Originally Posted By ChiMike Great points... >> If I were a first time visitor who had just plunked down big bucks for rooms at the GC on a weekend, only to be confronted by the day tripping weekend rabble (is it me, or are they looking more and more like the Six Flags crowd?) at DL and DCA, I would be very upset.<< I know someone who was your example. First time out for the weekend at the GC. They said their experience on Saturday evening was far from being at a "Resort" I agree, that the only remedy is to seriously grow capacity or give up any aspiration of being a resort. A few more AP price hikes would help too.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Once DCA gets up to speed (fingers crossed) there will be somewhere for the DL park crowds to go. As it is now, many people don't spend much time at DCA, AND it closes much earlier than DL.<< It doesn't help when DCA closes 4 or 3 hours earlier than Disneyland. When they need DCA the most is during Disneyland's night time entertainment and often during that time DCA is closed. It doesn't help their resort guests when on a Friday DCA closes at 6 and DL closed at midnight. Especially when it is only closed for a party that was not available to anyone who didn't have an AP and make a purchase right away, months before the day. Those resort guests have no chance at the event.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Aren't crowds what would inspire or make a third park possible?<< Only if the 3rd park (and DCA) can successfully draw crowds away from DL. If they just build another DCA then all they will get are people (AP's and hoppers) fleeing the wall to wall crowds of people at DL. And these parks need enough attractions and entertainment to keep visitors inside a full day, as opposed to the current "go to DCA, ride ToT, Soarin', Screamin' and a few other attactions before heading back to DL.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>One only has to look at growth projections for the Inland Empire to see that a major audience is growing within a 1 hour drive. The populations between San Bernardino and Palm Springs are expected to grow 300 percent in the next 8 years. Those will be young families and first time home buyers. This is the crowd Disneyland wants. << And they are day trippers. Unless they seriously increase AP prices DL will remain a day tripper park. How could it not? Its smack in the middle of perhaps the largest metro area in the country. But I doubt that DL will ever shun day trippers. I really think that they do want every Friday, Saturday and Sunday to be wall to wall people, who buy Cokes, Churros, burgers, Mickey Ears, etc. But they also want the "Resort" demographic, and judging by the low vacancy rates at the resort hotels they appear to be succeeding. They currently have no incentive to thin the crowds.
Originally Posted By tangaroa Whoa time out. Why did this end up being a debate on the merits of the third gate? From what I read in the article, the land up for zoning was the mobile home park on the other side of Haster Street - a plot that is currently not owned by Disney, and has never been considered as part of the third gate plans since it it disconnected from the 70 acres of land between Haster and Harbor. Disney made a deal with the City of Anaheim to only zone areas around their resort for resort business (hotels, shopping, dining etc.) and now Disney is having a fit because Anaheim wants to build housing on a plot of land that MAY SOMEDAY BE ACROSS THE STREET from a Disney park. I mean I just don't see the reason for the contempt from Disney. Disney isn't currently using that land, and what difference would it make if apartments or hotels were across the street? If anything apartments would probably be of smaller stature and less intrusive, and maybe, just maybe some of their employees would be more likely to stay employed with the company more than three months if they could find some affordable housing in the area. I think the real problem is that Disney recognizes that the City of Anaheim isn’t going to be as willing to play ball with them now that DCA’s failure has stalled resort growth (and tax income) and promises made to the city just never came true.
Originally Posted By ChiMike I just don't understand why they don't raise the SoCal AP prices more. Maybe eliminate a tier of the AP program. So far I haven't seen any evidence that the past raises have had adverse effects. So why stop? Take that extra, easy money and keep updating the resort.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I just don't understand why they don't raise the SoCal AP prices more. Maybe eliminate a tier of the AP program.<< Perhaps they fear that someday the resort demographic will take their money elsewhere. They know they can count on the day trippers. Regarding the "Resort" experience: we decided to have an early dinner (Thursday, 4:00 PM) at the Rain Forest Cafe. We get there and there is a 45 minute wait, but the lower level was empty. A quick check of other DTD restaurants yields the same result: tons of empty tables but long waits. The reason: all were short on staff. Needless to say we (and host of many others) were not happy with this "resort experience".
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >I still like the idea of a Disneyland as designed by the villains.< It would have ODV carts everywhere and they'd put more focus on merchandise events than they would on maintenance and new attractions.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >So far I haven't seen any evidence that >the past raises have had adverse effects I'm probably know as the guy that has the craziest theories and assumptions but I do have a theory that might answer this part of your post: It's long been my contention that the AP program gained dominance at Disneyland because of a decrease in the number of higher spending hotel guests. It goes to reason then, that as those hotel guests start to return to Disneyland, that a decrease in the AP population would be needed. But those decreases need to be made in stages and in equal amounts to the number of hotel guests returning to maximize profit. If you have x number increase of multi-day hotel guests then you need to find out at what price point x number of AP holders would not renew. It's all very calculated and as the resort grows healthier and gains more tourists, the AP'ers and locals will decrease. Guaranteed.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Perhaps they fear that someday the resort demographic will take their money elsewhere. They know they can count on the day trippers.<< But they can always lower the price on a moments notice. Like they did when they made a 2 park premium AP $199.00 when DCA "failed".
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Regarding the "Resort" experience: we decided to have an early dinner (Thursday, 4:00 PM) at the Rain Forest Cafe. We get there and there is a 45 minute wait, but the lower level was empty. A quick check of other DTD restaurants yields the same result: tons of empty tables but long waits. The reason: all were short on staff. Needless to say we (and host of many others) were not happy with this "resort experience".<< Another great example.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>It would have ODV carts everywhere and they'd put more focus on merchandise events than they would on maintenance and new attractions.<< And all CMs in beige matching jumpsuits.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I'm probably know as the guy that has the craziest theories and assumptions<< I don't think so Kevin, you've always been very practical. A good sense of how things translate to an average guest. >>It's long been my contention that the AP program gained dominance at Disneyland because of a decrease in the number of higher spending hotel guests. << Hmm.. In part; a lot of it had to do with the growing social club from the 90s on. DCA and even the surge in online Disney communities have aided it. Also through Disney's own marketing and revenue desires. They fell in love with the upfront cash flow without worrying about any long-range repurcussions. At a point, they gave the consumer no other realistic option when you could get a year of Disneyland so cheap. The hotel guest angle, yes, but the Disneyland fell out of favor (until the expansion) with the high-paying tourist way before the AP program skyrocketed. >>It goes to reason then, that as those hotel guests start to return to Disneyland, that a decrease in the AP population would be needed.<< Definitely >>But those decreases need to be made in stages and in equal amounts to the number of hotel guests returning to maximize profit. If you have x number increase of multi-day hotel guests then you need to find out at what price point x number of AP holders would not renew.<< See, I would take a different direction. I don't have any facts but I would suggest that the AP program is still 600K and going strong even after all of the AP raises Matt brought. There is no reason, no justification, for me at least not to push the price up until they see some serious pullback. There is no reason not to capitalize on peoples' determination to keep visiting Disneyland year-round, or tourists to get two trips per year + hotel discounts, and use that money FOR resort expansion. For park improvements to get more tourists to visit. The money has to come from somewhere. And when some APers are still paying $5 per visit at the gate there is still a lot of room, imo, to get that easy money.
Originally Posted By ChiMike I don't think we are so close to an equalibream in pricing where we need to worry about each incremental dollar. I think you get rid of the cheapest AP. Give the next AP more blackout dates. And bump up all of the passes by another $40 and see what happens.
Originally Posted By SoThisIsLove I'm not qualified to make an intelligent remark in this discussion, yet my humble offering is this: As fun as the Tower and Grizzly are (et al) it just isn't DISNEYLAND to me. No magic. Just a cleaner carnival experience. Those two attractions at least try to tell a story in the Disney way. Wish we could just make a larger DL in the spirit and tradition of the old one right over the footprint of DCA.
Originally Posted By Indigo I think it's likely a third gate will be required to handle attendance levels. Right now Saturdays and some Sundays are nearing capacity. Guests will stop booking hotel rooms at Disney hotels if they don't see some sort of special perk. Well, how about having a third gate all to themselves on a Saturday. Disney Resort Guests only. The 3rd gate would be open to all comers on the other 6 days, but would be the ultimate perk for Disney resort guests otherwise. They could even build a DVC hotel or two under this program.
Originally Posted By patrickegan They need to concentrate (spend money/effort) on pulling DCA’s face out of the dirt! They can put that in their 3rd gate pipe and smoke it!
Originally Posted By CMM1 No matter how many different ways you try to envision a WDW-type resort in Anaheim, the concept just doesn't fit. 1. The Disney resort hotels cannot offer the same kind of relaxed resort experience you get in WDW - in Anaheim, the hotels are jammed into small spaces in an urban environment with only the 1.5 theme parks as the "resort experience" - and those parks are shared with large numbers of locals and day visitors. 2. You have 1.5 parks available for park hopping - or should we just say that you have one great destination park and one "overflow" or "alternate" park should you wish to get a very small helping of variety in your park experiences. 3. There is little other recreational opportunities within the confines of the resort (other than perhaps eating/drinking at DTD). Let's just face the fact thats if one is looking for an immersive resort experience you have to go to WDW to get that - if you want to have the biggest collection of top Disney attractions in one park then you go to Disneyland Park.
Originally Posted By nemopoppins I get an immersive experience when staying at the DLR in spite of there being only "1.5" parks. It's not as vast or varied as WDW, I'm sure, but it is enough for several days immersion. The reason Disney would want to add another park is not diversion, it is to increase attendance.
