In my Orange County Register column this week, I raise the idea that parks might soon try to make popular new attractions an upcharge for some period after their debut. Parks have shown that some people are willing to pay extra to avoid long lines by getting upcharge front-of-line passes. Why not extend that concept by restricting initial access to a new ride for a few days/weeks/months to people willing to pay extra to ride it?
Please don't jump all over me for suggesting the extra charge. Believe me, this is not a new concept for parks. They've considered this in the past, but no one has actually pulled the trigger on it, save for the occasional charity auction of seats on a coaster's first run on its media day.
But many fans suspect that Disney's Star Wars land might be the project that convinces a park to go for a paid-access plan to try to handle what otherwise might be debilitating crowds for the rest of Disneyland and Disney's Hollywood Studios when Galaxy's Edge opens in 2019.
What other options do theme parks have for managing the overflow of people who want to get on an attraction? Let's look at five ways that theme parks can handle how people get onto rides and into shows.
1. Physical queue: Pros? This is the traditional way of managing crowds in a theme park. It's fair and intuitive. People get on in the order in which they arrived at the location. First-come, first-served.
Cons? Maintaining a physical queue requires a lot of space in a park, as well as people to staff the queue in order to discourage the line-jumping that often leads to ugly conflicts between fans. And when the ride no longer commands huge waits, the park is left with unused, empty queue space.
2. Virtual queue: Pros? It's also a first-come, first-served system, but it avoids the space and staffing demands of a physical queue. People can go do other stuff in the park while they wait for their return time to the attraction, potentially increasing both per-guest spending and guest satisfaction.
Cons? Maintaining a virtual queue requires developing or buying the technology to manage it. And how will visitors claim their space in the virtual queue? A cell phone app? Or will they have to line up in a physical queue to check into the virtual one? Virtual queues can hurt overall park attendance, if they "sell out" all return times early in the day. While that might encourage some would-be late arrivals to show up earlier, extending their time (and spending) in the park, it might deter others from visiting at all.
3. Advance reservation: Pros? It's basically a virtual queue with the queue's opening extended to an earlier date, before people arrive in the park. So there's no physical queueing at all, as people will have to use apps, websites, or phone calls to claim their reservation times. People will know in advance whether they will get on or not and can plan their day around their ride time.
Cons? People who can't get an advance reservation might be less likely to visit at all, defeating the attendance-boosting purpose of an expensive new attraction. And while some visitors might enjoy the convenience of booking a ride time at home, others might resent having to start planning their trip in advance.
4. Random selection: Pros? A lottery means no waiting, and everyone gets an equal chance at a ride time. It neither requires nor permits any extra effort to gain an advantage.
Cons? It neither requires nor permits any extra effort to gain an advantage. That means a park's most dedicated fans might be left out in favor of people who enter the lottery on a whim and might not enjoy the experience anyway. So you've got the same attendance risk as with advance reservations, amplified by the risk of ticking off your most loyal fans.
5. Extra payment: Pros? The park has the potential to earn a lot more money by making a popular attraction an upcharge. Price it right, and no other means of crowd control will be required: no physical or virtual queues, no advance reservations, and no lotteries.
Cons? The park limits its potential attendance gains with what is effectively a big price increase for the park. And at some point, the park won't be able to keep the new ride filled to capacity if it remains an upcharge. That means transitioning to one of the other four entrance management methods.
Optimally, a park will manage that transition by gradually reducing the price of the upcharge, until it become "free" to park guests. But that requires a lot of data and math work to manage effectively, and at this point, parks are swimming in air as no one's captured that data by trying this method on any significant scale. Do you want to be the park to jeopardize the successful launch of a multi-million-dollar investment by being the first? Unless your paycheck is signed by a certain mouse, I don't think so.
Ultimately, parks have tried to manage the pros and cons of these methods by blending them. You offer a virtual queue, with a physical standby queue, for example. Or you turn off the virtual queue at certain times of day. Or you set aside a percentage of ride times for advance reservations or lottery distribution and leave the rest for a physical queue.
But at some point, as I wrote in the column, the upcharge option is coming into this mix. Will Disney be the one to do it? As the market leader, it makes sense that Disney would be the one with the resources and margin for error to assume that risk.
Read Robert's column:
Tweet
So for Star Wars, they need more options. Maxpass is required and probably the cheapest option. Have some Star Wars dining options. Their new Star Wars restaurants will be in high demand. Pairing dining with a complementary attraction Fastpass is almost irresistible. Include a Meet & Greet package with Fastpass. Of course, people will want both Fastpasses for each new ride. In that case, have an option to upgrade to an all inclusive Star Wars bonus package.
I won't mind paying an upcharge for Star Wars land as long as they don't restrict APs from the rest of Disneyland, as was rumored a while back.
Run two parties per day (9-3 & 4-10), set the prices high (sorry), keep tickets to a reasonable cap where attendance will allow six hours to be plenty of time to experience the two attractions, a food experience and meet & greet, and, most importantly, make sure everything is up and running before you start the parties.
That last point is important if you're hoping to lessen the onslaught when you open the attraction to the public. People who paid will need to feel like they got the full experience (as well as feeling special for seeing it early) so they decide they don't have to stand in line for 10 hours during those early weeks.
But if you do it right, you've lessened demand among your most die-hard (who would be the kind of fan that would pay extra for early access) and hopefully set yourself for a smoother grand opening, while also grossing millions of dollars of additional revenue.
I don't have to like the upcharge aspect (and I don't) to admit that it's what I'd recommend if I were asked. And if I'm being honest with myself, I'd be far more likely to go that route than the wait 10 hours route. But it's also why I thought their other cash-grab upcharge options in recent years -- whether Tomorrowland cabanas or a few extra hours of park time at night -- have been shortsighted. Save it for when you have something the public is willing to pay for. Star Wars is that.
What is not mentioned here is that lines tend to be longer when an attraction first opens not just because of the popularity and anticipation for the addition, but also because the attraction is incapable of operating at optimal capacity when it first opens. However, the only way the park can get an attraction up to maximum capacity is to ramp it up with real guests under a full-park scenario - soft opens only test the ride and operators under very controlled circumstances with extremely light crowds. Take Flight of Passage for example - The attraction was built with four (4) independent theaters, but for much of the first 3-4 months of operation (until around August), Disney was unable to efficiently operate all four theaters simultaneously due to technical issues with the equipment (reportedly overheating of systems). Even roller coasters, which are relatively reliable in terms of operations compared to simulators and many motion base dark rides, have a break in period that limits throughput far below maximum capacity because safety systems and emergency lockouts are deliberately overly conservative while the park learns the intricacies of each individual installation - even a meticulously designed coaster with erection tolerances down to the millimeter will have a "personality" that operators need to learn to know when a sensor is throwing an error is not actually a problem with the ride. Then there's the break-in time for ride operators. While most theme parks, especially Disney and Universal, hire and train ride ops specifically for one attraction or set of attractions, there's still variation in the way individuals operate the rides as a crew rotates through the various assignments, whether it be master operator, loader, restraint checker, greeter, etc... On top of that, many parks will have multiple crews in order to cover full-day operations of an attraction through a given week. So, just for a single crew to become comfortable and efficient at operating an attraction at maximum capacity, it can take weeks, especially if crews are constantly shifting members and assignments on a complicated attraction with multiple queues.
Unless a park deliberately wanted to operate an attraction below optimal capacity for a full break-in period (let's say 1-2 months), there's no way they could charge for exclusive access to the attraction. People are not going to pay money if they can't walk on the ride, so you either don't have a standby line at all to make sure you have enough wiggle room to get all of the paying customers on the ride in a given day, or you have a standby line that never moves because the ride is rarely operating at maximum capacity and doesn't have additional space beyond the paying customers to accommodate standby riders.
Standard standby lines, along with free advanced reservation systems that favor the smart, not the rich, are the best way to manage popular new attractions during their break in process. Those that are smart enough to know to stay away during the first few months of operation to avoid the crowds and are rewarded with advanced reservations when they visit a few months after the opening and generally shorter lines as the throughput gradually increases over time. Guests that absolutely need to ride a new attraction on opening day can get up a o-dark 30, try to outsmart everyone else at getting and advanced reservation, or deal with the consequences of their silly decision with ridiculous standby lines. I have no pity for guests whining about long lines on opening day, and parks should not give these morons any more tools to pander to their idiocy, even if it results in easy profit.
Passholders should get one or two free visits during the first year that they can reserve, but that's it. The demand is too high for Star Wars. If it's not at maximum capacity from people booking in advance, there should be a lottery for pass-holders, and a lottery for regular guests.
No matter what Disney does, people will be disappointed. It will be interesting to see what happens.
My solution would be this: Star Wars Land is available by advance reservation only. Once the opening date is announced, reservations are made available to guests who have purchased tickets valid in the first 3 or so months of the land's opening. Guests choose a day and a time to enter the land, and while they cannot enter before the chosen time they may visit any time after that. A certain percentage of reservations (probably around 25-30%, in addition to what is not claimed in advance) would be made available for day-of use by guests who are already in the park, and claiming one of these would give the earliest available time slot. Once inside the land, guests are permitted to stay as long as desired, but they may not reenter after they leave. Additionally, there is no Fastpass within the land...capacity would be monitored to keep Stand-by queues to around an hour.
To prevent abuse of this system, every ticket would only be permitted a single reservation. If it hasn't been used, the reservation may be rescheduled, but once a guest has visited Star Wars Land they are blocked out for the remainder of their ticket period. Therefore, someone with a multi-day ticket will get guaranteed access to Star Wars Land on one of their days, but will not have access to the area on others (in the event of major operational issues, Disney could offer a second reservation for these guests). Since annual passholders will obviously cry foul if they only get one visit per year, they would be granted one reservation in each three month period. Those with a one-day ticket may or may not be able to get in, but since Disney is trying to discourage one-day visitors that wouldn't really be a concern for them.
Once enough people have visited that reservations are not filling up on a regular basis, Disney would remove the reservation system and start implementing Fastpass within the land. Should the land reach capacity with this system, it would be temporarily closed to anyone who does not hold a Fastpass, and those who wish to enter would use a standard stand-by queue and/or Fastpass for land entrance.
1. Making sure the attractions in those lands have very high capacity. Any major E-ticket should be designed to move (at minimum) 2,000 guests through every hour.
2. Constantly adding NEW CAPACITY (not replacement capacity) elsewhere in the park, and throughout the WDW resort in general. DHS, Epcot, and AK all need MORE rides.
I am decidedly not a fan of the idea of charging guests more money to access a new land or ride. I fear Disney’s temptation would be to never get rid of such an upcharge once they have it in place, and that would be a terrible precedent to set.
As far as adding "new capacity" Disney has done this where possible (TSMM at DHS and Soarin' at EPCOT most notably), but adding extra capacity elsewhere doesn't compensate for demand on the new attractions. I would agree that there is pent up demand for more new rides overall at WDW, but it takes time to modernize all of these parks. Pandora finally made DAK a full-day park (took almost 20 years to achieve), and Galaxy's Edge, along with Toy Story Land, will do the same for DHS again after the park's re imagining away from a studio park. EPCOT is getting 2 new e-tickets in the next 3-5 years, which will make it a 1.5+ day park again. Let's face it, it takes a lot of money and effort to keep theme parks modernized, and just as you're opening the newest high-tech attraction, another attraction is 5 years overdue for replacement. Disney is addressing the obvious problems while still seeing significant attendance growth across the board.
Yeah cool it's their park and they can do what they want and Disney isn't a right but come on. I am beyond disappointed that a company that pretty much prints money with every franchise they have exploits regular people so much.
Sorry not everyone can be super rich or land a great job or be as upwardly mobile as the haters who respond to me will say I need to be if I want to go to Disney. I work all year and like to believe I earn a vacation only to be exploited out of every dollar they can get really takes that heart out of it.
Disney did the correct thing with DCA's Tower of Terror to change it. Previously, Radiator Springs Racers had 120 minute wait times while Tower of Terror had 45 minute wait times. Now, Guardians and RSR are evenly matched at 60 minute wait times each. This is much better crowd distribution. You're more likely to do both attractions instead of missing out on RSR.
After Epcot's transformation, I'm sure Test Track and Soarin' will be much easier to ride, just like DHS' Toy Story Mania and Tower of Terror will be more available. DCA's Toy Story Mania and Soarin' are never the heavy hitters and they often rank much below the other attractions in popularity.
As for Animal Kingdom's Flight of Passage, the heavy demand at 90 to 120 minute wait times must be countered and Dinosaur is obviously not doing it's job. The Indiana Jones Adventure conversion is a no brainer. It must be done soon.
And yet Disney continues to create more and more upsell experiences for the very rich--have breakfast on the Jungle Cruise! A special dinner in PotC!
If they start charging more for rides within the parks, the animosity it creates will far outweigh whatever benefits they might achieve. I pray they don't go there, but if they do, I may not, either.
I for one would not pay it. The value has disappeared from a trip to Disney as you spend most of the time on a queue.
I have mentioned here before in other discussions about an extra show building for the ride itself but one queue just like they added to toy story mania.
Disney are aware from the planning stage just how busy this attraction is going to be and they should plan accordingly.
And before any gets on here and mentions sure aren't they a company trying to make as much profit as possible. A thought needs to be spared for people who have to buy plane tickets hotel costs car hire and other costs before their entrance fee into the park.
So it doesn't only cost an entrance fee, costs are for some people a once in a life time vacation.
There needs to be some goodwill from the company which is lacking in the last number of years. Look at the number of up charge experience which have been added in the last number of years and shorter park hours to make way for evening upcharge events.
Even Mickey's very merry Christmas party at 85 dollars had only 18 attractions operating despite the park being packed.
Absolutely, but those plans include anticipated demand not only in the first few month, but 5+ years down the road. I makes absolutely no sense for a park to spend tens of millions extra on an attraction building redundant capacity that will not be needed 5 years down the road. It also doesn't make sense for designers to spend tens of millions extra to displace critical backstage infrastructure and/or adjacent park space just so guests wait 20-30 minutes less for the first year of operation.
Look at Na'Vi River Journey...It ran throughout the summer with 60-90 minute posted lines for what most consider a mediocre, at best, attraction. Sure, Disney could have made the course longer, allowing for more boats and higher capacity, or even build a second loading platform and parallel course in the backstage area, which would have probably dropped average lines to 20-30 minutes. However, as evidenced by recent wait times, the shine has started to wear off as more and more guests realize the ride is not longer worth the inflated wait, dropping typical wait times to 30-60 minutes, which will inevitably fall even further after the new year during the "slow" period.
I'm sure Disney hope and plans for every single attraction they build to be a long-standing hit and will maintain its popularity for decades. However, the fact of the matter is that even the best Disney attractions eventually are superceded by newer attractions, meaning any additional capacity is unnecessary and thus a wasted investment years down the road.
I'll reiterate that I think Disney (and other theme park operators) actually like lines, particularly for new attractions, because it validates the demand and popularity of the new additions. Having so much additional capacity on a new attraction eliminates the pent up demand for the new rides and takes the shine off it in the eyes of guests (if the line is only 20 minutes, the attraction must not be that good, but if it's 240 minutes, it must be AMAZING).
Sure, but too late for Epcot's Soarin' with a third theater and DHS' Toy Story Mania with a third track. They should have saved their money by adding even more E-Tickets in the parks, but I'm sure Fastpass+ figures into the decision.
Star Wars should have been the exception to the rule for it's popularity show no signs of letting up.
Nor do I agree if a ride had a short wait time that I am not going to get on it because it must be an average ride. Quite the opposite, if a queue is 240 minutes long I am not going to wait on it no matter how good the ride is supposed to be.
I did'nt spend all that money to stand on a queue all day I'm on holidays.
Other advantages to the customer is if one side is down for maintenance the other side could be open. If the park is not busy during certain times of the year they could just open one side.
In the overall scheme of things the cost of a second ride is only a fraction of the cost of the whole project and might I add pittance to amount of money Disney will make on this project.
Simply if a queue is to long it bad planning and poor customer service in my view.
I am not just taking Disney here I include Universal and other parks
Greetings from Ireland Russell
Redundant capacity would always be a great idea, but it can come at significant cost. In Disneyland, that cost is not always in dollars and cents, but instead in space. If Disney were to build redundant capacity for the Millennium Falcon and First Order rides, the overall footprint of Galaxy's Edge would likely increase by at least a third, forcing Disney to expand further south into Rivers of America, potentially taking Tom Sawyer Island with it, or expanding east, taking out a chunk of Toontown. Certainly DHS's version of the land would have extra space to work with, but I think that may be where the Star Wars Hotel is going, so you would be displacing that to simply reduce waits.
As far as making money, Disney does not make money on rides. Because a single admission price is charged to access all attractions, guests are paying for an overall experience, so the addition of Galaxy's Edge would only make money based on increased attendance and per-cap spending, which can only go so high based on the overall capacity of the park (not dramatically affected by individual ride capacities). Building additional ride capacity certainly would provide a better guest experience, but it doesn't necessarily translate to additional revenue. People will flock to DL and DHS in droves for Galaxy's Edge whether the attractions can handle 1,500 people per hour or 2,500 pph, and the extra 12,000 people per day that could ride the higher capacity attractions in a typical 12-hour day would not come from extra park admissions, they would come from the overall park population and guests wanting to ride the attractions multiple times. It simply doesn't make smart business sense to build redundant capacity just to make lines a bit shorter in the first few months (when lines are already going to be longer due to natural operational inefficiency and the normal ride break-in period).
Yes it would. Look at how much space was consumed by the 3rd Soarin' theater at EPCOT (took over a support area and loading dock behind The Land) or the 3rd TSMM track at DHS (took over an entire sound stage that was used as a walk-through attraction). Galaxy's Edge is already opening with two rides, a restaurant/bar, gift shop, character meet areas, and more. Adding redundant capacity to both the Millennium Falcon and First Order attractions would take up significant space, not to mention when you build parallel ride systems, you have to also create parallel queues since you can't just load both from the same platform. If you keep these rides positioned in the land to maximize mobility through the area (something that wasn't heavily considered in IOA's WWoHP IMHO), the redundant ride systems would either have to get pushed outside Disneyland's current park boundaries to the north or west or the entire land would have to get pushed south or east into currently utilized space (Rivers of America or Toontown).
"There is already an excess number of people in the park who have not experienced the attraction but have paid their entrance fee it simply a better customer experience."
There may also be guests that either don't want or cannot ride the new attractions for one reason or another (height restrictions, medical conditions, disinterest, etc...). Walking into the gates of a theme park does not entitle you a ride on the newest attraction. The early bird gets the worm, so either show up at rope drop to ride attractions that you don't have FPs for, or deal with the long lines. Parks like that, because it builds anticipation before guests even walk through the gate, and ensures that guests will lengthen their days to accommodate the new attraction (increase to per-cap spending). The other option is to simply wait for the hysteria to die down when lines are more manageable. Certainly, it would be great if every single person walking into the gates of a theme park could ride every single attraction without waiting, but that's just not feasible given space and logistical constraints.
"As regards people riding it twice this is easily blocked by only allowing one fastpass per day."
That's what they're doing right now, and presumably how they will handle Galaxy's Edge when it opens (unless one of Robert's ideas catches on). Both new rides will likely be categorized as tier 1 attractions, meaning guests can only pre-reserve one of the 2 rides (just like how they're handling FOP and Na'Vi River Journey). If additional capacity becomes available day of because of efficient operations and/or cancelled/no-show FPs, that capacity should then be made available to anyone who wants to utilize it on a first come, first serve basis either through additional standby throughput or FPs. That's exactly how we were able to ride Flight of Passage 3 times in October (first at rope drop, second on a FP we reserved ahead of time, and then a 3rd time on a FP that appeared on MDE randomly in the afternoon while we were in the park).
Nope, they just had a line form that snaked around from Jurassic Park all the way to Marvel Super Hero Island. Once the land reached capacity in the morning, they would start forming a line, and would not allow additional people to enter the WWoHP until guests in the land exited. In the weeks that the land was first opened, lines were reported upwards of 8 hours just to get into the WWoHP.
It was expected that Disney was going to do the same for Pandora, but it never happened. I'm guessing the same rumors will crop up when Galaxy's Edge nears completion, but it's anyone's guess as to what they actually do. The first clues will likely come in how Disney sells APs in California since that was how Universal attempted to initially manage crowds for USH's WWoHP. I would have to think they will have to have some way to manage guests in the land as a whole in addition to the attractions themselves and limit the amount of time guests can spend there, allowing maximum throughput.
Perhaps you have had bad rope drop experiences, but we've always been very satisfied by arriving at parks 45-60 minutes prior to opening. In fact, we arrived in the parking lot of DAK about 50 minutes prior to the official park opening on our most recent trip in October, and arrived in the entry plaza about 35-40 minutes ahead with about 300 or so guests gathered ahead of us. They opened the gates about 25 minutes prior to the official park opening and the held the crowd near Tiffins for another 15 minutes or so until they opened Pandora. By the time we got off FOP, it was 9:10 AM, so our total wait time for the most popular ride in all of WDW (one that has been averaging 3-4 hours during the peak of the day) was about an hour. Even if we were further back in the crowd, having the majority of the wait time during a period when the park was not open is far better than wasting time during the day when you could actually be riding something else, so I have ZERO compassion for those complaining about long lines during the day or arguing that rope dropping ends up with the same wait time. That may be true, but I'll take waiting when I can't ride anything else (or while I'm eating breakfast in a in-park restaurant prior to opening), than spending that same wait time when all the rides and attractions are open any day of the week. After riding FOP we were then able to ride Na'Vi River Journey (posted 90-minute wait) through the standby line in about 30-40 minutes. After watching the drumming show, spending some time walking around, riding FOP with our FP+, and then having lunch at SaTuli Canteen, we had fully experienced PtWoA by 11:30. Based on other trip reports, our experience is a pretty common one for those willing to wake up just a bit earlier to get to the park and have a loose plan for their day. Also, our rope drop experience can be replicated in the other Disney parks as well for high demand/low capacity attractions like 7DMT, Peter Pan, Frozen Ever After, and previously for TSMM (capacity doesn't appear to be much of an issue anymore with the 3rd track).
You also seem to think that rides are the only think guests coming to Disney parks want to do, which is absolutely not the case. Some people will come into the parks and not ride a single ride, and not have any desire to. Those guests are perfectly happy people watching, dining, seeing shows, and just enjoying the overall ambiance of the parks. While that percentage of the overall attendance is probably not more than 20%, it's still a pretty significant chunk.
I think from Disney's perspective, they would ideally want guests to enjoy somewhere between 6 and 10 attractions per day (including rides, shows, parades, and meals), and most guests seem to be happy with that - attendance continues to increase year over year despite rapid price increases. Disney is also a business, so if people are still showing up in droves and willing to wait in 2+ hour lines for the best attractions, why in the world would they bother spending more money building redundant capacity for attractions? It would be money flushed down the toilet to appease a few guests that are unwilling to work to make the most out of their visit and the ignorant that probably won't make another trip to the resort anyway because they are completely crowd averse. A large majority of WDW visitors were aware of the 4-hour standby lines for FOP and either worked to avoid it or accepted that the new ride was popular and technically complex resulting in frequent, unpredictable downtime. Most of those guests, even if they spend 4 hours waiting in line, are probably still going to make a return visit, so in Disney's view, they're validated in not only making the addition, but in offering new, cutting edge attractions even if it takes 4 hours to experience them.
"As park attendance just continues to rise year on year the only real solution is to increase ride capacity."
And see, that's where you don't quite understand. Disney may not be increasing individual ride capacity, but by adding new rides and attractions that are either brand new (increasing total ride count in the park) or replacing older, less popular rides, they are increasing overall park ride capacity to accommodate the increasing attendance. The Galaxy's Edge rides on both coasts represent increases over the current total ride count in the respective parks. Now, you could argue that at DHS they took out a bunch of attractions to make room, but those attractions (Backlot tour/Catastrophe Canyon, Lights Motors Action, etc...) have been gone for over a year, and the park has been running in a handicapped state for quite a while, so adding Galaxy's Edge, along with Toy Story, will be like opening the flood gates in terms of ride availability (I would expect TSMM, ToT, and RnRC to have lines cut in half after Galaxy's Edge opens). Nonetheless, whatever the official capacities are for the new Star Wars rides, the represent an increase over the current overall park ride capacity. Whether guests are willing to work to avoid the inevitably long lines to experience them is on them (FP, planning, rope drop, etc...).
And that's the point. Disney is a publicly traded company charged to earn profits for shareholders, not some charity giving handouts to people whining about long lines.
" There is no redundant capacity on soarin toy story midway mania or Dumbo which have had extra ride capacity added so my theory works."
Actually, Dumbo is a PERFECT example. The original capacity for Dumbo was pathetic because it was a single load. Waits for Dumbo were typically around 60 minutes prior to the move and doubling of capacity. However, Dumbo at DL rarely has lines over 30 minutes because there are plenty of other rides nearby in Fantasyland if the Dumbo line is beyond guest tolerance (plus there's no FP gumming up the flow of the standby line). Additionally, the dueling Dumbos at WDW are now practically walk on all the time except on extremely busy days, so between the move (with additional overall Fantasyland ride capacity in the immediate area) and the doubling of Dumbo's capacity they've now created should be viewed as redundant capacity. I think we'll see a similar situation play out with TSMM once Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge open as the additional capacity from the construction of the 3rd track combined with even more rides guests can experience will reduce lines even more significantly (typical lines are already down to 20-40 minutes with FP+s easy to come by throughout the day). I don't think TSMM will ever get to walk-on like Dumbo has become (which honestly is a bit sad - no lines reflect negatively on a ride's status within a park), but could get regularly down to under 20 minutes. You'd probably say that's great for guests, but for Disney that signals an attraction that's not drawing and not as popular as it once was. It also signals that the 1,000+ people that were standing in those 90+ minute lines for TSMM are now somewhere else in the park, not representing an increase in overall attendance. For all three of these examples of recently added capacity to existing attractions (Dumbo, Soarin', and TSMM), Disney spent money, and didn't get anything out of it. From a guest perspective, it's great that the lines are shorter, but I would have much rather they added a NEW attraction than build a parallel ride system to an existing attraction. To me, this is a prime example of Disney taking the lazy way out that in the end will not improve their bottom line one bit, and could have improved guest satisfaction even further by giving them more overall attractions than a higher throughput/shorter line for the most popular.
"So while that problem has been solved with Dumbo I still think they need to do more."
But see, I think in solving one problem, they created another. Now Dumbo sits with no line, and after all that investment, the attraction is not holding any guests in its queues to keep them from filling the rest of the park (limiting overall park capacity). The problem with Dumbo was a FP issue, because DL's Dumbo never had an issue with 60+ minute lines. The ride is not that great, yet the standby lines swelled for it because guests could simply FP it and it limited the standby throughput.
I think Disney has been doing a good job of finally adding new attractions to WDW, and by 2021, all 4 parks should be up to full-day+ lineups, which will help all of the lines, but will also bring even more people into the parks. It's a Catch-22, because if you don't want lines, then that means parks are not full. If parks are not full, they can't make money to build new rides. If they don't build new rides, the lines on the best of the old rides will swell, starting the whole cycle over again.
The best ways to deal with the crowds are
1: Have a LOT of AP previews. I'm talking like daily for two months. DLR has over 1 million AP holders and if they don't do something like this get ready for mass chaos on opening day.
Also (this will only help crowds on opening day, but still needs to be done) whatever kind of opening ceremony they have it should be media only, this way the AP holders who already went during the AP previews don't feel the need to take over the park on opening day. They did this with Pandora I would imagine they will do it with Star Wars as well.
2: EMH every day both in the morning and evening, with the nighttime EMH being Star Wars Land only. WDW did this with Pandora and it spread the crowds out nicely. Between the three resorts that's like 2,500 families that don't need to crowd the area during the day (of course you will get people who want to ride multiple times and willing to wait, but at least those that don't will get an opportunity to ride).
If Disney had invested the $1.5 billion wasted on MyMagic+ in actual brick and mortar attractions, overcrowding would not be an issue. Could it be Disney likes overcrowding because it gives their MBA's an excuse to raise prices without having to put any actual work into improving the parks?
Glad Disney is finally fixing the parks. Should have been done long ago. Disney does not deserve a pat on the back for doing what they should be doing in any case. No more add on fees. Disney executives are living too high on the hog as it is. Don't give those pigs more.
At least WDW has the high capacity version of all the rides (whereas Tokyo Disney has the low capacity versions of Toy Story Mania, Tower of Terror, Star Tours, etc...even though the park is always packed).
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
Advance I don't like because I'm on break. I'm scheduled to all heck at work. I want to follow a whim and relax.
Lottery and upcharge I can't percieve as being "Fair". So those are out.
That leaves Physical queues as the last-best option.
(of course, this leaves off the best demand management tool completely - ADD MORE CAPACITY)