News Tron coaster coming to the Magic Kingdom

[MrPromey]

I agree that WDW definitely needs more attractions - especially in it's non-MK parks. BUT...you're not taking into account FP+. Prior to FP+, guests could enjoy way more rides/attractions per day because rides that previously had no lines and didn't require a fast pass now have an hour or more wait. I really believe that most people (not people like us who analyze every aspect of everything) wouldn't notice how few attractions there are if it weren't for FP+ and the false sense of urgency/scarcity that Disney seems to love creating.

As someone who used to be firmly in your camp on this subject, I'm not so sure we still wouldn't have a problem if they were to scrap FP+, tomorrow. Even without FP+, crowds would still be at record high levels. There would still be less room to walk around the World Showcase Pramenade thanks to water side build-up of resturants and shops and never-ending festival booths, Hollowood Studios - you get the picture.

Where I think things would be better though is that without FP+, lines would be moving. Wait times would likely be lower without people at the front but those people would still be in the park. Would they be ahead or behind you in line for those same attractions is anyone's guess but I think the open spaces would probably feel just a little less crowded and the waits, even if only marginally sorter (someone with a fastpass for a ride that has a 2 hour wait, might not be someone who would have gotten in line for that same ride at a 1 hour wait... or maybe they would) would feel shorter since there would be much more constant movement than the soul draining stand-there-and-wait-standing-still feeling you have now.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

As someone who used to be firmly in your camp on this subject, I'm not so sure we still wouldn't have a problem if they were to scrap FP+, tomorrow. Even without FP+, crowds would still be at record high levels. There would still be less room to walk around the World Showcase Pramenade thanks to water side build-up of resturants and shops and never-ending festival booths, Hollowood Studios - you get the picture.

Where I think things would be better though is that without FP+, lines would be moving. Wait times would likely be lower without people at the front but those people would still be in the park. Would they be ahead or behind you in line for those same attractions is anyone's guess but I think the open spaces would probably feel just a little less crowded and the waits, even if only marginally sorter (someone with a fastpass for a ride that has a 2 hour wait, might not be someone who would have gotten in line for that same ride at a 1 hour wait... or maybe they would) would feel shorter since there would be much more constant movement than the soul draining stand-there-and-wait-with-no-movement feeling you have now.

I say that last thing contrasting it with Universal. They have their own jump-the-line program for resort guests and as a paid add-on but it's not nearly as popular and it shows because those lines, while sometimes long, continue to move and the difference can be felt.

I can't remember where, but I recently read that the goal at the attractions is to keep to a 4/1 FP+ to standby ratio with the thought that keeping the FP+ line empty is best. My biggest problem with FP+ is exactly this. Nowhere has it stated that FP+ is equal to front-of-line-access, but the above makes it exactly that - which is why (if the above is true) the standby lines don't move at all. A 10-15 minute wait for FP+ wouldn't be unreasonable at all, and if the ratio were 2/1 or even 3/1, I think we'd see a decent improvement in wait times.

 

[Kman101]

You can count the E tickets and you can count the attractions, but the fact remains that Walt Disney World should have WAY more rides and attractions than the smaller half-scale park on the other side of the country... WDW was built to be the newest biggest best representation of the Disney Theme Park... then they just stopped adding and trying... So now they are trying to add some stuff which is great, but none of these are exclusive...they are continuing to add and build to the California parks as well. I sure get David1111's point...and I do not understand why TDO continues to be so cheap with their additions while they are the most visited theme park resort on the planet.

Yep. I get his point too.

Or that MK gets significantly more guests than DL, 2 million more per year.

And shouldn't they have more attractions then to soak up all those people? Come on. You know where we are all coming from. Stop.

 

[peter11435]

I can't remember where, but I recently read that the goal at the attractions is to keep to a 4/1 FP+ to standby ratio with the thought that keeping the FP+ line empty is best. My biggest problem with FP+ is exactly this. Nowhere has it stated that FP+ is equal to front-of-line-access, but the above makes it exactly that - which is why (if the above is true) the standby lines don't move at all. A 10-15 minute wait for FP+ wouldn't be unreasonable at all, and if the ratio were 2/1 or even 3/1, I think we'd see a decent improvement in wait times.

Your ratios wouldn’t work given the numbers of fastpasses distributed.

 

[The Pho]

As someone who used to be firmly in your camp on this subject, I'm not so sure we still wouldn't have a problem if they were to scrap FP+, tomorrow. Even without FP+, crowds would still be at record high levels. There would still be less room to walk around the World Showcase Pramenade thanks to water side build-up of resturants and shops and never-ending festival booths, Hollowood Studios - you get the picture.

Where I think things would be better though is that without FP+, lines would be moving. Wait times would likely be lower without people at the front but those people would still be in the park. Would they be ahead or behind you in line for those same attractions is anyone's guess but I think the open spaces would probably feel just a little less crowded and the waits, even if only marginally sorter (someone with a fastpass for a ride that has a 2 hour wait, might not be someone who would have gotten in line for that same ride at a 1 hour wait... or maybe they would) would feel shorter since there would be much more constant movement than the soul draining stand-there-and-wait-standing-still feeling you have now.

Fastpass+ decreased average wait times. Without it, the crowds don’t disperse around to the lesser attractions causing the headliners to have longer lines.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Your ratios wouldn’t work given the numbers of fastpasses distributed.

Whatever. Point being that the FP+ lines DO NOT have to be continuously empty. Adjust loading to increase standby loads while keeping FP+ loads to a maximum of 10-15 minutes waiting and wait times improve along with guest satisfaction. The issue here is that FP+ loading is given explicit priority, regardless of whether that means the standby line doesn't move at all for huge amounts of time.

 

[marni1971]

Fastpass+ decreased average wait times. Without it, the crowds don’t disperse around to the lesser attractions causing the headliners to have longer lines.

That was the plan anyway. Force people to more niche attractions as opposed to building high capacity appealing attractions.

 

[peter11435]

Whatever. Point being that the FP+ lines DO NOT have to be continuously empty. Adjust loading to increase standby loads while keeping FP+ loads to a maximum of 10-15 minutes waiting and wait times improve along with guest satisfaction. The issue here is that FP+ loading is given explicit priority, regardless of whether that means the standby line doesn't move at all for huge amounts of time.

But Fastpass lines are rarely if ever actually empty. The threshold Disney uses is to keep them 10 minutes or less.

You can’t increase the amount of standby guests you’re loading unless you reduce the number of fastpasses you are distributing.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

But Fastpass lines are rarely if ever actually empty. The threshold Disney uses is to keep them 10 minutes or less.

You can’t increase the amount of standby guests you’re loading unless you reduce the number of fastpasses you are distributing.

Granted, our last trip was slightly over 2 years ago, but we saw plenty of empty FP+ lines while we were there, and it was during F&W.

 

[David1111]

That was the plan anyway. Force people to more niche attractions as opposed to building high capacity appealing attractions.

It's interesting how some people just refuse to acknowledge the way TDO runs WDW. The resort is good, but it has really bad management compared to some of the other resorts. It's pretty mind-blowing how they've cut every corner over the last 20 years.

 

[David1111]

His comparison was inaccurate. When someone provided accurate details, he flipped out. He also said DLR was receiving more investment than WDW. Considering the amount Disney is currently investing in WDW, I have a believing this is accurate as well. If he wants to debate whether the current investment happening in WDW is good, bad, mixed...that is another story.

I flipped out because @MisterPenguin keeps trying to change the subject and make me look like an idiot.

I never implied that Disneyland is receiving more investment... just proportionately it still is for E-tickets.

The current investment is a step in the right direction, but the problem is not that, but that WDW needs more investment proportionately because it has higher crowds, and because it is already underbuilt park-wise. Right now DLR is getting what 4 E-tickets? WDW is getting 6 E-tickets. Orlando should be getting 8, and really even more since WDW is already so underbuilt. Both coasts will get more after this string is done, but it's apparent that even a decade from now, Disneyland Park, when compared to MK, will have nearly double the E-tickets to MK, and DLR compared to WDW will have nearly as much for just 2 parks. It's not a bad thing for Disneyland, it's just a problem with WDW especially crowd wise.

I think David1111 is just saying MK park should have just as many if not more E tickets than DL park. Yes as a whole WDW has more e tickets than DLR. However comparing the two castle parks, its heavily skewed towards DL. Even more with Galaxy's Edge coming online. There is a reason attractions like the JC and POTC sport hour long queues on even moderate days at the MK. Its because there are less attractions to soak up the crowds. DL offers a lot more non e ticket attractions like the Canoes, Storybook Land Canal Boats, Alice in Wonderland etc to help distribute the crowds. There's no reason for MK's JC to sport an hour wait even on less busy days (even though it is popular). Its because there are less attractions to pull guests too. DL's JC is popular too but rarely sport an hour long queue.

Exactly. And when people say the Lion King show is an E-ticket, California Adventure, for instance, has Frozen, and more B's and C's to balance out the crowds (AK has some exhibits). It's a moot point. MK to DL as well there is huge disparity (perhaps even worse). Plus the fact that Attendance is lower at DLR.

Heck, even Tokyo Disneyland's JC never has more than a 15-minute wait (slightly larger capacity), but still, WDW is just way overcrowded.

 

[rle4lunch]

From BLT today. I'm not contributing to anything, just flaunting my view from our room.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I flipped out because @MisterPenguin keeps trying to change the subject and make me look like an idiot.

I never implied that Disneyland is receiving more investment... just proportionately it still is for E-tickets.

The current investment is a step in the right direction, but the problem is not that, but that WDW needs more investment proportionately because it has higher crowds, and because it is already underbuilt park-wise. Right now DLR is getting what 4 E-tickets? WDW is getting 6 E-tickets. Orlando should be getting 8, and really even more since WDW is already so underbuilt. Both coasts will get more after this string is done, but it's apparent that even a decade from now, Disneyland Park, when compared to MK, will have nearly double the E-tickets to MK, and DLR compared to WDW will have nearly as much for just 2 parks. It's not a bad thing for Disneyland, it's just a problem with WDW especially crowd wise.

Exactly. And when people say the Lion King show is an E-ticket, California Adventure, for instance, has Frozen, and more B's and C's to balance out the crowds (AK has some exhibits). It's a moot point. MK to DL as well there is huge disparity (perhaps even worse). Plus the fact that Attendance is lower at DLR.

Heck, even Tokyo Disneyland's JC never has more than a 15-minute wait (slightly larger capacity), but still, WDW is just way overcrowded.

Honestly, I think a big part of the problems at WDW are it's management. Not only were the parks allowed to stagnate for too long with permanent closures adding to the issue, but they seem to have doubled-down on wanting to manipulate the crowd-flow...which I think compounds multiple problems. Add to that the closure of attractions (like the Main Street arcade) in favor of gift shops and the fact that almost all the shops sell the same thing...PLUS restaurants operating seasonally when they could be open year-round...there are just SO many ways WDW could be managed better.

 

[JohnD]

I get the point both sides are trying to make. WDW does have a lot less rides than it should (particularly when you look at Disneyland), but it also has a lot more in the way of non-ride attractions on a variety of scales.

Looking at AK in particular, rides don’t paint the whole picture. There are only 8 rides, which is not enough for a 21 year old theme park, especially one as popular as it is.

However, there are also:
3 E-Ticket shows (Lion King, Rivers of Light, Nemo),
2 D-Ticket shows (Bugs, Bird show)
4 C-Ticket shows/walkthroughs (Pandora suit guy, drum show, Jungle Trek, Gorilla Falls)

That doesn’t include any of the random live performers and meet and greets scattered around the park, or any of the more diversionary trails and animal exhibits. This park alone comes close to rivaling Disneyland Resort’s entire entertainment lineup.

Does that mean it doesn’t need more rides? No, and a good deal of Epcot and HS still need major facelifts in addition to what’s coming. But it does show that WDW, while still under built, is in better shape than the ride count would lead you to believe.

Could more rides be added to AK and Epcot? Sure. But that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the other aspects of the parks. AK: Shows and walk trails. Epcot: Walking around WS and exploring the pavilions.

 

[solidyne]

From BLT today. I'm not contributing to anything, just flaunting my view from our room. View attachment 371386

Enjoy it. This beautiful view has an expiration date.

 

[solidyne]

Right now DLR is getting what 4 E-tickets? WDW is getting 6 E-tickets. Orlando should be getting 8, [...]

This is true only if all parks require E-tickets. I think @MisterPenguin 's point is that not all parks do. Of course they need investment, and no one denies that WDW is underdeveloped or that it "gets" way less than DLR in general, but why is "# of E-tickets" the only valuable metric for gauging that?

 

[peter11435]

Granted, our last trip was slightly over 2 years ago, but we saw plenty of empty FP+ lines while we were there, and it was during F&W.

That’s certainly not the standard

 

[doctornick]

I think the bigger "issue" between DLR and WDW is the number of overall rides, not necessary E-tickets. In fact, WDW "suffers" from having too many E-tickets relatively to the number of more filling out the park lesser ticket rides. When people compare the similar ride count numbers from DLR and WDW, the bulk of the advantage of DLR is in flat rides (especially DCA) and smaller scale dark rides (especially DL). WDW often rounds out more with non-ride activities including the various shows (live, AA, film), animal trails and - for those who care - M&Gs.

That all being said, I certainly agree with the overall sentiment that WDW is underbuilt and the three non-MK parks (and even MK really) should have more rides and attractions in general to fill the parks with more to do. I just don't think it's as extreme a difference with DLR or as dire a situation as some are making it on thread.

 

[Lensman]

I can't remember where, but I recently read that the goal at the attractions is to keep to a 4/1 FP+ to standby ratio with the thought that keeping the FP+ line empty is best. My biggest problem with FP+ is exactly this. Nowhere has it stated that FP+ is equal to front-of-line-access, but the above makes it exactly that - which is why (if the above is true) the standby lines don't move at all. A 10-15 minute wait for FP+ wouldn't be unreasonable at all, and if the ratio were 2/1 or even 3/1, I think we'd see a decent improvement in wait times.

I can see the attraction to this idea. (Lol, see what I did there? It was purely accidental, I promise!)

Though it is *possible* that reducing the FastPass ratio would decrease standby times, I'll repeat my hypothesis: Super-long standby times are driven by guests tolerance for long waits. If this is true, then if you double the guest throughput through the standby queue, you'll get slightly less than double the number the number of guests willing to wait in that queue. So if the wait is 120 minutes you'll drop it to 105 minutes, not 60 minutes. The other aspect of this is what other people have mentioned, which is that if you double the allocation to the standby queue, most of the people who are now not able to get a FastPass will end up waiting in the standby queue. If they all simply move to the standby queue, the standby wait time will remain 120 minutes.

Sometimes, I wonder if they should implement a virtual queue system for the standby line. Lol

OTOH, super-long standby wait times don't seem an entirely bad way of selecting riders based on their desire to go on a particular ride.

Your ratios wouldn’t work given the numbers of fastpasses distributed.

I think @ImperfectPixie would agree that they'd have to reduce the number of FastPasses issued to compensate as well. In fact, isn't it the ratio of FastPasses issued vs attraction capacity that determines the ratio in the first place?

It's interesting how some people just refuse to acknowledge the way TDO runs WDW. The resort is good, but it has really bad management compared to some of the other resorts. It's pretty mind-blowing how they've cut every corner over the last 20 years.

Now I think you're changing your proposition, not that that's a bad thing. I don't think it's accurate to say that anyone taking issue with your original post is defending the way TDO runs WDW. Here's your original post:

And people say that Disney World gets all the best stuff. Disneyland Park literally already has the most E-tickets of any park on Earth yet are getting Star Wars Land & Mickey, which is the amount of E-tickets HWS (Disney's second-worst park ever) is getting and they had to replace 2 E-tickets to get there!

Excited for TRON, but it's not integrated with the land either. While not without its faults, Disneyland Park for some reason is seen as needing more investment than the more popular and severely underbuilt Magic Kingdom Park. If MK would have gotten Star Wars Land, the park would have still been behind Disneyland Park. Even Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World have an enormous discrepancy in E-tickets through C-tickets on average. Think about that.

And now Disneyland Park is rumored to get yet another major ride. Happy for them, but the kissing up to TDO is ridiculous. Still can be excited about TRON and critique the way things are run.

Edited for clarity.

It's not clear to me that disagreeing with part of your post is "[refusing] to acknowledge the way TDO runs WDW".

I'm not criticizing you, I'm just trying to explain why people are responding in a way that perplexes you.

I flipped out because @MisterPenguin keeps trying to change the subject and make me look like an idiot.

I think he's focusing on one of the points of your original thesis. If you make several points in a discussion, people are allowed to address them in part. If you don't want them to do so, then you shouldn't use that point to bolster your argument. If you only want people to agree or disagree with your central thesis and not address any of your substantiating arguments, then don't try to make substantiating arguments.

BTW, don't worry, typically, no one can make us look like idiots when we're not, except ourselves.

 

[David1111]

This is true only if all parks require E-tickets. I think @MisterPenguin 's point is that not all parks do. Of course they need investment, and no one denies that WDW is underdeveloped or that it "gets" way less than DLR in general, but why is "# of E-tickets" the only valuable metric for gauging that?

It's the metric that we are discussing. There are far more factors, but @MisterPenguin's way of phrasing makes it seem that there's no problem with the E-ticket level specifically which is not the case. And even if he comes back and clarifies, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing because like you said, no one denies that WDW is underdeveloped.

It is a huge problem, not the only problem, but a huge one. E-tickets are really important for theme parks for capacity and enjoyment, and even when we factor in D's, C's, and other factors like food, crowdedness, and environments, Disneyland Park still blows MK out of the water. By this train of logic, Animal Kingdom shouldn't have added Expedition Everest or Flight of Passage because Animal Kingdom is about the zoo aspect. There needs to be a balance, but WDW hasn't struck it, and still needs to make up lost time even with the unprecedented park expansion taking place. It's a start.

I see what you're trying to say, but you're downplaying the importance. It's a good indicator of overall investment (because they cost a lot more than exhibits...which mind you all parks have their equivalent), and they justify repeat visits.