Disneyland Resort outperformed Walt Disney World this summer

The only time I've ever done a west coast trip only happened because my friend won some vouchers for free airfare anywhere in the continental US. I remember the tickets would have been around $2,200 each had we paid full price, and this trip had 2 layovers.

Airfare can definitely be had for cheap if you buy and fly at the right time of year. I just snagged a buy one round trip get one free from Allegiant Air for Toledo to Orlando in February. Including taxes and fees, I got airfare, 5 nights in a 3 star hotel, and rental car for $701.

Two grand to fly cross country? Was it first class?

Nope, coach. And other flights at the time were comparable in price. It was just after the first of the year though, so I suppose they were still charging holiday prices. I've never priced any other west coast trips, so I'm clueless as to whether or not that's the norm.

My wife flew from Ft Lauderdale to San Fran for under $300 round trip several weeks ago. A LONG way from $2000. Where are you trying to fly from Tekwardo?

Anywhere that's less than two g's! I've never spent more than $300 to go cross country, though I routinely see flights for around $400. Last time I flew west was Dec 2007 during the holidays from IAD to Vegas and it was like $260 on Southwest, we happened upon a deal. I've never seen coach tix go for that much any time a year, where were u flying out of CP Chris?

I'm with you Tek. Heck, my wife and I flew roundtrip to Italy for less than $2000.

kpjb said:
Nice.
I saw the Cars live (with Icehouse!) circa 1988. They were the least excited band I've ever seen. They barely moved and never said a word outside the lyrics.

I just heard the Cars are getting back together. Yee-haw.

Maybe Lightning McQueen can step in on bass for the late Benjamin Orr.

The only time I've paid more than 250-ish to go anywhere was to London, and that weird 3-legged trip last year to LAX-BWI-MCO. If it cost me 2K to fly inide the US, I wouldn't even have half my coaster credits... ;)

I apologize for the novel, but I'm not going to let CreditWh0re go unanswered.

Thank you to the many who basically proved my point by reply after that you like California Adventure. Despite what the Disneyland fans want you to believe, there are many of us who like and support the park.

CreditWh0re, Excuse me, but you should be careful not to embarrass yourself. You state one of the dumbest rumors as if it were fact. Closing the park would do nothing but damage Disney's reputation and undo all that they've accomplished in Anaheim in the past decade. It goes against everything the company has been trying to do, which is to grow their business and establish Disneyland as a destination resort versus a single day attraction.

Anyone with common sense can figure out that there was ZERO truth to the closing rumor and Disney freaks like Al Lutz and fan boy rumor mills like MiceAge are not reputable sources. At best their track record is 50/50 and its tabloid reporting for entertainment not establishing an authority on the topic.

I have every right to defend the park and will continue to do so without embarrassment. I also didn't claim the park was a runaway success either. I said that the park has not "failed miserably" and it's hard to define it as a failure at all.

The media and hardcore Disneyland fans love to hate California Adventure. They want us to hate it just as much and that's why they'll ignore, discount and argue against any piece of evidence that suggests that the park might actually be anything but a failure. The fact is these same haters, will hate the expanded and or renovated park and they will probably hate the third park if Disney opts to build one. In their distorted minds they believe that it it's not Disneyland, then it never can be good and they can't look beyond what they're in love with to see what an amazing park California Adventure already is.

Therefore, I'd like to present you with even more evidence or points that suggest that California Adventure and the 2001 expansion of the Disneyland Resort was not a miserable failure.

Anaheim city revenue alone suggests that the expansion has been a success since revenue from tourism has grown considerably since 2000. Disney is the driving economic force behind Anaheim and the city's largest employer. Anaheim gets about half its revenue from hotel and sales taxes. For example the 2000/2001 fiscal year budget for Anaheim was $680 million and in 2008/2009 it had increased to $1.3 billion.

The Anaheim Visitors Bureau has made multiple positive statements about the growth in Anaheim tourism in the past 10 years.

I have a good friend who is a VP of revenue management for several hotels in Anaheim who talks about the success of their properties and the positive effects that have come out of the expansion of the Disneyland resort, including California Adventure.

Despite the lack of actual attendance numbers, the amusement industry research report for attendance cites that California Adventure's attendance has risen significantly in recent years from a low of just 4.7 million to just over 6 million in 2009.

Jeff pointed out that Universal's two theme parks are very profitable, yet Universal spent more than twice as much to build California Adventure, but the attendance at DCA exceeds that of IOA. It's hard to claim that one park with twice as much invested and less attendance is successful and the other with less invested and more attendance is not.

Now what has Disney accomplished in Anaheim since the opening of California Adventure?

My first point– Prior to the opening of California Adventure, Disneyland was considered a one-day attraction. Since the addition of California Adventure, Disney has extended the length of stay for their most valuable guests, out of area tourists, who now typically spend 2 to 3 days visiting the parks versus 1.

Another point– Despite what you suggest, other than employees and few comps, every one pays something to get into California Adventure. Admission is not free.

Which leads to the most common argument from haters that California Adventure is a failure the "2-fer promotion" which they claims is like giving away a free day to California Adventure. Well guess what, I could easily turn that statement around and say its like giving away a free day to Disneyland as well. The free logic is stupid.

Prior to the opening of California Adventure, Disney used to discount the one-day ticket for Southern California residents during the off-seasons. Imagine that Disney actually discounting the gate? You thought that was reserved for Six Flags.

However, since the opening of California Adventure the promotion now requires a second visit to really obtain the discount. It's a genius promotion for Disney and very successful. Instead of getting a single day visit from a local during a specified period of time Disney either gets two visits or they basically trick you into paying full price for a single day. Not every two-fer ticket is redeemed for the second day and furthermore the second visit means double the parking fees collected, plus additional food, beverage, concession and merchandise revenue.

The two-fer is a better promotion for Disney than discounting the one-day ticket.

Another point - You claim that Disney's California Adventure isn't worth the one-day admission price. Well I've got news for you, neither is EPCOT, Animal Kingdom or the Hollywood Studios either when compared to Magic Kingdom.

Disneyland and Magic Kingdom are the flagship parks and they will likely forever command the attention they deserve and be the best attended as well.

But it's important to note since that the pricing structure used in Anaheim is the same as what Disney uses in Orlando. Disney admission is based on number of days and options (park hopping), not priced for the specific parks.

The fact is on opening day California Adventure had more attractions to offer guests than either Animal Kingdom or the Hollywood Studios have today.

The pretty much makes the not worth the same price argument mute, since Disney fans don't hate on the alternate Orlando parks as much as they should.

Another point - The company over the past five years has made multiple statements saying that the Anaheim property has been growing and exceeding their expectations. The very successful 50th anniversary promotion really showed Burbank the potential the Disneyland Resort has and has really taken the spotlight off Orlando.

Yes, it is true that Disney has called the park "mediocre", but sometimes I wonder if that comes from media pressure. The media has been so negative that it isn't going to agree with any other statement and if Disney were to attempt to make the point that they're having some success at California Adventure they'd be labeled as liars by the press.

Another point - Your argument about the classes of people that make up the attendance at DCA is ridiculous, since those same classes of people make up the attendance at ANY other Disney theme park as well.

Annual passholders do not use a theme park like a normal guest. I also wonder why so many of them are bothering to visit if they dislike the park so much? California Adventure is not open the same hours as Disneyland, so the usage patterns of the passholders say little about the overall health or success of the park.

It should be noted that those same passholders who apparently dislike it are in fact supporting California Adventure every year they buy a pass. There is no option to buy a Disneyland only pass and thus a portion of the revenue from that pass sale goes to both parks budgets.

Another point – Annual Pass ticket revenue has become a significant portion of the ticket revenue in Anaheim, but without California Adventure Disney could not sell the roughly 900,0000 annual passes it has sold.

Prior to the opening of California Adventure annual passes were not as heavily promoted and prices have basically remained stagnant since the early 90s. In 1992, the price for an Annual Pass (only one-kind) was $199 and in 2001 the premium pass was still $199.

However, the opening of California Adventure has allowed Disney to introduce two new pass types – Southern California and Select – and since then pass sales have skyrocketed and further help from promotions like the monthly payment option. Also, and the most important point, the price for the passes has increased significantly. Premium pass prices have more than doubled to $459!

Another point – While few in Orlando actually buy a one-day park hopper, the most expensive single day ticket to a theme park in the US, quite a few do in Anaheim.

A close friend of mine who's been employed with Disney for many years said the one-day park hopper wasn't originally offered because they did expect California Adventure to be more crowded than it was. However, I was also told that management believed that no one would be willing to pay for it either. Yet, somehow Disney manages to regularly sell a one-day ticket for a whopping $101.

I think it's also important to note that after opening Disney introduced the expensive one-day park hopper, the company never reduced the pricing for its multi-day tickets. Park hopping was always included as a reward for those purchasing multi-day tickets and those prices have only gone up since 2001.

The one-day park hopper is a premium ticket that they actually sell and since the operating costs for the two parks are essentially fixed the addition of the one-day park hopper was only a gain for Disney, not a loss.

Another point- The expansion brought one of the single most successful Disney Resort Hotels to the Anaheim property. Disney's Grand California commands some of the highest room rates and runs year-round at 98% occupancy, which is basically sold out.

Another point- Downtown Disney has been a huge success. Vacancy is almost non-existent and the restaurants and shops are crowded.

So to conclude, again, I believe the current changes at California Adventure are more about expansion and less about fixing mistakes.

Yes, they're going to upgrade some areas and replace some of the weaker attractions with better ones, but these improvements aren't necessarily an admission by Disney that the park is a failure either. I believe these changes are necessary to further Disney's growth in Anaheim and are absolutely necessary to accommodate the growing crowds that the parks are experiencing. Without this expansion Disney might be put in a position where they have to turn away guests.

They already turn away hotel guests since their properties are basically sold out.

Disney has had 55 years to get Disneyland to the point where it is today and like California Adventure it's had plenty of bumps along the way, including some mediocre attractions that I remember very well.

California Adventure is really no different. Maybe the first 10 years of Disneyland should be defined as a failure as well.

So once again you can claim that I'm embarrassing myself for defending the park and making these points and to counter my points you can reference fan sites, the king of Disney rumors Al Lutz or unseen CoasterBuzz threads as the authority of DCA failure. My point is simple - California Adventure may not be a runaway hit, but it's not that much of a failure either.

Wow, I didn't know coasterbuzz posts caused one to be embarrassed, LOL.

Coasterbuzz + Disney > Real Life.

I'd be embarrassed if I read that whole thing.

I know, right? Disney. It's serious business, y'all.

Tekwardo said:
I've never seen coach tix go for that much any time a year, where were u flying out of CP Chris?

It was Detroit to Minneapolis to LA (Orange County, not LAX). I believe it was on Northwest. I was just happy to not be paying the sticker price for that trip. Although that (apparently inflated) price has put me off from looking into another cross country trip. Maybe I'll have to reconsider.

Well, you can fuss about the media or the Disney fanatics being unfairly critical of California Advenure. But, for evidence that the criticism is just I submit this:

Bob Iger, speaking to the Wall Street Journal about DCA:

When asked why he committed to a $1-billion makeover of the struggling park, Iger responded, "Any time you do something mediocre with your brand, that's a withdrawal. California Adventure was a brand withdrawal."

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

- Albert Einstein

If you can explain it simply, it's not complicated.

- Gonch

TL;DR.

-Josh

Being critical of it and calling it a failure are different.

I completely agree with what Iger said, but it doesn't change my point. They're not loosing money in Anaheim and California Adventure hasn't made the Disneyland property worse off than before it was built.

Maybe you could say the property has performed below its potential these past 8 years because they didn't invest enough at the beginning. However, that's pure speculation.

wow, I missed all of this over the holidays, and feel a very short (uncomplicated) response is in order to Egieszl:

You spent a lot of time crafting a response about the relative increases in revenue for 1) Anaheim, 2) Anaheim hotels, and 3) the Disneyland Resort.

You really missed the point which was "Did DISNEY realize the requisite profit that they should have (expected, or hypothetical) given that they had ONE SHOT at building a park across the esplanade. They didn't. They blew it. End of story.

Individual hotels, etc, are more likely to have benefitted from the 1) economic boom from 2001 - 2005, and 2) the massive freshening up and advertising blitz for the 50th, (2005+) for which the benefits carried on for several years. Disneyland has been pulling in numbers like never before, and has managed to weather the economic downturn fairly well, given how much California has been impacted.

You can compare the pricing structures to Florida, number of rides on opening day for 2nd-4th gates, etc, and all of the other fuzzy logic that muddles the questions. However, you still miss the main point. You can increase revenue for the DL resort a lot by building a second park, (simple plateau theory), but if you spend a lot of money (but not enough in this case) and you fail to realize the appropriate amount of increase, you've squandered your investment. That's what Iger meant, and I stand behind EVERY WORD in my response.

I still think the disconnect in this discussion is between public expectations and internal expectations. I'd give Eric a little credit... he knows people we don't, and if he believes the internal expectations were adequately met, if not exceptionally, then I'm inclined to believe him.