Jump to content

RossL

Members
  • Posts

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RossL

  1. 4 hours ago, Prequel said:

    All these ideas sound good and all, but closing the park down for anything more than 3 months, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on completely changing the park, and then changing the name sounds like a fantasy.

    Even 3 months would be ridiculous.

    They're not losing money on operations.  Unless you're mothballing the entire park you wouldn't even close it for a week.

    For mine they really just need to take a massive swing with a high quality coaster-dump $30M+ into and swing for the fences on a single great ride.  And once you open that coaster then you can sell a vision about the future.

    The little fixes or maintain what they've got is not cutting it-I wouldn't worry about repainting facades.  If that means they have to axe ToT and HWSW to save on operational costs then do it.

    They don't need to be the greatest park in the world, they just need something that is really good.  Their current line-up is all thoroughly average to poor, Giant Drop may be the one exception although it clearly has operational issues as well.

  2. 6 hours ago, AlexB said:

    For all who lambasted VRL for upping the prices and ending the age of the discounted annual passes - this is proof that the higher priced tickets do reap rewards, and that the punters they lost wouldn't have spent much more than the $99 they paid for the pass.

    Total Revenue is up by $9M, which is up $4M over two years prior and expenses are up $5.5M on two years prior.  So no, they're not terrifically more profitable than two years ago.  They've increased revenue 6% which would be impressive if they could do it for years to come.  (And pretty conveniently have a park up the road offering less competition than expected which is a short term win and a long term loss.)

    If ticket revenue is up 27%, the rest of the business has not done much differently.  Ticket sales down 5%, admissions down 8%.  Admissions down 16% on three year ago.  Probably works out to be tickets have gone from $40 to $50M while the rest is flat.  That does imply average in-park spend to be up though.

    Still count me as surprised they didn't get nervous earlier and discount things and on that front I was wrong.

    • Like 1
  3. On 04/02/2019 at 6:12 PM, Slick said:

    If there was ever a time for Dreamworld to get signed up onto Parkz it's now, because i'd imagine they're blasting away tons of guest goodwill by not posting any new information anywhere.

    The EGM Marketing and Communications, who was last quoted about Sky Voyager, is no longer there apparently.

  4. 1 hour ago, AlexB said:

    I'd rather the park close for 1 day a week, or operate on a reduced hours for the entire park during the week (with a cheaper day ticket available on those days) than to close well over half the park while still open for an hour or more.

    PR is the only reason not to reduce the actual operating hours.  They'll cop another hammering in the news if(/when) it happens.

  5. 1 hour ago, AlexB said:

    I'm quite happy to be shown to be incorrect by evidence, but i'm doubtful of this claim as it stands.

    Fair enough, selling power back into the grid must be rare then (only at peak prices), as it generally wouldn't make sense.

    Whatever the case AW is no better than Sea World, as they clearly can't power the entire park on their generators alone either.  And not sure how traditional power generators are really "future-proofing" either.

  6. 1 hour ago, pushbutton said:

    Anyone who visits Dreamworld can easily see investment all around the park. Sure there's a lot more still to be done, but I would like to believe it will be. Of most immediate interest of course is SkyVoyager, which I'm sure will be one of Queenslands (and Australias) best theme park attractions! 

    Don't visit but also don't see investment around the park.  Article covers off most of what is not being invested in.  SkyVoyager is the only major investment.

    I just don't understand why they haven't made the painful decision to take out a few of their ageing rides.  I think it would actually be a signal that they're serious and not just giving lip service to their issues.  I'd prefer them to take out three rides, rather than just install a new one.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.