Your analogy is severely flawed. The proper comparison would be more akin to the monorail is Universe of Energy, with huge capacity but slower load and dispatch times vs Haunted Mansion for the gondolas. Moreover, unlike gondolas which are pretty much fixed capacity at all times, with investment and planning, the monorails can have variable capacity, reducing the number of trains or dispatch interval during slower periods and increasing during peak periods. With enough trains, the monorail could always having a train ready to pull into the station when the next one leaves. This is similar to how mass transit works across the country - more trains and shorter dispatch periods during peak times.
Assume the gondola holds 8 people and dispatches 5 gondolas per minute. Maximum capacity for 30 minutes after park close is only 1200 people. In fact, that is the constant and only capacity. Now, compare that to a monorail which holds 300 people and assume a dispatch rate of 1 every 3 minutes. Maximum capacity for 30 minutes after park close is 3,000 people. Add more trains and you can dispatch every 2 minutes with a maximum capacity for those 30 minutes of 4,500 people. During the middle of the day, take some trains off the beam for cleaning and maintenance.
Unfortunately, if my analogy is true, and the monorail is UOE, well then we may be in trouble...
Well...sortof. And, mind you, if this was addressed in the last 11 pages of the thread, ignore me...
But, modern gondola systems have the capacity to separate from the drive cable, and to detach and reattach from it...meaning, more or less can be added.
It isn't like a ski lift, and is actually very similar to a train system, just with smaller cars.
In fact, it's quite similar to a very advanced people mover, with two primary benefits for the rider.
1) The illusion of decreased travel time
What I mean by this is that the actual travel time for a larger transit solution (bus/monorail/train) could be equal, but the illusion of movement...both in line/wait as well as smaller group transit...gives the impression, unconsciously, of speed to the end user, even when there is no real time savings in practice. The perception...is everything.
2) "On Demand"
Building off my first point, and they really could be the same...but...through this perception, it is seen as far more "on demand", eliminating the "bus waits"...and the conversations that come with it. "Where is the (insert mass transit medium)" goes away in the waiting area, and instead, people just wait for their turn, as they can see it churning, and the line constantly moves.
And, going to the first point the other person made, this is exactly why the omnimover system worked so surprisingly well. The lines may or may not be any better or worse (though they were better, with throughput, vs other systems), but the impression of the always moving lines made them seem even shorter.