You may have missed the news, but Disney didn't. Why do you think they built EE, TSM, etc.? That's the point, in the past they have not elected to sit back and ride on their reputation. It seems that they've decided to do just that for the time being.
For the same reason they built Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Epcot and a host of other theme park attractions before US/IOA even came to town. It's a natural evolution of their product.
Source?
None of them are going to attract fewer guests, in general, based on previous years' numbers due to anything the other park does. That's why saying that IOA hasn't dented Disney's attendance isn't something you can look at attendance levels and claim, because attendance for all of the parks have been generally increasing for years. Most people aren't going to plan an entire vacation to go to US/IOA, but what they will do (and what they already do) is split their vacation. What I believe you'll see is people staying, for example, 4 days at Disney and 3 days at Universal rather than a 5/2 split that they may do now.
Time will tell. The Disney parks still have far more to offer and HP-land will be a 1-2 hour distraction at IOA. Until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe that guests will--to use your numbers--find they need to increase their US/IOA trip time from 2 days to 3 days.
As for people introduced to the Universal parks for the first time, we'll see how they respond to the experience. Our most recent visit was March '09 and it was extremely disappointing. Apathetic employees...dirty parks...closed "seasonal" attractions...broken attractions...Express lines that had us unmoving for 20 minutes...aggressive timeshare salespeople (we're not talking DVC here)...meal prices even higher than Disney.
In a time when people seem to be particularly attuned to declines in Disney quality and service, they ain't seen nothin' yet.
BTW, comparing HP to ET is hardly an apt comparison. HP is going to be much more than a single ride. Looking at the examples you gave (Spiderman, Mummy, etc. - considered the most technologically advanced rides in the world at the time they were built), I'd say Universal has a pretty good track record over the past decade of putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak.
They do have a decent track record with attractions. Don't think I ever said otherwise. (Although if I were to voice one complaint....enough with the simulators!!! There are people who can't stomach these simulator attractions...and isn't a yet another simulator supposed to be the main attraction of WWHP?)
But while the WWHP may be more extensive than the likes of ET, the question remains as to whether it will be any more relevant years down the road.
Because they've been shelving any and all big tickets items for the past few years, and we're just now starting to get to a point where Universal will have more and more to actually release to the public with respect to WWHP. They didn't need to "respond" earlier because, quite frankly, there hasn't been a ton of press releases regarding WWHP (other than the initial one).
Sorry. Don't buy it. I don't see Disney's master plan being to battle attractions with press releases.
Right or wrong, Disney dances to their own tune these days. Eisner would have gone with the knee-jerk reaction of trying to best Universal. Not current management.
While it's troubling to not see bulldozers currently on-site, Disney does have a decent track record over the last 3-4 years: TSM, Monsters, Inc., American Idol, Gran Fiesta Tour, Nemo Musical, Seas with Nemo, Everest, etc. And perhaps more importantly, the upgrades to Pirates, Haunted Mansion, IASW, Space Mountain, Hall of Presidents and Spaceship Earth. Does US have any upgrades planned for tired old ET, Terminator or Twister?
wow..they are full of new ideas!
