DispatchMaster

This is just complete nonsense. They are both regional parks and do not compete, since each draws almost all of their guests, and therefore revenue, from their respective regions. And even if that weren't the case, it still utterly nonsensical, since CF makes money regardless of whether a guest is going to CP or KI.

Ride rankings are meaningless, and unless you've talked to a statistically-significant percentage of KI's annual patrons, so too are those conversations. Line length, as you allude to, means nothing without further context. Orion may have better capacity than DB, which would result in shorter lines. So long as the ride performs at the ridership and cost/rider metrics the park aims for, that's all that matters. If KI and CF could make the business case for a ride, they would install it. It's not more complicated than that.

First, it's still true that $30 million today buys less steel than it did in 2014, and there's no indication that's changing anytime soon. So should they wait twenty years? Fifty? Second, these parks have access to data that you don't. And it's apparent their ridership data supported that Orion would please the vast majority of guests at a reasonable cost per rider, even if a insignificant number of insufferable enthusiasts complain about its similarity to DB. What percentage of KI's annual attendees do you think complain about the similarity? The overwhelming majority of guests don't think the way enthusiasts do, and thank goodness for that. "Exceeded" by what metric? Cost? Definitely not, because CF has thankfully learned that it's fiscally irresponsible to spend that kind of money on a roller coaster. But I can guarantee that if KI could make a clear, compelling business case for a taller, faster, longer, or whatever-er coaster CF would absolutely greenlight it. Fury 325 is proof of that.

It's also worth noting that between June 2014 and June 2019 (around when Fury 325 and Orion, respectively, were being fabricated), steel prices increased by more than 30%, which is not trivial. Parks have budgets, and like it or not those budgets drive cap ex decisions. Would anyone honestly prefer they not build Orion at all because they couldn't fit a Fury 325 clone/equivalent into the budget?

Yes, I get that you feel you're entitled. That's the problem.

So, in other words, Orion is right in line with every giga built by Cedar Fair with the exception of MF. Orion is a good, high-capacity, reliable B&M roller coaster, and you consider it a "poor man's" investment? My goodness. I have second hand embarrassment at the spoiled entitlement.

I mean, it's obvious even from an occasional glance at the park cams that what you're saying isn't true.

Whatever issue was causing downtime early on has apparently been resolved, as it's been running almost nonstop for some time now.

Since when is happiness relative to other people's happiness? That doesn't make sense. If I'm happy, someone else also being happy doesn't make me less happy. Regardless, I think you're missing the point, which is that any company would prefer lower variable costs (low attendance) if they can maintain profit margin. The ONLY reason this isn't feasible in KI's case is because there's not a market adequate to support that business model, and/or KI simply isn't high end enough to attract those customers. Those people are going to Disney. But the point I was making is that it's nonsensical to suggest KI should forgo revenue at the expense of the "regular" guest experience. If we assume daily attendance at $50/each is 15,000, the park would prefer instead to entertain 5,000 guests per day at $150/each. That would result in roughly 67% less time waiting in line, therefore a better guest experience, and an equal if not better profit margin given lower variability in consumables cost.

From a business perspective, it's always better to sell one item at $1,000,000 profit rather than 1,000,000 items at $1 profit/each. In other words, amusement parks should be aiming for the highest-spending guest as much as possible, even if it inconveniences the "regular" guest.

If you go back further than the POP days, guests purchased tickets to get access to rides. The more tickets you could afford, the more you were able to ride. People getting more by paying more is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.

The bottles aren't going anywhere. This would be an option in addition to the bottles.

LOL Cedar Fair has spent more than $60 million going back only to 2009, and this includes only major cap ex, including literally the longest invert anywhere. And that number jumps to more than $70 million if you include Mystic Timbers. Given where KI ranks in terms of CF's overall existing and projected revenue, that is perfectly appropriate.