Levram__

I agree, i don't know why they didn't just carry over the same queue rails they are installing at King Claw but with a brown powder coated finish. Bit of a miss here..

Batman Exhibit I agree with for Fright Nights, I don't think its a necessity to the offering. However I agree with the view that all other primary attractions should be on offer to manage the guest experience. At the end of the event its all going to contribute to what the average guest perceives the value to be. The ability to quantify the number of rides, experiences and shows on a visit to the parks is often a go to metric for the average guest when considering "value for money". Which I'm sure would heavily impact the NPS score for the event.

Its my understanding the essential infrastructure for the fire ball still remains.

Risk was not the main driver here. In a pandemic recovery period, every significant financial decision was being scrutinised. Unfortunately timing and cost played a key factor in the effects demise. That's also not to say it wouldn't or couldn't return in the future if its creatively considered essential to the new show. In that instance the reinstatement would become a capital cost to the project verse, general R&M.

There would have been equivalent indirect expenses in FY24 and lose of revenue associated with this payout however. Its not a silver bullet... There would also be risk associated with the claim regarding impacts on the premium. Which they also appear to have done a pretty reasonable job at reducing their premiums in the corporate spend space.

I did say "these days" being present tense. Important to note, particularly in QLD significant changes have occurred since 2015 with regards to the legislation and the introduction of the code of practice. There is a greater responsibility on all parties involved in the process, the engineer, the operator and the regulator. Love your optimism though...

Regardless of who the OEM is for a device, Intamin or a cheap Chinese device, these days the risk of such a serious design flaw in a device entering or being installed in Australia is mitigated by a very stringent design registration process. Which requires one of very few, Australian registered and qualified engineers to verify the design of a amusement device in order for the regulator to issue design registration, among many other things. That includes assessing the loads on critical components etc. Most states follow the same guidelines with some minor variation here or there. For example I believe Victoria allows devices pre 1995 to operate without design registration, but that's being proposed to change.

Workplace health and safety one year during their annual audit campaign went on a bit of a rampage around appropriate work areas illumination to manage the risk of fatigue.

This is correct and it should be seriously considered when you talk about growth, for either of the two properties on the site. A challenge Australian parks are always going to have to navigate is keeping their opex at bay and avoiding that from ballooning with the addition of new attractions. Take MW as the prime example right now, sure you can say that WOZ replaced what was Arkham. However the opex for Arkham has not existed for many fiscal years so a new "expectation" would have been set. Now all of a sudden you have essentially 3 brand new coasters that significantly grows the direct expenses of the attractions department and similarly for the direct and indirect expenses to the technical services department. Not surprisingly the boomerang racer stopped racing pretty quickly.... DW on the other hand you could say that a good portion of their opex for Rivertown has been balanced out over the past two to three fiscal years because you have the vintage cars as a relocation and then Jungle Rush is an absorption of labour from Wiggles World. Then you have the maintenance costs, any of these new Vekoma coasters is likely attracting 200K - 300K in annual R&M, rebuilds, labour associated with those works and annual engineering assessments etc. I think its very unlikely you are going to see either business rush to growth their attraction lineup in the short term or long term, without, significant growth in their markets/demand, which is not currently the trend that's being seen. Another rant for another day, but its a very likely reason why DW have struggled with getting the idea of a Lazy River off the ground for White Water World. The ongoing operating costs and direct expenses for an attraction like that is huge.

The new lighting is just another feather in the cap for me when it comes to the in tune decision making DW leadership are making for the park. Not something they needed to do, but they have. It might be a small thing, something that's likely to go unnoticed, but you take a dozen small things and its start to become ongoing meaningful improvement.

Does anyone know how long its been since the family boomerang racer stopped being a racer?

Body slides.

I don't complete disagree with this view, there certainly is going to be some benchmarking going on. However it doesn't change my statement. With or without Rivertown, WOZ would still be the same offering today based on the decisions made. Which in my view stems from the lack of operational planning, strategic planning, creative planning and most importantly collaboration. When an executive wanders the trade floor of an industry expo and commits to the purchase of a new attraction without first getting together all of the half a dozen key stakeholders from differing disciplines to collaborate on the project in a first instance then this is what you end up with, a fair comparison and a bar that will likely continue to be raised, within scale. No one may have said anything about themed garbage bins in The New Atlantis, I certainly didn't in my comment above. However what is fact is The New Atlantis was a far stretch from what was conceptually presented as an immersive experience/environment. Not to mention WOZ follows the same trend as The New Atlantis. Some things have been done right, however there is a lack of consistency and cohesion. The same can't be said about Rivertown.

I wouldn't be shocked if we saw this happen in the near future though... the amount of money being spent on staff wages for these attractions would be rather high... There are staff everywhere to both operate and to navigate the design/layout of these attractions.

I think this might have been said previously but kudo's to the Dreamworld leadership team on the execution of Rivertown. Rivertown excels as an experience because as Gavin said, you had the genuine interest of the DW leadership team to add in things like easter eggs, depth to the story, repeat discovery etc. All the things that make up an expectational international themed experience. We can't lose sight that the key players in the Australian market are executing projects on our shores in the millions, not the billions. So when you really look at what's been achieved with Rivertown, all three of the keys parts of this land have been underpinned by operational planning, strategic planning, creative planning and most importantly collaboration. This isn't just one persons view or opinion of the finalised product, I have no doubt this is board collaboration within the team at DW. The unfortunate part is I couldn't confidently say the same about the project down the road. Both Pico products. Budgets may have varied. Internal timelines from conception to completion similar. Both benefiting from the expertise of the same OEM. However one of the biggest influences between the two when it comes to what we have now is no doubt what I've said above. If Dreamworld can continue this recipe in varying scale, then I look forward to their continued success and growth!