DispatchMaster

Indeed, but not sure either standard layout would fit in the area without removing Congo Falls, so it'd have to be custom, which I don't believe we've seen yet for this model? It would be interesting to see what Vekoma could do with a custom layout.

The portions where I added emphasis are what I'm questioning as a given. Is there more than a tiny fraction of guests who are even aware of who owns what parks? And how many of those are aware of any consistent differences between the brands? I'm not saying I have strong thoughts either way, just questioning whether the CF vs SF branding is as meaningful as we assume, considering the majority of guests are happily clueless to the minutiae that us enthusiasts tend to obsess over. For example... Some enthusiasts look at Orion and qualify it as "only" a faster coaster that is ~25% higher, with a ~40% taller, considerably steeper drop, whereas a typical guest probably just sees what looks like another thrilling world class ride in a park filled with them, hops in line and has a great time riding. In other words, a typical guest does not focus on inane details the way that enthusiasts tend to. My prior is to assume that extends to their knowledge and perception of quality of owners' branding. All this to say - are there any reputable brand-focused surveys that suggest otherwise? Again, I have no fervent opinion either way, just questioning the assumption that "Six Flags = poor quality" in the eyes of a nontrivial number of guests.

Are we actually sure that the "Six Flags" brand is harmful and/or associated with low quality in the eye of the park-going public? What I mean by that is that while, yes, within the enthusiast niche the brand isn't held in high regard, is that the case with John Q Public at large? Often it is the case that the things enthusiasts focus on or take note of are in now way on the minds of the average guest, most of whom couldn't name a coaster manufacturer with a gun to their head.

I have no knowledge of how things are structured under SF, but anecdotally it seems like the best results are had when individual parks' P&D groups are left alone to do their thing with little, if any, oversight or parenting from "corporate". I'm not saying that is or isn't happening in this case, but talented as Ken Parks may be, it could be the structure of things within SF that produces uninspired names like "Thrill Glider".

There's a difference between relaying a final score of a game and what you clearly did with the MLive article, which was lift several whole sections of the article and restructure and reword them and then present it as if the information and thoughts were your own, without linking to or even mentioning the original article or the author who did the actual work on getting the information. It doesn't take an "expert" to see that what you did is borderline plagiarism, no? Further, you can dispense with the straw man BS of mentioning me in every new thing you post with regard to fact vs opinion. That you seem triggered by the mere request that things you cite as factual should be supported by something other than "because I say so" is no reason to spam topics with irrelevant, snarky, troll-ish comments.

Any lack of investment by SF into MA was due to mismanagement, not budgetary or having too many parks or whatever. In fact, having a broad portfolio can provide diverse revenue that can withstand regional issues like a bad stretch of weather during a holiday weekend that would otherwise adversely affect annual revenue to the point it could affect cap ex plans. And in the case of MA specifically, any lack of routine maintenance (fresh paint, etc.) is strictly the fault of SIX's mismanagement, and is not a broader indictment of a company that is "too big". After all, MA was well cared for under Cedar Fair. Yes, this is clear when reading the original MLive article you pretty clearly "borrowed from" without attribution.

Well, sure. But that doesn't mean they are certain they know what park is getting this thing. That's a pretty "snarky" way to refuse to substantiate a claim. But doesn't that imply the chain is not yet certain where the ride will go? What seems most likely to me is that SF has a very short list of places where the ride would be a good fit and can be installed, in terms of available space, justified ROI, etc., (they wouldn't have purchased the ride without such a list, obviously) and is working down that list to confirm the best fit. In other words, they aren't yet certain where the ride will go.

Based on what data? Even granting that it's accurate that attendance is down, two things: Being down in attendance doesn't mean they are not hitting resort occupancy targets. They need not install a new ride to goose resort occupancy. Far easier and less costly to adjust lodging rates. Attendance by property, which is not reported publicly, is, according to historical texts and comments from park officials, typically down in years where new marquee rides are not installed. That does not mean it's down enough to justify the cost of adding a new ride. Further, for a company supposedly looking to "cut costs and save money", there are plenty of other parks where installation would be far less costly - the removal of a massive marquee attraction ain't cheap, especially considering SV is still pretty new in accounting terms. So yeah, maybe tearing down SV and installing AFO would net very long term savings on maintenance. But it seems the chain's financial needs are more immediate than such a move could possibly justify.

Cedar Point is arguably the most poorly-suited park in the chain for this ride. They already have a world class RMC with capacity commensurate with their crowds. And to my knowledge they are not having any trouble whatsoever filling those resort rooms, and even if they were, they have plenty of room to lower lodging prices to get occupancy up. Not to mention they just debuted two new world record coasters in two years. Well, sure, but that is heck of lot easier/cheaper to say than to actually implement. Altering the post-lift layout is one thing. Adding block zones is another matter entirely.

I am struggling to even comprehend what your complaint is about what I said, which is that all of these discussions - about ice machines, ride installations, season pass pricing, meal plans - are relatively meaningless when viewed in a greater context. I am basically agreeing with and expanding upon your response to Don. That I can recognize that, while also understanding the importance of attention to detail in the amusement industry, is not evidence of "my privilege" or whatever. TL;DR: Sir, this is a Wendy's.

So it's opinion, gotcha. I'd be surprised if SF has decided definitively where AF is going. I'm sure the list of candidates is narrowed down to one or two parks, but there's a nonzero amount of surveying, engineering, etc., work that needs to be done before they'll "know" where it's going. In "the world"? Sure, obviously. But in that context all of these conversations are meaningless drivel. But a lack of ice at an amusement park is exactly the kind of "death by a thousand cuts" type of issue that affects guests' experience in a meaningful way. And worse, it's a solvable problem.

This. These types of RMC coasters are a pretty specific type of coaster - a hybrid with extreme elements - which makes it pretty unique, which I agree would be redundant at CP. It's one thing to have a few varieties of steel coasters (loopers, airtime machines, etc.) or wood coasters (out-and-backs, racers, etc.), it would be quite another to have multiple hybrid coasters from the same manufacturer, with many of the same exact design elements, at the same park. Especially when the more recent installation would be inferior in terms of marketable specs and especially capacity. Is this fact or opinion?

Yes, exactly. Parks will get rides based on things like need/expected ROI and available cap ex budget, not because of where the HQ is located. Which is why it was, IMO, a terrible move to offer stupid-cheap season passes in the first place. Ouimet had spent years diligently building up the brand, and the morons who took over burned all that brand equity to the ground. Now they are stuck with trying to increase gate prices while, as you say, potentially struggling to afford the cap ex necessary to maintain their desirability.

That is still how ~99% of people visit parks. We are the 1%. 🙂 I'm not sure why the location of the HQ would have any meaningful impact on cap ex moves of individual parks. If CP doesn't get any big new additions in the near future, that would probably be because it's a relatively mature park that just debuted two new record-breaking coasters in '24 and '25, and not because of a conspiracy theory revolving around the HQ location.

Normally I would agree. But the parks would be well-served to replace a fair chunk of guests who only became pass holders in the post-Gold Pass era with guests willing to purchase passes (and add-ons, etc.) at a higher price.

I would imagine part of what is driving their pricing strategy is the recent inflationary cost of doing business. The cost of commercial electricity has risen ~20% over the last 5 years. In the prior 5 years it had risen only ~7%. That's far from trivial. That drives up the cost/rider, so I'm sure there's pressure to increase the income/rider, and the gate and FL are pretty direct ways to achieve that. It's a similar story for the cost of food, so making meal plans more expensive on a per-meal basis makes all the sense in the world. Given that context, it would be surprising to see them pull an about-face on these increases.

I don't think what you described occurred very often at all, maybe a few days during the season when the park was so full people were parking in the grass. It wasn't a regular occurrence. Also, they've been increasing the price of daily FL over the years. So, assuming they continue to keep FL prices high, they can keep those lines, and by extension standby lines, from becoming an issue.

Possibly, but closing loopholes helps maintain pricing integrity. That, along with the chain seeming to understand that their products are priced way too low, is refreshing to see after too many years of what seemed like a "race to the bottom" strategy of giving away the gate.

One nice thing about a park like CP being a premier regional park/resort is that their pricing is sort of in the fat part of the bell curve, meaning that, generally speaking, anyone squeezed out of the lower end by higher priced premium products can be replaced by becoming more enticing to folks on the other end of the bell curve's tail. Or, as you put it, "Raising the price could reduce the number of people using Fast Lane, potentially creating shorter waits and a better experience for those who continue to purchase it." I think that's the main takeaway here. Previously, All Season Fast Lane was just way too inexpensive, leading to saturation and thus a poorer experience for everyone, including and especially annual multi-day visitors who may drop a substantial amount of money each year at the park, as compared to locals who could "justify" the ASFL by using it many, many times throughout the season. Hopefully this price point pushed locals and other lower-per cap visitors away from it. I do want to push back on this just a bit, because if locals and other frequent visitors were using ASFL on a regular basis, which I would guess was the case based on this price increase, pricing some of them out may actually make standby lines shorter, rather than longer, since there will be fewer people lapping them from the FL/FLP queues. In general, though, it's refreshing to see the park seemingly setting the pricing to where it should be, correcting for the bargain-pricing strategy of the Gold Pass. CP, and to a slightly lesser extent KI (and Carowinds and Canada's Wonderland), should be priced as the premium products they are, rather than become de-facto baby sitters and glorified FECs, which harms the brand and can result in a death spiral.

Sure, but not sure how they're supposed to get in front of an unauthorized photo that was taken and posted in violation of their agreement with vendors? Are they supposed to prepare a media package before moving forward with the actual ride removal?

The picture seems to have been unauthorized, so it's possible they had planned to announce it at a time of their choosing, but were forced to respond to an earlier than expected press request. Also pretty stupid of whoever took that photo to not be more careful. It won't be difficult for the park to figure out who took it, considering you can see the side of their vehicle in the photo...

I cannot imagine a ride of this scope and complexity hasn't been testing already for some time now. A ride like this is almost certainly going to be considerably more complex compared to any roller coaster, at least from a controls perspective. And as the controls system complexity increases, so too do the number of potential failure modes, etc. All of that takes time to work through.

I don't see how anyone could take "lowest price of the year" to mean anything other than the year 2025... What else would "year" refer to?

I'm sure this is ignorance on my part, but how are folks getting what is effectively a $300 discount? Is it because the pass itself is $~300 cheaper? Because at the Midwest parks it seems all season Fast Lane is still $1,000.

I wouldn't worry so much about the price itself - it was either "worth it" to you or not at $1,000. But the issue I see is that cutting the price in half will likely saturate and dilute FL/FLP even further than it already is. The daily prices have been far too low, and so too have the season long FLP passes, judging by the ever-increasing FL/FLP queues.