Rasulo tells analysts he doesn't expect gas prices alone to deter Disney vacations

My point was that if he has enough to go to Universal, Sea World, and Busch in the first place, what difference does the $56 make?

Oh, I agree with that one 100%, but I think when CP was brought up, that is a different story. Not that people won't go, but people that go often likely won't go as often.

And who drives to Disney anyways? Heck, I wish they would so it woudln't take me an hour to get thru the line for Magical Express next time...

For those of you who think that higher gas prices will not affect your travel plans. That's good to know that many of you don't have to worry about money that much especially when gas prices will go up to around $5 a gallon if Obama has anything to do with it. With that you can count on other things going up as well. Mr Rasulo, needs to realize that when the tourist dollars dry up with higher costs then it will affect the amusement park industry as well.

In my case, I live in a more practical world where you have to think about the costs vs the benefits. I have other things to deal with besides going to Disney, such as whether or not I can afford dental or medical care. Those that don't have to worry about gas and other prices going up then have at it while you are neglecting other things that have to be done or considered.

Majorcut, did I miss the news story where it was said that it's Obama's fault for the raising gas prices? I don't understand.

Raising gas prices may be a good thing for local, seasonal parks like Cedar Point, in that season pass holders will still buy the season pass, but wont use it as much. That would either save the parks money, with lower staff and operational costs, or it could hurt the parks, because they will sell less food and souvenirs.

I can not remember the last time I spend a dollar inside CP in the last few years. The cost to quality ratio is just way off track there... I think the last thing I bought was .25 cotton candy :) No, actually, I did eat at the lunch buffet inside the midway market a few times when it is only $10 or so. That is not too bad.

I hope they eventually turn that place around though, food wise.

LostKause said:
Majorcut, did I miss the news story where it was said that it's Obama's fault for the raising gas prices?

If you don't watch FOX News (or listen to EIB), then you probably did miss it, I'm guessing.

Nah. I watch a lot of FOX and I don't believe they've said it either.

It was probably the same people that blamed Bush when they spiked in 2008. :)

That explains a lot. ;)

Lord Gonchar said:
It was probably the same people that blamed Bush when they spiked in 2008. :)

I don't think it was the same people but the reasoning was just was sound.

Majorcut said:
...especially when gas prices will go up to around $5 a gallon if Obama has anything to do with it.

This is one of those divisive, unattributed drive-by comments that add zero to political discourse.

Geez. Way to derail the thread by taking Obama's name in vain, Majorcut.

Obligatory winkie - ;)

I watch a lot of FOX and I don't believe they've said it either.

Someone did. I heard a teaser line on NPR this morning that someone thought the oil price spike was his fault. I didn't hear the whole story, but I'm guessing it's someone ticked that the Strategic Reserve hadn't been tapped yet.

Back to the original discussion: there is no doubt that anyone who is "on the edge" of affording a trip to Disney might not end up going if fuel prices spike and that spike ripples through the economy. The two questions are (a) how big do those ripples get, and (b) how many people who visit the Disney resorts now, worldwide, are "on the edge".

I don't think anyone here can speculate meaningfully on the answer to (a). I'm guessing that the answer to (b) is "not many". What's more, those people probably do not bring as much marginal revenue to the Mouse as other visitors---they are the people bringing in their lunch instead of buying it, etc. already.

Brian Noble said:
I don't think anyone here can speculate meaningfully on the answer to (a). I'm guessing that the answer to (b) is "not many". What's more, those people probably do not bring as much marginal revenue to the Mouse as other visitors---they are the people bringing in their lunch instead of buying it, etc. already.

That's probably the best summary so far.

Here it is: it's his fault because he is intentionally closing domestic production just to increase prices, or stick it to the oil companies or something.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/134406134/rising-gas-prices-spur-call...production

Haley Barbour - you so crazy!

So it wasn't Fox or EIB? It was NPR? Funny.

I think it was Obama's energy sec. Chu that said we need to get gas prices to European levels.

I don't know what Obama wants, but if you want to reduce oil use, any decent economist will tell you higher prices are the way to do it.

Of course an economist doesn't have to worry about being re-elected!

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that rising gas prices are an irrational reaction by commodity markets over the nut job in charge in Libya. Just a wild guess.

Well, NPR was reporting on the statements from republican leadership in congress and a governor or two. So, not quite the same thing. Reading between the lines, they're basically calling out Barbour as a provocateur.

As an aside: Most of the auto manufacturing execs I know (and I know quite a few) agree with Secretary Chu. They'd rather have consumer-market forces push up CAFE standards than be compelled to manufacture efficient vehicles that no one wants to buy given low fuel prices.

Edited to add: and, ultimately raising prices *before* supply/demand forces you to isn't necessarily a bad idea, *if* you think that prices will rise steeply when supply becomes curtailed relative to demand. Energy development is a capital intensive business, and takes time---if you wait until prices spike, you're too late. There's going to be a lot of pain to deal with while we transition as much as we can away from petroleum.

So, the question is whether or not you believe small changes in supply/demand will have major impacts on price. Empirically, this seems to be the case---the late 70s gas crisis, the 2007ish run-up in prices due to demand in China/India, and this little brouhaha.

The alternate view is that a sustained rise in prices will lead oil companies to move to new fields that are only slightly more expensive to exploit, bringing prices back down. I don't know enough to know (a) whether that's possible or (b) how long it will take to develop those extraction processes. If it takes a long time, we're back to the problem that leading price increases are designed to avoid.

These arguments are so silly because increased production locally doesn't effect the price per barrel.

According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, U.S. oil production jumped nearly 3 percent last year, while oil imports fell.

Yet, our gas prices are still rising steadily. Studies have shown that drilling at ANWR in Alaska would not change the price per barrel, the only benefit is that Alaskans would have jobs.

Higher prices from a federal tax increase is needed to fully fund the transportation network.

Off my pedestal.

Higher prices won't affect our vacation trips very much, but we may think twice about day or weekend trips. We would love to fly to Orlando for a three day weekend but the flights are just too high right now to justify the time away.

Of course auto companies would prefer to sell vehicles people want to buy, instead of being forced to build undesirable cars due to CAFE standards.

You get the price of oil/gas high enough and the market will take care of higher MPGs far more efficiently than CAFE ever could!

I'd guess Obama is like most people--he'd like to see this country use less oil (for many good reasons) and a higher price is the best way to do that.

On the other hand, most people also don't want to pay more for gas, so a conflict exists.

Obama probably doesn't worry about paying for gas, but being re-elected is more difficult with high prices so he also has a conflict.

Well, NPR was reporting on the statements from republican leadership in congress and a governor or two. So, not quite the same thing.

?? What are you trying to say here?

Often, things that "Fox Says" comes from what is essentially an Op-Ed piece rather than reporting a quote from someone else. The NPR piece was reporting, not Op-Ed.

That's not to say Fox doesn't also do real reporting. But, most of the stuff that makes it into the viral-blogging space is more op-ed/host commentary.