-game here.

And from a guest experience perspective, how many people really want more C-Ticket level attractions? They serve an important purpose in a healthy theme park roster, but if people are being shunted to the lesser experiences, they are both disappointed in the lesser experience, and disappointed they didn't get the greater experience.




Generally I agree, but I think the conventional wisdom is that the audience wouldn't want to sit for a theater show like Carousel of Progress or Hall of Presidents. The price Disney would have to pay to produce one of those shows today, is just completely out of line with any value or return they would get in the parks. There's probably a lot of room to debate the argument of where to draw the compromise between "high capacity" and "innovative ride system people want to see" but I think it's fair to say that theater attractions are NOT where it is.




Yeah I see how we're talking about two different things here, although they are definitely related. I generally agree with those statements. At a macro level, there are way too many people going to the parks. At a micro level though, whether the park has 15 million people a year, or 19 million people a year, there will always be a 60+ minute wait for Space Mountain.

It will really be interesting to see if adding Tron convinces people they don't need to ride Space Mountain to have a good time, but I somehow think that won't work out that way.

Going back to the macro level though, it's really interesting to think that the attendance has increased to the point where ride capacity is suffering, because ultimately that should be self correcting, but it hasn't. How long has the overcrowding been an issue in the parks? Why have people continued to flock to the parks if they aren't able to get on the attractions they want? You'd think something would have broke in the last 10 years but here we are...

If it's anything like what Kings Island saw when their newest coaster Orion opened, the SM lines may get worse. The roller coaster next to it saw an increase in wait times because people were drawn to that area, when previously it had a tolerable wait for people willing to go into the area.

 

[el_super]

Using your logic, they would have been better off continuing to add nothing. So are you suggesting Disney management was wrong to add a bunch of new attractions?

OK again it's a simple question: At what point did they add something to the parks that resulted in everyone going "wow the place isn't crowded anymore?"

 

[bpiper]

They added Pandora, and it had 4 hour long lines. They added Star Wars and it had four hour long lines.

AK doesn't have enough to do and coupled with the theatre's overheating and having to be let to cool down, that causes the waits.

For Star Wars, again, not enough to do in the park..... MGM and AK have always been incomplete parks.

When you don't add anything new for years, when you finally do, its the shiny object that draws all the attention.

 

[Patcheslee]

Ok as an example, take a time when you were playing Sorcerers, and think about what you would have been doing in that time instead. Would you be willing to give up riding Mansion or Pirates or Space Mountain or Mine Train in order to play? Or did you give up some other ancillary experience instead (like sitting on a bench or visiting a theater attraction).

The whole key to solving the capacity issue is making less people want to ride the headliners. To basically devalue them in some way.

What's the height restrictions going to be for GotG and Tron? Those are the only things I can think of off the top of my head that will limit demand a tiny bit.