What's with the wait times!? (hint.. they're low)

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
Do you mean Disneyland's new land isn't as appealing as they thought it was? Or the recent movies aren't as appealing as they thought they were?

I think it's probably a mix of both.

From most anecdotal evidence, it seems like the hardcore Star Wars nerds are overall pretty lukewarm on Disney's movies. And, if the hardcores aren't interested in paying jacked up prices to see a single new attraction, who else will be?

If RotR is as awesome as they're trying to make it sound, then maybe the equation changes once it opens. But then we're back to the AP crowding issues, which Disney will not be prepared to handle in the fall.
 

JD2000

Well-Known Member
So... Touring Plans recorded a 7 yesterday for Disneyland Park, exactly as predicted, and the most crowded day yet.

:rolleyes:
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
Disneyland was profitable (and made investments) before it was overcrowded and wait times became uncomfortable. This is not an issue for anyone other than shareholders demanding ever increasing profits.

What's frustrating is that the higher crowds hasn't correlated with longer park hours and higher levels of maintenance for the rides and effort on the part of the CM's.

I wouldn't mind the crowds if that park was spotless. If Disney used the fact that their park was generating more revenue than it has in any point of it's existence to ensure the experience is flawless for it's customers.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
What's frustrating is that the higher crowds hasn't correlated with longer park hours and higher levels of maintenance for the rides and effort on the part of the CM's.

I wouldn't mind the crowds if that park was spotless. If Disney used the fact that their park was generating more revenue than it has in any point of it's existence to ensure the experience is flawless for it's customers.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, I have some sympathy for the suits here.

If you look at the public financials, Disney is investing just as much into the parks (relative to revenue) as they ever have.

I think they're just a lot more expensive than they used to be - especially in California where the cost of labor is higher, and regulations and liability laws are less business friendly.
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
At the risk of sounding like an apologist, I have some sympathy for the suits here.

If you look at the public financials, Disney is investing just as much into the parks (relative to revenue) as they ever have.

I think they're just a lot more expensive than they used to be - especially in California where the cost of labor is higher, and regulations and liability laws are less business friendly.
No sympathy here. The big investments they are making now are an attempt to make up for years of minimal investment.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
No sympathy here. The big investments they are making now are an attempt to make up for years of minimal investment.

Well, Disney's public financial disclosures don't really support that idea. On a yearly basis they're spending just as much (if not more) money relative to revenue as they always have. In six of the last nine fiscal years, for example, the P&R division has actually paid out MORE in capital expenditures than they made in revenue. Sometimes a lot more.

Now, a lot of that money goes to DCA and other peripheral parts of the resort that didn't exist 20 years ago. So, that's a separate discussion. But you can't say Disney hasn't been spending money on the parks, in general. It's just not true. You easily can go look at the company's finances all the way back to the late 90s if you want to see for yourself.
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
At the risk of sounding like an apologist, I have some sympathy for the suits here.

If you look at the public financials, Disney is investing just as much into the parks (relative to revenue) as they ever have.

I think they're just a lot more expensive than they used to be - especially in California where the cost of labor is higher, and regulations and liability laws are less business friendly.

I'm not saying they don't spend money on the parks.

I'm saying that they need to allocate more of that money to ride maintenance, and also keep the parks open longer hours.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying they don't spend money on the parks.

I'm saying that they need to allocate more of that money to ride maintenance, and also keep the parks open longer hours.

Your view is perfectly reasonable as long as we all remember that there are trade-offs. An increase in spending in one area means cuts in another. So what are you willing to give up?
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Well, Disney's public financial disclosures don't really support that idea. On a yearly basis they're spending just as much (if not more) money relative to revenue as they always have. In six of the last nine fiscal years, for example, the P&R division has actually paid out MORE in capital expenditures than they made in revenue. Sometimes a lot more.

Nothing you stated contradicts the statement. You've stated their spending has been consistent, until recently.

The parks were consistently behind in capital improvements through the 00s and early teens. Disney was on a sustain and optimize path for a very long time as a way to increase margins. Add in the 'peanut butter spread' ideal for attendance and the pricing changes.. and you get to where we are now. Disney did big chunks like DCA v2, Dream/Fantasy, NFL, etc... but outside DCL, those big chunks came after years of drought.
 

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
Your view is perfectly reasonable as long as we all remember that there are trade-offs. An increase in spending in one area means cuts in another. So what are you willing to give up?

My initial claim is that since Disneyland is generating more revenue than it ever has before, more of that additional revenue should be allocated to attraction maintenance + longer park hours.

In regard to wanting longer hours- the park was regularly open from 8 am to 1 am for years and years. Yes, I know that WDW doesn't do this. Yes, I know the parks are slow after 11pm. But with what it costs to get in there now vs the '80s and '90s, this isn't an unreasonable request.

What would I give up for better attraction maintenance? That's easy. Just about all of the money allocated to leveling curbs and removing planters. The money spent on Pixar Pier and Mission Overlay. The money spent on Galaxy's Edge. The money spent on developing Mickey's Mix Magic, Together Forever, and 2017 Fantasmic. Disney can't even maintain what they have now, I shudder to think how much more run down Batuu will be looking in a few decades.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
Nothing you stated contradicts the statement. You've stated their spending has been consistent, until recently.

The parks were consistently behind in capital improvements through the 00s and early teens. Disney was on a sustain and optimize path for a very long time as a way to increase margins. Add in the 'peanut butter spread' ideal for attendance and the pricing changes.. and you get to where we are now. Disney did big chunks like DCA v2, Dream/Fantasy, NFL, etc... but outside DCL, those big chunks came after years of drought.

I guess I can partly agree, but it seems like you're overstating it. There have been a couple of stretches in the last 20-25 years where capital spending got drastically cut, but they always coincided with economic downturns when revenue significantly dropped, as well. That's just the reality of business.

Now, what is true is that Disney has sometimes prioritized spending in other locations ahead of Anaheim. They don't tell us how much is spent where, exacctly. But, it's a pretty safe bet that major projects in China, etc. have drawn potential spending away from DLR over the years. But, again, that's just normal business and can't really be criticized outside of selfish personal preference.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
What would I give up for better attraction maintenance? That's easy. Just about all of the money allocated to leveling curbs and removing planters. The money spent on Pixar Pier and Mission Overlay. The money spent on Galaxy's Edge. The money spent on developing Mickey's Mix Magic, Together Forever, and 2017 Fantasmic. Disney can't even maintain what they have now, I shudder to think how much more run down Batuu will be looking in a few decades.

This is a totally reasonable take. But, one has to assume Disney has market research that shows the majority of guests would rather have a new Fantasmic, etc. than 1 AM closing times.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
I guess I can partly agree, but it seems like you're overstating it. There have been a couple of stretches in the last 20-25 years where capital spending got drastically cut, but they always coincided with economic downturns when revenue significantly dropped, as well. That's just the reality of business.

Now, what is true is that Disney has sometimes prioritized spending in other locations ahead of Anaheim. They don't tell us how much is spent where, exacctly. But, it's a pretty safe bet that major projects in China, etc. have drawn potential spending away from DLR over the years. But, again, that's just normal business and can't really be criticized outside of selfish personal preference.

I want to say @ParentsOf4 had an excellent graph of capital spending vs profits or something similar posted around here somewhere... Basically, the first several years under Iger were terrible for domestic theme park spending. Plenty of profits were being generated by P&R that were directed elsewhere for many years (Not discounting the cost of the Dream and Fantasy, that was definitely a good business decision that I think few could reasonably argue with). One time I went through the annual reports and calculated the net profits generated by P&R, for something like 2010-2017, and then did some digging and came up with a similar number for stock buybacks during the same timeframe. The buyback numbers were staggering. I should have documented those outside of a post somewhere in these forums... :(
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
I want to say @ParentsOf4 had an excellent graph of capital spending vs profits or something similar posted around here somewhere... Basically, the first several years under Iger were terrible for domestic theme park spending. Plenty of profits were being generated by P&R that were directed elsewhere for many years (Not discounting the cost of the Dream and Fantasy, that was definitely a good business decision that I think few could reasonably argue with). One time I went through the annual reports and calculated the net profits generated by P&R, for something like 2010-2017, and then did some digging and came up with a similar number for stock buybacks during the same timeframe. The buyback numbers were staggering. I should have documented those outside of a post somewhere in these forums... :(

So I did some similar math back to 1997 a while ago. Through FY2018, P&R capital spending is something like 99.7% of operating income over those 22 years. Individual years are higher or lower, but the total numbers come out pretty neatly.

Now, straight capex vs. OI is a pretty rough cut, but it's generally enough to show that Disney isn't sitting around on a big pile of cash. They've pretty much reinvested everything they've made. Not necessarily wisely in every case, but it isn't a case of just being cheap as some claim.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Domestic spending was pretty lousy since they were over reliant on supporting Hong Kong and Shanghai. Hong Kong was a consistent money loser. Shanghai went over budget by $1 billion and late by 6 months or 1 year depending on how you want to look at it. Hong Kong is still a mess and Paris is turning around. Maybe that's why Disney turned it attention to the domestic parks especially with Universal coming on strong. Except for missing the boat with Galaxy's Edge, we'll see if it pays off.
 

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
Domestic spending was pretty lousy since they were over reliant on supporting Hong Kong and Shanghai. Hong Kong was a consistent money loser. Shanghai went over budget by $1 billion and late by 6 months or 1 year depending on how you want to look at it. Hong Kong is still a mess and Paris is turning around. Maybe that's why Disney turned it attention to the domestic parks especially with Universal coming on strong. Except for missing the boat with Galaxy's Edge, we'll see if it pays off.

A fun theoretical is to imagine an alternate universe where Walt Disney is alive in 2019, but hasn't built any theme parks yet.

If they're starting from scratch in the year 2019, where do they build?

Almost no chance Disneyland ends up in California if it's built today, IMO.
 

Travel Junkie

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying they don't spend money on the parks.

I'm saying that they need to allocate more of that money to ride maintenance, and also keep the parks open longer hours.

Disneyland has more open hours than any other Disney park and possibly any other theme park on earth. 8AM-midnight everyday during the summer and holiday periods along with weekends virtually year around not enough for you? DCA and MK are neck and neck in operating hours across the year not counting hard ticket events.
 

voodoo321

Well-Known Member
So I did some similar math back to 1997 a while ago. Through FY2018, P&R capital spending is something like 99.7% of operating income over those 22 years. Individual years are higher or lower, but the total numbers come out pretty neatly.

Now, straight capex vs. OI is a pretty rough cut, but it's generally enough to show that Disney isn't sitting around on a big pile of cash. They've pretty much reinvested everything they've made. Not necessarily wisely in every case, but it isn't a case of just being cheap as some claim.
Corporate Graft and Money Laundering. I've got no proof but everybody keeps beating their heads against the wall wondering why these projects cost billions, take years, and we see little. These people aren't stupid. They don't waste money or not know how to spend it. It's all going in the front door and straight out the back. That is the only thing that makes any sense. That money doesn't get spent on our little stupid rides.
 

WDW Pro

Well-Known Member
It's a Tuesday in summer at 4:30 pm... here are the wait times:

29min45min15min10min20min20min5min5min0min10min10min40min10min20min50min5min5min5min45min10min10min30min10min10min45min10min85min55min20min15min5min25min25min
Average WaitMillennium Falcon: Smugglers RunAstro OrbitorAutopiaBig Thunder Mountain RailroadBuzz Lightyear Astro BlastersCasey Jr. Circus TrainDisneyland MonorailDisneyland RailroadDumbo the Flying ElephantWalt Disney's Enchanted Tiki RoomFinding Nemo Submarine VoyageGadget's Go CoasterHaunted MansionIndiana Jones™ AdventureJungle CruiseKing Arthur CarrouselMad Tea PartyMatterhorn BobsledsMickey's House and Meet MickeyMr. Toad's Wild RidePeter Pan's FlightPinocchio's Daring JourneyPirates of the CaribbeanRoger Rabbit's Car Toon SpinSnow White's Scary AdventuresHyperspace MountainSplash MountainStar Tours – The Adventures ContinueStorybook Land Canal BoatsThe Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh"it's a small world"Alice in Wonderlan

That is exactly ONE ride over an hour in wait time. One. So for those saying that Disney should be happy right now with crowd sizes, trust me, they're not. These wait times are indicative of lower ticket sales, and ticket sales mean millions of dollars are being lost daily.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
So I did some similar math back to 1997 a while ago. Through FY2018, P&R capital spending is something like 99.7% of operating income over those 22 years. Individual years are higher or lower, but the total numbers come out pretty neatly.

Now, straight capex vs. OI is a pretty rough cut, but it's generally enough to show that Disney isn't sitting around on a big pile of cash. They've pretty much reinvested everything they've made. Not necessarily wisely in every case, but it isn't a case of just being cheap as some claim.
Not all capex is equal. :)

I don't know how you calculated the 99.7%, but I suspect it includes both maintenance and investment capex. These two serve very different purposes. Quoting something I wrote in November 2016:

"Capital Expenditure (capex) is the purchase of an asset that will benefit a company for several years. Capex can be lumped into two broad categories, maintenance and investment (or growth).

Disney replacing an old bus with a new bus can be thought of as maintenance capex. Disney adding a new bus to increase the size of its fleet can be thought of as growth capex.

When Disney buys that bus, its purchase price does not impact profit immediately. Instead, the cost of the purchase is spread out over the number of years it will be used. This is called "depreciation". It's this depreciation that impacts profit.

Let's say that a Disney bus costs $500K and Disney intends to keep that bus for 10 years. That $500K does not reduce profit by $500K the year it is purchased. Instead, that bus affects profit for 10 years by $50K each year in the form of depreciation. (Disney uses the straight-line method to depreciate assets.)

At the end of 10 years, Disney should sell that bus and buy a new one. However, management types looking to save a buck might decide to keep that bus for 11, 12, or even 13 years. Instead of you and I riding a new bus, we are riding an 11, 12, or 13-year old bus.

Without detailed disclosures, a rule-of-thumb is to estimate maintenance capex to be equal to depreciation. Amounts spent below depreciation are (or should be) for maintenance. Amounts spent above depreciation are for growth (or investment).

Investment (or growth) capex can be negative when depreciation is greater than total capex."

The above quote is in response to a question regarding the following chart, which shows that TWDC underinvested in its domestic theme parks from 2002 to 2015:

388218


The full thread discussing this can be found here:


I've frequently posted about TWDC's investment in WDW over the years so am unsure which specific post @HauntedPirate had in mind, but the below chart puts TWDC's investment in WDW and DLR into historical perspective. It adjusts for inflation and takes into consideration how many theme parks Disney had in operation over the decades:

388224


As many can vouch for, I used to write about this regularly, although I felt little need to after TWDC increased domestic investments beginning in 2016.

Those who are too young to appreciate TWDC's pre-9/11 investment levels are having a chance to experience it for the first time now. Those who are old enough to remember are happy to see a return to the old days. :)
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom