DispatchMaster

They absolutely did grant Gold Passholders 30 minutes of Early Entry, no resort stay needed, in 2020, 2021, and I think 2022. Not certain about 2022, but that's irrelevant, because we made our decision in 2019 not to renew, based in large part on the lack of EE. And Gold can still get the full hour of EE if they add the All Park Passport, at a price point about 25% less than Platinum (adjusted for inflation). The result is the same - Early Entry's value has been diluted.

Stage construction was nearly complete when the decision was made to remove WildCat, with the goal of expanding the midway there. So they kind of did it backwards, and given the opportunity for a re-do, they may well have flipped things around.

That was never a very good place for a stage, so hopefully it gets moved sooner rather than later. They could tweak Perimeter Road a bit and put the stage on the other side of the midway there, hopefully far enough away from Valravn that it wouldn't interfere with that ride's operation. Pretty sure they don't use sprayers.

Why do you assume they aren't doing it "correctly"? They're very experienced pros, who if nothing else have a financial interest in completing the job as efficiently as is safely possible.

That doesn't much matter if everything, such as the top hat support structure, is all one color. FWIW, on the track, which at the top alternates between red & white, they started from the top and worked their way down.

CP needs a first flume before KI gets a second.

If you think CF is unethical now, CF would be the worst company in modern history under Musk, by your standards anyway, if Twitter is any indication. Complain about Prestige benefits? Season pass rescinded. Call the company unethical? Banned from the parks, chain-wide. Criticize the owner? Musk will personally dox you, resulting in death threats to you and your family. So maybe recalibrate what you consider "unethical". There is some truth to the short term vs long term outlook that seems to be negatively affecting the guest experience, which is something I've mentioned before. Specifically, the destruction of gate integrity with the introduction of the Gold Pass. It has resulted in short term gains, and even in the face of somewhat stagnant attendance the chain has been able to maximize per caps, but I don't see how it's sustainable. Cedar Fair has a premium product in the regional amusement park category, and any low priced pass should have provided only the most basic of access to the parks. Like only through Labor Day, etc. Allowing Gold Pass-wielding folks inexpensive access to the immensely-popular HW is just boneheaded, in my opinion. It's anecdotal, but my Platinum Pass-wielding family would drop major coin on our visits to CP, staying on-property for multiple days per visit, paying top dollar for mediocre food at the resort, overpaying for poorly-mixed drinks, spending way too much on souvenirs, etc. We took one look at the Gold Pass, and the fact that early entry, previously available only to Platinum and resort guests, was significantly diluted by allowing Gold into the park for half of EE, and said "oh, hell no". Again, anecdotal, and so far they're doing fine without us, but I wonder if there are others like us who have since made the same decision. I'm not aware of CF closing parks for reasons other than inclement weather. Granted, I primarily pay attention to CP and KI, where what you're describing does not occur.

Agreed that it doesn't make sense to put another coaster back where The Beast, Mystic, and Diamondback already draw crowds. Better to revitalize the area where Vortex's station is, given there's not much over there.

Not necessarily. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Right, exactly. What else are they supposed to do in the event of rain or bad weather? Put a tent over the park?

For the ten millionth time, only if they always intended on switching from bottled to tap water. If they initially intended on provided bottled water and later changed to tap, then you can call that "unethical" if you're so inclined, but it ain't a "bait-and-switch". But it's clear that emotion is getting the better of you, given the use of words like "unethical", "morally", and phrases like "I am sure that...". You already have a conclusion before having the relevant facts, and it's clear you'll be darned if the absence or presence of facts will change your mind. One cannot be reasoned out of a position they did not reason themselves into, as the saying goes... Has a CF park ever changed a day's operating hours on the day, for reasons other than weather or "acts of god"? And even when there are unavoidable issues - weather, loss of power, etc. - has a park ever not said those visitors can use their admission to return on another operating day?

Yes, we quit buying things we no longer felt were of adequate value. What we didn't do was get weirdly emotional about it and create wild, unsubstantiated, nonsensical conspiracy theories about the situation. Again, "bait-and-switch" implies they always intended to rescind some of the perks of the pass. And sure, you can claim that's the case, just as I can claim they rescinded those perks in order to deter the unholy wraith of the fairy unicorn gods. And both claims are supported by equal evidence, actual, circumstantial, and otherwise: none whatsoever.

Reading is hard: They did provide what was advertised - access to the park. Also, they provided additional perks per the terms of sale. It's just that people are getting weirdly emotional over which specific perks were provided, which is just bizarre. Then again, enthusiasts are not known for their level-headedness, and this seems like as good an example as any. Also, until you can show that the park set out to deceive customers, the whole "bait-and-switch" and "fool customers" sounds like insane conspiracy nonsense. But, again, enthusiasts, I guess.

There's just no universe where such a lawsuit would not be laughed out of court, given the stipulation is clearly and plainly stated on the very page where the benefits are detailed. Also, conspiracy theories are not considered credible evidence in a court of law. Again, there is no evidence that any benefits were listed with the intent to later rescind, and there are countless reasons those benefits warranted rescinding after the fact, including and especially because the park(s) simply decided they preferred not to provide them, which they are perfectly within their rights to do. You can label that move with any number of adjectives, but it ain't a "bait-and-switch", and it sure as hell isn't illegal. Caveat emptor.

On the season pass page, right below the listed benefits, reads "Season Pass benefits subject to change without notice." You don't even need to navigate to the legal page, nor read any fine print. It's right there, in bold text, no less. Buyers are made aware of this caveat before purchase, so calling it a "bait-and-switch" is nonsensical. "Bait-and-switch" is when a seller advertises one thing with the intention of delivering something else. Even the definition you posted includes the term "intention". There's zero evidence CF intentionally misled buyers in the way being suggested.

The way I look at it is, the only thing "promised" when purchasing a season pass is access to the park(s), period. So, that's all anyone who purchases a pass truly "deserves" or is guaranteed. Everything else is subject to change. The purchaser is either willing to accept those terms or not. The same is true for daily admission. A daily visitor might visit on a day when 3, 4, or 10 rides, attractions, or whatever else, are not operating for various reasons, from mechanical issues to staffing, which to me is no different than the park modifying the perks of a season pass, and both are covered in the terms of sale. The purchaser still got what was "promised" to them - access to the park. As such, I view the complaints about the so-called "bait-and-switch" the same way I'd view a daily visitor complaining about Ride X being down on the day they happened to show up. If the guest were basing the enjoyment of their entire visit on that one ride, then that's on them, not the park. If one ride, or even a handful of rides, being open were going to make or break a someone's visit, they should either make the purchase understanding the risk, or not make the purchase if they felt otherwise. Personally, we stopped purchasing Platinum Passes once the Gold Pass arrived and, with it, Platinum guests were to share morning Early Entry with the hordes of Gold Pass guests. We place a lot of value on Early Entry, so for us it was a simple equation, and the passes were no longer worth it for us. So, we shared our comments with the park, and opted to spend our money elsewhere. I'm not trolling, and my viewpoints can be changed by compelling arguments. But proclaiming that a willing purchaser "deserves" or is "promised" anything when they are explicitly NOT guaranteed those things per the terms of sale is not remotely close to a compelling argument.

On the contrary, it's hard to take seriously the complaints of anyone who would continue purchasing something they endlessly complain about. And I quite literally could not care less about how you or anyone else "weights" my opinion. Yeah, yeah, I get it, "we complain because we care about the park". The fact of the matter is there is no business case for investing heavily into a product that is wildly popular as-is, just as there's no business case for catering to finicky complaints from customers who will purchase what you're selling regardless. If people keep buying Prestige, why wouldn't the park continue to remove perks? Not only is doing so part of the terms of sale that both parties voluntarily agreed to, those same Prestige customers returning signals that the customer is fine with the practice. How is this different from any haunted attraction outside of amusement parks? At least around where I live, none of the very popular haunted houses provide floor plans or quantify how many scares there are or whatever. People buy tickets and partake in the experience. If they enjoy themselves, they tell their friends, come back next year, etc. If they don't like it they don't do those things. And no one is "promised" anything, and no one "deserves" anything beyond what's spelled out when agreeing to a transaction. Those words shouldn't even come up in a conversation about purchasing anything, least of all admission to an amusement park with dozens, if not hundreds of attractions.

Yes, definitely the reader's fault for not getting the convoluted point you're trying to make. I mentioned "blogs" in my response because you mentioned "blog" 18 times over two posts. Yes, definitely my mistake. Also, how can it be true that marketing is irrelevant and that the marketing for TT2 was "a dud"? Something being "a dud" means it was a failure, so how can the marketing for TT2 be a failure if "people will go to CP next year" regardless?

And that is terrifying. Cedar Fair outgrew Kinzel's abilities years before he finally retired.

Yes, and as a result no one has shown up to the park this fall! What an embarrassing blunder by the PR team! Wait, what's this? Hold on, I'm being handed a report that CP has had people parking on the grass on the Causeway more than once this fall. Man, I guess the PR folks got lucky that their failure to "blog" about HW didn't come back to bite them, but if this keeps up... Seriously though, what year is it that anyone would use blogging frequency as a measure of PR activity? Should CF parks be posting on MySpace too? Firing up ICQ? Spreading the word in AOL chat rooms? Sending telegrams? Hiring town criers? Obviously not. The PR teams should be going where the people are, and that's Twitter, FB, Instagram, etc. A quick glance at CP's Twitter shows they have posted there more than once a day on average over the last week. Same for KI. At FB the story is the same, more than once a day for each park. Over on "the Insta" each park is posting around once a day. By what measure or metrics was the TT2 announcement "a dud"? And what impact will that have on TT2's popularity?

Given the long lines to get into KI for Haunt, it appears they are so far. No reason at this point to think that will change. I just can't wrap my mind around this mentality. These are businesses engaging in commerce with customers, no one "deserves" anything more than the agreed-to transaction. Neither party is being forced to engage here. Up at CP, they regularly have to stop letting people in the park on any Saturday without rain, and the park hasn't really added anything to HW in a while, so it stands to reason that the value proposition is skewed to the point that one of two things should happen: Substantially increase the price of admission Substantially reduce what is offered People will complain in either case. I personally think they're making the wrong choice. Daily admission for the Halloween season should be MUCH more than it is during the summer, and only the most premium of season passes should provide access this time of year.

Well, which is it? Is the CEO some marginalized figurehead who "doesn't carry a ton of weight" or a micromanager who tells parks what to cut from their projects? And there very much was a culture difference under Ouimet, which is what I was referring to. Ouimet stressed empowering folks at the park level. That obviously didn't mean there weren't budgets to adhere to, but he allowed parks room to operate. I don't recall a single project during Ouimet's tenure that had the sort of cheap feel of what they're doing at KI for 2024, or 2023 to a lesser degree, though perhaps there are some examples off my radar. His sudden departure also suggests his message may have started falling on increasingly-deafening ears.

Going with 8-wide means a train capacity increasing by more than 14%, which is not trivial. Let's say that, over the course of a season, 1 million guests ride Dive Coaster 1, which has the 7-wide trains. Dive Coaster 2, with its 8-wide trains, can accommodate an extra ~140,000 guests per season, which, over the course of 30 years, turns into ~4.2 million extra guests. As for any savings on the narrower track, you're talking about a one time cost, which is far less of a concern compared to operating cost, and I'd be surprised if the operating costs between a 7- and 8-wide train didn't round to zero, so you're basically getting a substantial reduction in cost/rider (the primary metric of attraction value) for free. And regardless, I don't think any park going with the 7-wide trains would be able to justify rolling any savings on track into additional elements. First of all, dive coasters are already popular enough despite their comparatively short length, and second, it's my understanding that dive coasters' trains lose a lot of energy to wind resistance, such that it may not even be possible to add many elements. And while it's true that a 7-wide train would have less wind resistance than an 8-wide, it's also true that a 7-wide would have less momentum as a result of less mass compared to an 8-wide. Just look at Valravn at Cedar Point, which is more than ~30% taller than GateKeeper, yet is ~18% shorter in track length, and they both come into the brake run at around the same speed.

I admittedly don't know the context, but I don't really put much weight in any "unique attractions" comments. Cedar Fair's MO has been that if an attraction fills a hole in a park's lineup they'll add it regardless of similarities to another park. The only concern I have with B&M dive coasters is capacity, so while I'd personally prefer to see a wing coaster (GK at CP has monstrous capacity), it just seems like a dive coaster is a better fit for that spot. Capacity is also the reason why I think it'd be a mistake to go with anything other than the 10 seat wide model at a park the size of KI.

If that's the board's position, CF is headed in the wrong direction long term.