So with the addition of Tron and the theater, how would this effect capacity? What is the hourly throughput of Tron in Shanghai?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
MK Capacity with new attractions.
- Thread starter DisneyparkFreak
- Start date
disnyfan89
Well-Known Member
According to some executives...
Shanghai is probably about 2,250 people per hour. A lot depends on the number of trains they have operating at a time. but it is a very short ride which helps the throughput.
As for it doing anything for the capacity of MK I don't think it does that much unless Disney expands the physical layout of the park for it. If they simply close down another ride for it then I don't see it as doing much for the park, it could in fact reduce capacity depending on the space it takes up.
BoarderPhreak
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't affect capacity. Merely the perception of it, as they soak up some guests. A theater already exists, so no change there. But Tron, certainly.
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
I've long thought that they should expand the MK. I think the hard, business related, thought is, and you have to consider how many times you can turn the turnstile that day:
- You can physically expand the park literally adding more capacity but at a cost. You have to build that expansion. New lands. New paths. New maintenance. New rides. New theming. More employees..
- You can virtually expand the park by selling it more times during the day. No capital expenditure. Just some extra employees to shuffle people out at the right time for whatever party.
There will be a point where it'll make sense to expand the park but that'll be when it's nearly packed 20hrs/day with multiple day-sales of the park year round. At that point, I think, it'll make financial sense to expand.
If you think about where the park is located it will also require the right federal government. Disney's property around the MK is pretty much all considered wetland under the federal governments definition which would make reclaiming any of the land around MK problematic. If you have a environmentalist government you would probably not have any luck getting the necessary permits to reclaim the land, at the moment Disney probably has the best change from a regulation standpoint that they will ever have to get authorization to turn the swamp into viable surface land.... I suspect if they don't do it while Trump is in office they may never get as good a chance to expand in my lifetime.
Under previous administrations I got to watch first hand as a farmer in our town tried to drain a pond and fill it in... Someone complained to the government, some folks came out and determined the area around his pond was wetlands and the next thing he new he was banned from filling in and draining the pond.
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
@thomas998 You're right.. There are EPA regulations involved.
From my knowledge:
- The "expansion pads" are already designated. I know in today's world you have to ask permission before taking down a tree but I think that for the most part these expansion pads for MK are safe. They couldn't expand beyond that because of the wetlands deals but, for now, if they chose to expand somewhat WDW would be OK
- Ultimately I don't think that is their business strategy. I think their strategy is to get park goers to either pay double for a "full day" experience or to get "day goers" to stay until 7-9PM and then get "night goers" to stay for an extra 3-5 hours. Just by doing that they, depending on how you look at it, nearly/overly double their revenue. You can see this with MVMCP and MNSSHP and how it's all slipping back into August now and how "After Hours Nights" are consuming January. I think that it's only a matter of time until "nighttime" entertainment is a separate ticket. With this notion there are no EPA regulations, no constructions, no asking for permission to take down a tree. They just cycle old guests out and cycle new guests in. These new guests are likely buying more "nighttime exclusive merchandise" so they're seeing the profits there, too.
The current management operates with the notions of:
- minimum investments
- maximum upsells
I don't agree with it but it is their choice and it's definitely the pattern we're seeing. They only upgraded with Pandora because of Harry Potter and the same can be said for DHS being updated. They don't update to please their current clientele but moreso because they feel they have to.
From my knowledge:
- The "expansion pads" are already designated. I know in today's world you have to ask permission before taking down a tree but I think that for the most part these expansion pads for MK are safe. They couldn't expand beyond that because of the wetlands deals but, for now, if they chose to expand somewhat WDW would be OK
- Ultimately I don't think that is their business strategy. I think their strategy is to get park goers to either pay double for a "full day" experience or to get "day goers" to stay until 7-9PM and then get "night goers" to stay for an extra 3-5 hours. Just by doing that they, depending on how you look at it, nearly/overly double their revenue. You can see this with MVMCP and MNSSHP and how it's all slipping back into August now and how "After Hours Nights" are consuming January. I think that it's only a matter of time until "nighttime" entertainment is a separate ticket. With this notion there are no EPA regulations, no constructions, no asking for permission to take down a tree. They just cycle old guests out and cycle new guests in. These new guests are likely buying more "nighttime exclusive merchandise" so they're seeing the profits there, too.
The current management operates with the notions of:
- minimum investments
- maximum upsells
I don't agree with it but it is their choice and it's definitely the pattern we're seeing. They only upgraded with Pandora because of Harry Potter and the same can be said for DHS being updated. They don't update to please their current clientele but moreso because they feel they have to.
True. I suspect they are more likely to expand resorts than parks and continue pushing more supposed benefits of resort stays vs offsite stays before they expand any parks. I wouldn't be surprised if at sometime in the future you wont get into Disney unless you are a guest at a resort. That would be a great strategy at certain time of the year once they get enough rooms. Probably only avoid doing it now because the number of rooms has reached the point that they could fill the parks with their own guests only.