Half of Disney’s $60 Billion Plan Going to Theme Parks & Resorts
In a new filing with the SEC, the Walt Disney Company has offered a breakdown on the allocation of its planned $60 billion investment in Parks & Resorts as part of a 10-year investment plan. This post shares the latest details, as the future of Walt Disney World and Disneyland start to come into focus.
For starters, this SEC filing is titled “Disney’s Plan for Shareholder Value Creation” and is part of the ongoing proxy fight with Nelson Peltz’s Trian and that other activist investor that wants to do AI stuff and for theme parks to be treated like regular ole commercial real estate. It’s become apparent that most of you have lost interest in the battle of the board–or have already made up your mind–so we’re not going to fixate on any of that.
Just be aware that this is part of a full 60 page SEC filing that also hypes up the current board and knocks the proposed alternative slates. It also makes the case for Iger’s vision for Disney, discussing studio creativity, streaming profitability, and the future of ESPN. You know, the usual suspects for Disney as the company continues rebuilding.
In the presentation, Disney reiterates its $60 billion investment plan for the next 10 years, which includes capital to expand capacity at Walt Disney World, Disneyland, Disney Cruise Line and the international parks.
Consistent with that, investments will build upon Disney Parks & Resort’s track record of generating outsized ROI (in the presentation, the company notes that Parks & Resorts is the company’s most profitable segment) and will focus on:
- Accelerating storytelling by utilizing its wealth of intellectual property, untapped stories and unmatched creativity
- Expanding footprints: Disney has over 1,000 acres of available development parcels across the six existing resorts in North America, Europe, and Asia
- Investing in innovative technology to improve the guest experience
- Reaching new fans around the world: for every park guest today, there are over 10 consumers with Disney affinity who don’t visit the parks in a given year
Disney further elaborates that its 10-year investment plans are to “create magical new experiences and refresh existing infrastructure.” The company further states that approximately 70% of the plan is earmarked for capacity-expanding investments.
Breaking this down further, Disney indicates that 50% of the capital allocation plan is for theme parks and resorts, 20% is for Disney Cruise Line or “other” and 30% is for technology and maintenance.
It’s probably obvious, but they’re getting to the 70% ‘capacity-expanding’ number by adding together theme parks with cruises/other. The remaining 30% is for technology and maintenance. What, exactly, does all of this mean? Let’s break it down a bit.
First, you’ve probably heard part of this before. On the earnings call a few weeks ago, new CFO Hugh Johnston said that “approximately 70% [of the $60 billion plan] is earmarked for incremental capacity expanding investments around the globe.”
Bob Iger added the following: “We’re already hard at work at basically determining where we’re going to place our new investments and what they will be. You can pretty much conclude that they’ll be all over, meaning every single one of our locations will be the beneficiary of increased investment and, thus, increased capacity, including on the high seas, where we’re currently building three more ships.”
“I’m not going to really give you much more of a sense of timing, except that we’re hard at work at getting these things basically conceived and built. And we’ve got a menu of things that will basically start opening in 2025, and there’ll be a cadence every year of additional investment and increased capacity,” continued Iger.
It seems like each time there’s an update on this, a single new nugget of information is shared. In this case, it’s the 50/20 breakdown between the theme parks and Disney Cruise Line. Well, technically cruise ships slash other.
My guess is the “other” here is the other components of Disney Signature Experiences, which is DCL plus Adventures by Disney, Aulani, Storyliving, Golden Oak, and Disney Vacation Club. I’m not convinced DVC investments would pull from this bucket rather than theme parks and resorts, but I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion. (The others all would, but how much CapEx are they realistically going to need in the next decade?)
From my perspective, this is good news–but unsurprising. When the $60 billion plan was first announced, one of the ways that it was dismissed by cynical Walt Disney World fans was by saying that it’ll probably mostly go to Disney Cruise Line. My take then, as now, was that’s difficult to see happening for two reasons.
First, DCL is wrapping up one expansion cycle and it’s hard to imagine Disney being overly aggressive with further fleet expansion before assessing demand. Second, shipyard commitments are already years out. Disney would be hard-pressed to build several new ships in the next decade even if they wanted. If anything, the 20% number for Disney Cruise Line seems high to me–so I wonder how much of that is going to the “other” areas of Disney Signature Experiences.
In any case, 70% of this $60 billion going towards capacity-expanding investments is good news. For those wondering what this means, it suggests that Disney is going to focus on building new lands and attractions rather than refurbishing existing things or spending money on placemaking.
There are obvious examples of what this could mean. If Disneyland builds World of Frozen as a Fantasyland expansion or Pandora in some of the space opened up as part of the DisneylandForward proposal, that’s capacity-expanding. When the Beyond Big Thunder project for Magic Kingdom firms up, that’ll be capacity-expanding. A new World Showcase pavilion would be capacity-expanding. Ditto a new ride replacing dead space in Animation Courtyard.
The new attraction (rumored to be a roller coaster) now under development adjacent to Zootopia is capacity-expanding. Building a Marvel E-Ticket at Hong Kong Disneyland would be capacity expanding. Same goes for developing the expansion pad on the far side of the new lake at Walt Disney Studios Park.
But it’s probably a bit more complicated than that in actuality. Changing Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith into a theoretical ‘Taylor’s Version’ of the ride or one set in Wakanda probably is not capacity-expanding. However, the overhaul from Ellen’s Energy Adventure to Cosmic Rewind arguably was capacity-expanding for EPCOT, because it’s essentially an entirely new ride and it replaced something unpopular. What about Tropical Americas in Animal Kingdom? Probably a bit of both.
This brings us to the 30% for technology and maintenance. It sort of went without saying that if 70% was for capacity-expanding additions, then 30% was for updates that did not expand capacity. But now it’s listed as a line item–technology and maintenance–and that’s viewed as concerning by some fans.
It shouldn’t be. This does not mean maintenance in the sense of the annual closure to Kali River Rapids. It’s not upkeep, regular ride refurbishments, or overnight preventative maintenance. Those are not CapEx, they’re operating expenses. While Walt Disney World very much needs to be spending much more on routine maintenance, it largely should not be coming from the $60 billion.
Technically, for these investments to qualify as CapEx, they’d need to extend the useful life of the attraction. (And I assume this is the standard being used since this is for investors and filed with the SEC.) The Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster example above? It wouldn’t qualify if they’re simply changing out the prop…but it’s a potentially different story entirely if the ride system or infrastructure is replaced.
Another example would be Spaceship Earth. If Imagineering went in and simply added the Story Light stuff, that shouldn’t qualify. But if they also replaced the track and ride system, it would. And that’s more likely than not what would happen, since Spaceship Earth has been overdue for a major overhaul for the last 5 years. That would not expand capacity, but it would fall into that 30% bucket.
Pretty much every attraction that could conceivably be reimagined is at a point in its lifecycle where more than just the thematic elements need to be updated. It also makes sense to make infrastructure updates that improve reliability and extend the useful life of the asset.
All of this bears mentioning because the first half of the decade is going to be fairly heavy on reimaginings. Zootopia in the Tree of Life, Indiana Jones Adventure replacing DINOSAUR, whatever’s up with Test Track, and other yet-to-be-announced transformations. (As I’ve said before, my money is on Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster being next up, and possibly Journey into Imagination.)
This is almost necessarily the case if Bob Iger’s comment about an annual cadence is correct. We’ve all seen how “quickly” Disney builds new lands and attractions. Even if construction started today on a Villains Lair beyond Big Thunder (it won’t), the opening date wouldn’t be until 2027 at the absolute earliest. By contrast, they could close DINOSAUR towards the end of this year or early 2025 and have Indiana Jones Adventure ready by 2026. Whatever the plan is for Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster could be accomplished even faster.
None of this should be a huge surprise. Iger previously indicated that the $60 billion in spending on Parks & Resorts over the next 10 years would be backloaded. Josh D’Amaro has made comments that they want to grow the footprints of the parks while also improving utilization within them.
We’re absolutely going to get reimaginings–and most of those will come from this $60 billion bucket. Just want to temper expectations a bit, while also covering how that 30% on tech and maintenance could be a good use of funds, especially at Walt Disney World which is in need of ride updates.
Personally, I still think this is a fairly positive development. That 50% of $60 billion being earmarked for capacity-expanding additions in the theme parks is still $30 billion. That’s a lot. Granted, there are other theme parks in the world, but whatever is built in Hong Kong and Shanghai only requires a partial investment from Disney. (None of the money spent on Tokyo Disney Resort comes from Disney–that’s all profit.)
We know that the company plans to spend about $2 to $3 billion on Disneyland. Even before the $60 billion number was released, Disney said that $17 billion is earmarked for Walt Disney World. They haven’t mentioned that number in a while, but this should confirm that it’s probably pretty close to accurate–if not an understatement of the investment.
Disney is only spending $12 billion on cruise ships (and other) plus $3 billion on Disneyland. I’d bet that another $4 billion combined is destined for the Asia parks, which might seem low, but they’re wrapping up developments and whatever is spent only partially comes from Disney’s coffers. Disneyland Paris is the biggest wildcard, as investments there are really starting to pay off–so maybe another $5 billion there? (Wouldn’t surprise me if they bet even bigger on DLP.)
No matter how you slice it, it seems to me like Walt Disney World will see at least $17 billion in investment. (Maybe the $17 billion is just for capacity-expanding additions, and they’re also getting another few billion for maintenance and tech?) After accounting for inflation significantly increasing costs, that’s about on par with the decade that brought us Pandora, Toy Story Land, Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, Cosmic Rewind, and TRON Lightcycle Run.
Also in that same decade, untold sums were spent on road and other infrastructure work as well as (figuratively and literally) dumped into a pit at EPCOT. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the amount spent on things that did not expand capacity at Walt Disney World over the last decade was above 40%. If there’s a better roadmap for the next decade and money is spent more carefully, it could go even further. (Here’s hoping for no new global pandemics that throw monkey wrenches into plans midway through!)
With all of that said, I don’t want to be accused of painting an overly optimistic picture. My biggest fear when seeing that 30% amount for tech and maintenance is a repeat of the MyMagic+ and NextGen boondoggle, where billions of dollars are blown on interactive junk and attempts at avoiding building new attractions. (One of the good things about Iger still being around is he knows that was a mistake and hopefully learned from it!)
Technology is important and Disney does have a patchwork of legacy IT systems. Those will require investment over the next decade, and probably fairly significant sums. That money obviously should be spent–just as Disney should improve infrastructure consisting of roadways, sidewalks, and so forth. It’s unsexy, but it’s important. I just hope they spend it carefully and we don’t get another Genie itinerary builder that keeps sending me to the carrousel for my first ride of the day. A complete and utter waste of time, talent and money.
Another concern is the backloaded nature of the capacity-expanding additions. One truism with Disney is that phase 2 never happens, because budgets get cut or real world events intervene. All it takes is a recession and Wall Street could get spooked and look for Disney to undertake shortsighted austerity measures. And Disney would, because they’re beholden to investor whims, unfortunately.
The good news is that, in the here and now, Wall Street wants theme park investments. Disney Parks is the one big bright spot for the company. The division has been resilient, even as literally everything else has faltered. The issue isn’t a desire to actually spend money on theme parks. Disney has that in spades. The problem has been the money part of the equation. They did not have the free cash flow. They do now, or rather, will by the end of this fiscal year. It is going to happen. Finally.
I know this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion among jaded fans who are skeptical of Disney’s current leadership and direction. I also know I’m more bullish than the average fan who has been burned before and is now (understandably) in wait and see mode. But from my perspective, Iger and D’Amaro both saying the same things about expansion and future developments for over a year now reinforces that there are substantive plans, and it’s not just posturing or hollow hype. The money has been the issue, not the appetite for expansion.
The stage is set for an absolutely colossal 2024 D23 Expo. One with more than just a bunch of “what ifs?” or daydreaming–and instead actual concrete announcements and timelines for both Walt Disney World and Disneyland expansion (along with reimaginings). Of course, that assumes all goes well with the proxy fights and Iger’s turnaround continues at its current trajectory. Time will tell, I suppose.
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
What do you think of the Walt Disney Company’s plans for the Parks & Resorts? Excited that 70% of the “turbocharged” investment of $60 billion is for capacity-expansions? What about seeing $30 billion earmarked for theme parks? Think 30% for tech and maintenance is too much or about right? Do you agree or disagree with our assessment? Any questions we can help you answer? Hearing your feedback–even when you disagree with us–is both interesting to us and helpful to other readers, so please share your thoughts below in the comments!
Tom,
Understand your analogy for improving utilization within the parks.
What I don’t understand is why that concept isn’t already a component of the life cycle management of parks and resorts.
Take some small small wins while waiting for *pi* in the sky projects. (Sorry. Just couldn’t resist…)
Yes. Small wins: maintenance of existing attractions. This would have an instant impact on crowding. For example, Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster’s outage of several months for two years in a row. That is completely unacceptable.
Leigh, I’d argue that there is supposed to be and there was before cuts occurred over the past four years or so. For example, Cosmic Rewind and Remy did improve utilization at Epcot, but other such projects (Mary Poppins, the Play pavilion and arguably the multilevel convention space) were canceled despite being announced as planned. The result is the big gaping hole in the next few years that needs to be with those small small wins like increased entertainment and the Pi-Rum of the Caribbean lounge.
Walter, I think Tom was right about maintenance elsewhere; WDW is experiencing more downtime because of the knowledge lost by employees no longer with Disney. More money needs to be spent out of operations either to hire experienced employees back, to get current employees more training/experience with getting rides back into operational order, and/or to hire new employees to tackle the increased backload of down attractions.
(Tom, I’m so sorry about the double post yesterday. Please feel free to delete it or replace the text with “duplicate post.”)
Any speculation on how they’ll spend $17B of the $30B at WDW? That’s a lot, if things like Cars Land and Galaxy’s Edge cost around $1B. Even assume we’re closer to cost of $2B now per “2 ride mini-land” given inflation (which is around Fantasy Springs cost). Here’s my attempt… $6B is like three mini-lands Beyond Big Thunder, $4B at DHS and AK for two mini-lands each, and $2B for equivalent of one at EPCOT. Leaving $1B for hotel capacity to get to $17B. Your guess? Why keep building out MK so much given it’s already got the biggest ride count and attendance? Wouldn’t it be better spent entirely on the other three?
My expectation would be that spending disproportionately benefits Magic Kingdom and Animal Kingdom, with DHS and EPCOT getting new attractions rather than fully-fledged new lands.
As for the reason to expand MK, I think it comes down to the reality of guest demand. No matter what Disney does, they’re realistically never going to be able to normalize attendance among the 4 parks. That’s just the reality of the castle park draw. So why not make it as good as possible and improve capacity?
In a perfect world, I’d agree with you–build out the other three first.
It’s interesting that this year’s D23 was moved to a bigger venue, was it not? That tells me they are expecting to announce something big with a bigger venue like the Honda Center. Let’s hope it’s finally some concrete plans and not blue sky scenarios.
I think that’s probably to increase the capacity cap, sell more tickets, and accommodate more people at the films panels.
Parks & Resorts is actually the least popular of the major panels (because it doesn’t have celebrities). Crazy to think, but theme park fans are only a small portion of the fanbase.
We have been researching Doctor Syn aja,Scarecrow of Romney Marsh which I saw on TV when I was 20 (yes,,I am.older than dirt). It got me this king. I would love to see a,Heroes and Villains Park. Give the villains from animation a place to call home. And Disney has,a rich background of normal.human heroes–Zorro, Robin Hood ,Scarecrow, Swamp.Fox.
This is crazy, but what if Disney opened a gate in Indiana?
Cheap land, business-friendly, somewhere like Fort Wayne is a 2-3 hour drive from Chicago, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Columbus, and Detroit. A (long) day’s drive away from New York. Outside of tornado zones. Would just need to stick to attractions that can handle the cold.
I think Disney will build more international parks before domestic ones. Never say never, but I’d be surprised to see parks anywhere in the US outside of Florida and California in my lifetime.
Hey Tom, Great article, it has me very excited for the future!
A thought I had about the 12 billion for the cruise line etc. Since there are several ships already in the pipeline, could some of this be targeted to the private islands? I know there is the new one to come online soon, and Castaway Cay. Could they build on those? Seeing what Royal Caribbean has done to Coco Cay is a game changer in private islands, Perhaps an overhaul or add on to Castaway? Increasing the size/capacity of Lighthouse Point… OR, a third island on the Mexico side of the Caribbean where NCL has their second island?
I think that’s a possibility. I don’t know enough about the cruise business to speak intelligently about what Disney will need in the next decade–I’m just skeptical they’ll be ready to add 2-3 new ships without first getting a sense for the impact of the current additions. So an island makes sense from that perspective.
We’ve been to both Castaway and Coco, while RCLs Coco is way better than Castaway it still isn’t that entertaining. Castaway is basically a beach with some overpriced cabanas. We went back on the ship after only spending about an hour on the island. I would have expected something Disney-like at Castaway. Though there were enough people standing in line to get a pic with Mickey with a beach scene in the background. I would think an ampetheatre for stage shows, a Moana like walk thru experience or even an Under the Sea adventure would bring it up to a Disney entertainment experience. There are so many real estate constraints on a cruise ship, if they have an island then take the oppoetunity to do more Disney story telling on the island. Even RCLs Coco has a big pirate ship with water cannons that kids can climb on and entertainers are dressed as pirates for the kids.
Great article Tom
I am a person who loves the Indiana Jones ride. In my mind it seems the Dinosaur ride footprint is smaller than the Indy ride in Disneyland. Is that correct? Or is it just the great use of imaginary that makes Indy look bigger than Dinosaur? If Dinosaur is smaller footprint, would they just skip parts like they did for the Pirates ride? Or, would they add on? Pirates is so much better at Disneyland because it’s longer, tells the story better. Also, I would hope it’s not a complete duplicate of Disneyland. So, if the footprint is smaller maybe we could get a different story.
Tom,Off topic here but has the witching hour gotten better with megaton as she has gotten older?
Hi Tom! The same decade that brought us the Skyliner! Also Frozen Ever After, Remy, Seven Dwarf Mine Train and Mickey and Minnies Runaway Railway Train.
The timing of this year’s D23 Expo helps, since it takes place after two more quarterly result announcements. While I still think there’s a chance that streaming becomes profitable this quarter based on current trends, it’s a near certainty it will profitable next quarter and allow both for some mid-term announcements for 2027 or so and for some saying what’s filling in during the meantime (I’m guessing the return of some fans’ entertainment faves and the Pirates of CarriBar) instead of more Blue Sky nonsense. Finally, these small bore attractions that can be produced in a shorter time period shouldn’t be canceled without being replaced, like was done to the Play pavilion or the Mary Poppins … teacups; that just stretches the average schedule out.
I’m assuming that “technology and maintenance” includes updates to Parks/Resorts/ships/DVC that wouldn’t be advertised as a guideline, like the when Disneyland’s Space Mountain kept the same track layout but replaced all the old track with new track.
I do think that DVC CapEx is coming out of that “other” category; certainly DVC-only expenses do and probably an allocated share of joint DVC/resort CapEx also.
Tom,
What exactly does it mean to ‘improve utilization within (the parks)’?
“Josh D’Amaro has made comments that they want to grow the footprints of the parks while also improving utilization within them.”
Right now, Dino-Rama would be a good example of this. Primeval Whirl has been torn down and it’s a bunch of picnic tables. When this area is inevitably replaced, the footprint of the park probably won’t grow, but capacity will because whatever ends up being added will accommodate more people than picnic tables.
By contrast, the Villains Land or whatever is built Beyond Big Thunder will literally increase the size of Magic Kingdom.
Understand completely. But why isn’t
improving utilization already an ongoing component of park maintenance?
Considering the turnover at the top of Imagineering in recent years, the concepts of what will become the expansions will need substantial time for development and consideration. The appropriateness of themes and placement around Walt Disney World of late has been lacking, and the way the Epcot Dirt Pit developed really speaks to a lack of cohesive long term vision.
The timing of this year’s D23 Expo helps, since it takes place after two more quarterly result announcements. While I still think there’s a chance that streaming becomes profitable this quarter based on current trends, it’s a near certainty it will profitable next quarter and allow for some mid-term announcements for 2027 or so and what’s filling in during the meantime (I’m guessing the return of some fans’ entertainment faves and the Pirates of CarriBar). Until then, I understand the desire to *shrug* and often do.
I’m assuming that “technology and maintenance” includes updates to Parks/Resorts/ships/DVC that wouldn’t be advertised as a guideline, like that time Disneyland kept Space Mountain’s track the same but replaced the physical track.
I do think that DVC CapEx is coming out of that “other” category; certainly DVC-only expenses do and probably an allocated share of joint DVC/resort CapEx also.
“I do think that DVC CapEx is coming out of that “other” category; certainly DVC-only expenses do and probably an allocated share of joint DVC/resort CapEx also.”
That was my initial inclination, but what about something like Reflections Lakeside Lodge (which I’m fairly convinced will be built during the next decade)? That’s intended to be mixed use–DVC and hotel. Does it pull from both buckets, or would they they ascribe it all to Parks & Resorts in a graph like this? I know the actual accounting would be mixed (and probably much more convoluted), but this doesn’t seem to have the same granular level of detail.
I admire your optimism, Tom. But I also can’t blame anyone for being skeptical. Disney is going to need to tighten the timeline between project announcements and completions to really win back fans. Even if we take TRON and Remy’s out of the equation because of the pandemic (and I’m not entirely convinced we should), wasn’t it 5-ish years between the official announcement of both Pandora and Galaxy’s Edge and their actual openings? Given the unpredictability of well, *everything* the last few years, that’s plenty of time for the real world to throw Disney curveballs that cause them to abandon well intentioned plans. I don’t think Disney should totally copy Universal’s approach of building something in plain sight while refusing to acknowledge it, but right now I think they are announcing rides (or lately, the possibility of rides) too early in the development cycle for the announcements to get me that excited.
This is a totally fair point, and no, we should not take out TRON or the 2021-2022 projects out entirely.
Pandora was a bit of an outlier in the last development cycle because they announced as soon as the agreement with Cameron was reached. Imagineering had not done anything on the project at that point, so it took a couple more years just to develop the land. It was a lengthy turnaround time and I definitely complained at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I’m glad Rohde and co. were given time to get it right–and create something that–somehow, shockingly–feels appropriate for Animal Kingdom.
As for the DHS projects, I think the timeline on those was pretty reasonable. Disney announced Toy Story Land and SWGE at the 2015 D23 Expo in August, and didn’t close Streets of America until early 2016 in order to give a proper sendoff to the Osborne Lights. TSL then opened in 2018, followed by SWGE in 2019. That strikes me as relatively reasonable given the scale and scope of those projects. Frankly, I think that’s the best-case scenario for whatever comes next.
With all of that said, I also can’t blame fans for being skeptical. We’ve been burned countless times since ~2019. Skepticism or caution is definitely warranted–but I think there’s a line between that and outright negativity.
Not sure there’s much new news here, not your fault Tom, you still have to report on what info Disney releases but I think this release has more to do with the upcoming vote. I also believe Iger and crew are in good shape to win or this announcement would have had many more exciting details.
Until they show plans and break ground this latest SEC filing helps solidify Bob as the boy who cried Parks.
“Bob as the boy who cried Parks.”
LOL, that’s good.
The thing is, I’m perfectly happy with him ‘crying’ parks. It’s abundantly clear at this point that Disney thinks future growth is in Parks & Resorts. Despite that, fans aren’t satisfied and are still skeptical.
Can you imagine if Disney released an SEC filing that talked up $60 billion in investment for Disney+ and cost-cutting for Parks & Resorts? We’d take the former as a given and complain about the latter. And rightfully so! Instead, we’re getting essentially the opposite, and still aren’t happy. It’s like we’ve forgotten how to take ‘yes’ for an answer.
I’d love to see some of that 30% on tech and maintenance go into a monorail overhaul. I avoid taking the monorail as much as possible when I’m there these days, and the times that I can’t avoid it, I spend the entire time alternately praying not to get stalled and comparing it to the gloriousness of the TDR monorail system.
It didn’t even cross my mind while writing this, but you’re 100% right.
Also – it’s hard to conceive of WDW going another full decade without replacing or spending significant sums to update the monorail fleet. Then again, I probably would’ve written the same thing in 2014, yet here we are!
Maybe they are waiting Universal’s license for “The Simpsons” to expire in 2028 to overhaul the monorail. It’s getting so creaky that it legit seems thematically ready for a “Marge and the Monorail” tie-in. “Throw up your hands, and raise your voice…. monorail, Monorail, MONORAIL!!!”
TBD whether this joke idea of mine makes more or less sense than whatever Simpsons content WDW actually ends up getting someday.
Yes, monorail overhaul and increasing connectivity between the parks which would help balance out the crowds. Guests could easily park hop when the app shows one park is overcrowded and take a refurbished and expanded monorail to AK.
I”m with you Tom. This year’s D23 will be the clincher (accepting your point about the longer term unknown risks) as they will have unhappy stockholders and customers if this passes with another “it’s coming, trust us” message. Even with EPIC opening Disney isn’t like-4-like competition and a massive proportion of Disney visitors do not go to other parks. Universal is often regarded as “non-family friendly” and the others barely figure. Being from the UK I think DLP will cop for a bigger chunk now that Universal UK is likely. That is competition. A significant %age of the DLP audience is UK based and that threat from Universal is too big to ignore. I know Universal have said nothing is signed but $270m, a new road and 2 train stations that they don’t have any passengers for are pretty fair persuaders!
I share your optimism about DLP. Personally, WDW trips still win out in a cost benefit analysis, but DLP is attractive for spontaneity, and the Universal GB threat must be a concern for both Disney locations as a result.
What I’d like to see is a restoration of the ambitions that were previously held for DLP: A European Black Spire Outpost feels like the license to print money. Star Wars is an incredibly attractive franchise here, but I know that many friends of mine would never set foot in an American park, favouring other sights to see. Paris is easily combined with a Disney trip in comparison. The path to Frozen feels like it could be filled out with more attractions and entertainment too – cribbing from the Pixar playbook of California (with weather adjustments) could be a smart move for that side of the park, keeping the other side for more adult/live-action properties.
Interesting take on what is going on. Unfortunately I have to agree with you on how the money will be spent. And the issue I have is in the short term. By refurbishing rides, you actually decrease capacity. Until that ride re-opens, you are subtracting without adding. And when it does re-open, you may increase demand without increasing capacity (unless you replace the ride vehicle with something better or more efficient).
Disney should start with expansion (it won’t because it costs more) because this adds capacity first before subtracting by closing an existing ride.
I have been at the parks this week. And they are packed. It is March Break. But Disney would love the parks to be March Break busy every week. And in order to do that and not lose bodies is to add capacity. The Florida park completion is building. And building a lot. If Disney doesn’t try to keep up, they will begin to lose people. They are no longer the only game in town.
While I’d love to see the expansions earlier (because who wouldn’t?), I think starting with the reimaginings actually does make more sense at this point. If they want that regular cadence of new attractions and additions over the next decade, it necessarily has to start with reimaginings. They simply cannot get the expansions built quickly enough (and that’s even if they wanted to build faster).
As for decreasing capacity in the near-term, that’s a good point. But on the other hand, there are still (STILL!) venues sitting empty that could be reopened, and added entertainment could also serve as a stopgap.
I hear you with the expansions first opinion, but if they reimagined a ride like say Figment for example – nobody is riding it regardless so no harm done. In a perfect world they should do both
Why would Disney be in a rush to expand the US theme parks when attendance is doing tremendous just as is. If guests keep going for the product as is why spend additional dollars to expand them. Especially with Genie+ selling out many days for multi park. Until attendance slows for a long period of time, we will not see a dime spent to expand.
The answer is right in the SEC filing: “for every park guest today, there are over 10 consumers with Disney affinity who don’t visit the parks in a given year”
Disney wants to grow, not maintain the status quo. You’ve got it backwards–if attendance slows for a long period of time, Disney will panic and slow spending on investments.
Expanded capacity is expanded opportunity for profit-making. Expansion will not be to ease crowding, it is to expand the ability of Disney to make money.
I disagree- not only does the report say its going to happen but they are thinking ahead of time- not scrambling
Another vote here for Indiana Jones. It bothers me for a millisecond that there is no animal connection there, but then I think, “Well…snakes!!” It would be satisfying to see one of my favorite DL attractions updated into WDW. It seems like there is so much obvious opportunity for improved utilization and capacity expansion – so much dead space now. The Play Pavilion, Journey Into Imagination, Animation Courtyard, Stitch, all of Dinoland. These are big chunks of dead space just waiting for clever reimaginings. A spectacular Dreamfinder and Figment ride could be a massive people eater.
Lets see- I’m optimistic but also realistic. I hope we get a few reimagined rides and a few great new rides. Cosmic Rewind is my youngest and my favorite roller coaster after trying on our trip last month (got to go 4 times over 2 Epcot days) and my wife and oldest love Tron. If Disney keeps up with these types im happy .
Also excited for the splash reimagining. Cannot wait for Indiana jones as well
I’m surprised there’s not more excitement about Indiana Jones Adventure. I know it’s still not a sure thing, but it’s the path of least resistance for that ride, so it certainly makes sense.
And wow what a massive upgrade it’ll be. Especially if it brings together the worlds of Indiana Jones and dinosaurs. I don’t know how that’d work story-wise, but I still think it’d be awesome.
I think you answered your own question, Tom. For a company that has announced a bunch of things that then had to be cancelled, I can understand fans not wanting to get too worked up about something that isn’t even official.
As for Indy + dinos, I think the last couple of movies have successfully laid the groundwork for that to not be an entirely out there concept. 🙂
I’m quite excited for the conversion to Indiana Jones! And I have been bemused thinking of where the photo spot is going to be…