Bouncing some messages around my channels, something to noodle on...
The baseline staffing for water parks is less adaptable than the other parks without reduction in attractions or offerings. There are fewer food & beverage outlets to adjust to crowd levels, and a certain amount of safety staff are required regardless of gate clicks.
So if you can successfully market both water parks as an incentive to purchase a mostly-unrelated offering (in this case, vacation packages), you've further monetized a fixed operations cost with minimal balance sheet impact.
You got to what I was wondering and verbalized it far better.
Disney isn’t really losing anything by this move.
1. It looks like goodwill to the customers and public at large.
2. It doesn’t cost them that much as it’s utilizing something that is already in operation and comparatively underutilized.
3. Starts in 2025?
4. Provides the appearance of doing “something.”
Last ten day trip was 2017, we did one day at one of the water parks. Kids had a great time and we drank
but even at a ten day stay we had to justify it to ourselves.
It’s as if the big wigs (ears?) got together and said “what is the minimal amount we can do to juice attendance?”
Now in their shoes this is probably a huge step but when really looked at? It’s simply shuttling a fraction of guests to the underattended parks.
Who knows, perhaps it simply buys them time and is delaying the inevitable?
“Hey Disney: you know why people aren’t staying on prem? It’s really simple, the cost is in no way shape or form proportional to the value!”
I mean it was always bad, but it’s just more obvious.