DispatchMaster

*Son of Beast has entered the chat*

What an embarrassment that guy is to the human species.

Over the last 9 years, KI has installed 3 world class coasters, along with multiple flat rides, a new waterslide tower complex, various smaller additions around the park, and begun to vastly overhaul their dining options. And in that time they retired, what, 2 coasters? I think your argument is unfounded. That's a ridiculous straw man, as I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. But making a ride the "-est" in its category is not intrinsically innovative. It's great for short term marketing but otherwise useless. The number of annual guests who know or care that Banshee is ~140 feet longer than Montu or whatever rounds to zero. Your average guest often gets the name of the ride they're queued up for wrong, despite having just walked by a giant marquee moments earlier. They don't care about any of the details the way enthusiasts do. If a ride is fun, they'll enjoy it. It's not complicated. Cedar Point's investment in their ride lineup is definitely paying off, and I did not suggest otherwise, so again, straw man. But given the opportunity to go back in time, they would have spaced out those installations over a longer period of time, per interviews and memoirs of past management. After Magnum and then Raptor, they continued to chase attendance gains that were not possible to achieve under any circumstances. It took them a decade to learn that it would have been better to stretch that investment out over several more years. But again, what drew me into this thread was the claim that a dive coaster would be a "big disappointment". Yes, some enthusiasts who endlessly whine and complain about every last thing, even going so far as to complain about rides before they've ridden them (ahem), will be disappointed in whatever the park builds if it does not perfectly align with their RCT/NL-inspired fever dreams where budgets don't exist. The remaining 99.999999% of that rides' passengers will enjoy the hell out of it over and over again. I know which group I'll belong to.

Is that a street taco?

Right, so did Cedar Point. In the 90's and early 00's, during the so-called Coaster Wars. It was a financially dubious move even then, as attendance never exceeded the record set for Raptor's debut. It's a more financially dubious move now given the knowledge they gained from that period, which is that installing new coasters, or major attractions of any sort, every year does not produce markedly different ROI compared to doing so every few years. And KI is markedly more mature than Dollywood, if by no other measure because KI has the 3 marquee, "standard-issue" ride types that DW does not - an invert, hyper, and giga. The only major coaster type that DW has that KI does not is an RMC. Cool, but copying a 50+ year old ride is not, by any stretch of the imagination, innovative. It's the exact opposite. That makes for a cool slogan, but it's not supported by evidence. Also, innovation is not linear. There was enormous innovation and development in the 90's as computer modeling changed how coasters were conceived and designed. And soon after as launched coasters came onto the scene. And there have been poorly-received innovations soon after that, such as flying coasters, but what has been truly innovative in the last few years has basically been limited to track fabrication techniques, such as RMC/GCI, but even that is basically a computerized version of a hybrid coaster design that has been around for ~60 years. But to bring this out of the weeds and back to my original point - the only people that would be disappointed in a dive coaster would be jaded enthusiasts who do nothing but complain anyway. Building a ride to please them in particular is a fruitless endeavor. Dive coasters are widely popular, and B&M's in general are reliable products. A normal person would be over the moon to see one installed at KI or any park that lacks one.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the rides. If it did, you'd expect a different list of attractions installed under his watch than mostly B&Ms (GateKeeper, Valravn, Banshee, etc.), with a couple others thrown in (RMC, GCI, etc.). The most notable failure of his tenure was also the greatest departure from that formula - a dark ride at CW. Ouimet realized that the rides have far less to do with the "best day" experience than, well, pretty much everything else. Yes, you need to keep the ride lineup fresh, but most guests don't know nor care that, for example, Orion and Diamondback are similar. All that matters is that they're fun. I am one of those parents who used to bring my kids, as a result of my coming to the park when I was their age. And, anecdotally, the roller coasters are NOT the reason for that. If it were, I wouldn't have stopped being a season pass holder after all those years. I stopped going because the park stopped doing the little things right. Yes, because that park is, compared to most CF parks, very immature in terms of ride lineup. Dollywood doesn't have an invert, a hyper, a giga. So obviously they'll install more things over the next ~decade than pretty much any CF park, and that is not due to mismanagement by CF. It's because the majority of CF parks are very mature in terms of ride offerings. At those CF parks, the goal is to keep their lineups fresh by replacing aging attractions with newer ones when the time comes. Uhhh... That ride is a direct replacement (combo dark ride & roller coaster) of the original Fire in the Hole, which debuted 52 years ago. What exactly is innovative about replacing a half-century old ride with the same thing? Nothing! It's a solid, well-done replacement, but it was nothing more than that park replacing an aging attraction with a newer one because the time had come to do so. The real world is not RCT.

Ignoring for a moment how drastically different a dive coaster is compared to a hyper- or giga-coaster, both in appearance and experience, how many people in a given season ride Diamondback, then approach Orion, only to turn around in utter disappointment at seeing that they are both steel roller coasters with hills? I'm willing to bet that very few, if any, have that reaction. Does Orion spend several seconds travelling slowly at the apex, before holding riders in a face-down position before the drop? This logic also negates the need for any coaster with inversions from being a good choice for The Vortex plot. And it also negates the need for a spinning coaster, since there are already spinning rides elsewhere in the park. Yes, what a terrible strategy for a company to invest in reliable, crowd-pleasing attractions! They should spend their money more recklessly! In all seriousness, the industry is relatively mature, which is why you don't see a ton of innovation and tend to see the same types of rides installed in various parks. They know what works and what doesn't in terms of attraction lineup.

As Kenban notes, it states explicitly in the Guest Assistance Guide, as far back as 2017, that glasses must be secured while riding. That it has not been previously or consistently enforced is not justification for being insulting toward a ride op, even if not to their face. I mean, even if it's a new policy on Banshee in particular, it's a pretty embarrassing indictment of an enthusiast to be surprised at the request to have their sunglasses secured. Securing loose articles is Roller Coaster 101-level stuff. You mean like flip flops?

A disappointment to whom? Dive coasters seem to be popular, both in terms of parks installing them and, anecdotally, guests lining up to ride them. Also, it's well-suited to the area, in that it can take advantage of the terrain and the ability to excavate that terrain to create a "giga" by way of the CW strategy - build a ride that isn't too high off the terrain (saves money on VERY expensive steel), while setting "world's -est" records for drop, speed, etc..

If memory serves, the Original Recipe(R) bogies were removed upon the initial closure of the ride, and the replacements were not installed until some time later, once Zamperla was back on site. If that is, indeed, the case, I suspect they were removed and shipped back to Zamperla for analysis - NDT/ultrasonic testing, micrography, etc. - so as to inform of possible solutions to the issue. One explanation for why they wouldn't remove these prototype bogies is that they already know the original failure mode, and have those bogies to reference. Also, it's reasonable to assume that, given the original bogies lasted quite some time before showing an issue, the prototype bogies were not cycled nearly enough to exhibit the same symptoms/issue. And continuing with that assumption, those bogies were fitted with sensing equipment that told them all they need to know about the design, so no need to get them back to Italy.

This seems most likely, given that the ride was testing for a couple nights, after which all activity stopped and there's been no testing since. I think, considering the wheel bogies were prototypes, and didn't fix the issue, there was no use in removing them. Presumably there were sensors affixed to them that gave them all the info they needed. Bummer for CM, but in a few seasons this will all be a distant memory.

Or, you know, if he would have provided context for the complaint. Are you sure about that? Assuming you're talking about the small plastic cups with lids, I would assume those are more costly than the biodegradable paper-based bowls. Seems like a petroleum-based product would be inherently more expensive than something made from a renewable resource, but I don't claim to be an expert. At any rate, I feel like this is a mole hill out of an atom. There are far more important things to concern oneself about rather than the consistency of condiment availability.

That a monopoly is worse than an oligopoly does not in any way, shape, or form mean that an oligopoly is good. The idea you're suggesting - that oligopolies are good for the consumer quite literally flies in the face of a century of economic data, so you have the burden of demonstrating your claim with data. Are there some benefits to oligopolies? Sure, Walmart may be a great place to buy cheap lead-ridden plastic crap from China, but Walmart's existence also decimates the local economy by extracting a nontrivial amount of revenue from the area and diverting it to shareholders in NY, Dubai, China, etc. What you're implying is that, on balance, it's better for that revenue to sit in an investment account rather than circulate through the local economy. So, again, citation needed, since that is in absolute conflict with basic economics. Here are some research papers demonstrating the consensus of economists over the last half-century that antitrust laws are necessary to promote competition, and that competition is good for the consumer and economy as a whole: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1801612 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117401 https://www.jstor.org/stable/30042564 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220485.2014.889963 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357526861_Consensus_among_economists_2020_A_sharpening_of_the_picture I don't think these arguments mean what you think they mean. You are listing the things Kroger is willing to do in order to appease regulators, since Kroger knows darn well that they are abusing their market dominance to further grow their dominance, which is precisely what antitrust laws are meant to prevent. And because they're running afoul of antitrust laws (ultimately to appease shareholders, which is a root cause of oligopolies, but I digress), they hire John Boehner, who will lobby Congress on their behalf. Why is Kroger spending money on lobbying and outside counsel if what they're doing is on the up and up?

OK, let's look at Kroger's net profit, which is up to $2.164 billion from $1.659 billion in 2020, an increase of 30%, which further supports the point that food CPI is largely being driven by a lack of competition, due to the oligopoly that exists in the majority of the US. How on Earth is a single supplier of any commodity beneficial to a community?!? That's some serious 1984-esque doublespeak there. Being the "only resources for food for miles" means Kroger/Walmart can, for example, increase their prices without losing sales to the competition, since there is none or very little, which is exactly what we have seen, especially in the last 4 years. Being the "only resources for food for miles" means Kroger/Walmart can, for example, force local suppliers to agree to unfavorable or untenable terms that those suppliers would be able to reject if there were other buyers for their products. Being the "only resources for food for miles" means Kroger/Walmart can, for example, achieve economies of scale on certain products that allows them to sell other commodities at massive losses in order to drive competitors out of business. In fact, that is exactly what Amazon did to Diapers.com: It's hard to blame Amazon. After all, why compete on level ground with a competitor when you can abuse your market dominance to sell at a massive loss simply to destroy the competitor? The answer should be "because such anticompetitive practices will result in penalties for breaking antitrust laws", but those, as pointed out, are woefully unenforced. Economics, at its most basic level, is not super complicated, and at every level there is one constant - competition is healthy for the consumer, and a lack of competition is, on balance, bad for the consumer.

I said "near-monopoly", which is another way to say "oligopoly", and I wholeheartedly stand by that. Just because there is some competition does not mean there is sufficient competition to discourage the practices we saw, and continue to see, since the pandemic. CPI for at-home food is up ~25% between 2019 and 2023. And Kroger's annual gross profit is up to $33.4 billion from $26.7 billion in 2019, which is, for those keeping score at home, ~25%. But yeah, I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right? It is unintentionally hilarious that your "evidence" that Kroger is not part of an oligopoly is to list the other members of that same oligopoly. I went to college in a small, remote town, and there were around 5 gas stations in the area, all owned by different people, so by your measure, a competitive market, right? But the strangest thing would happen when gas prices changed... they would always, without fail, change on the same day, to and from the same prices as one another, right down to the tenth of a cent! I mean, what are the odds, right? It's almost as though that town was at the mercy of a market in which control over an industry lies in the hands of a few large sellers who own a dominant share of the market. Kroger has always used the same argument when scooping up competitors - "this acquisition will allow us to provide lower prices to our customers", as if that is somehow a valid excuse for breaking the law. And yet, without fail, their gross profit has increased with each passing year. And, of course, they're using that same line in their defense of the case brought by the FTC regarding their "merger" with Alberstons. But I'm sure this time they're not lying, right? This time I'm sure they'll pass the savings along to us. And if not this time, then definitely next time, or maybe the time after that. It is highly improbably that Kroger would be able to abuse their market dominance as they have if there were the same quantity and variety of grocery stores around town now as there were 40+ years ago.

Indeed, as this is especially true as a parent to youngish kids. We do our best to make the table a little bit less of a disaster. It's not hard. Right, but there is a dangerously-limited supply, given that Kroger, as you allude to, is abusing their near-monopoly position to make food less affordable. Furthermore, that Kroger is abusing their anti-competitive position in the marketplace does not mean that added labor costs doesn't also drive up prices. Thankfully, the FTC is doing their part to push back on this, though I'd argue it's too little, too late. The US has, for so long, neglected to enforce antitrust laws that Kroger can simply point to Amazon and Walmart, et al., and ask why Kroger is being singled out. And if that doesn't work, I'm sure SCOTUS' will strike down any FTC victory, probably based on the fact that the Constitution doesn't literally say "Kroger should not be allowed to merge with Albertson's".

It may be true, but it is also, more importantly, myopic and self-defeating. That so-called "job creation" increases labor costs for the business, which ultimately makes their goods more expensive. And I'd be willing to bet a healthy majority of the cart-abandoner are the first to whine about things costing more. The reality is that people who don't clean up after themselves, be it in theaters, store parking lots, tables at an amusement park, etc., are not exercising benevolent philanthropy. They're just a combination of lazy and entitled.

Agreed, but given that we live in a society where folks do this in movie theaters and store parking lots (with carts), and justify it with the colossally-stupid idea that they're "creating jobs", it is the unfortunate reality. I hate to be all "get off my lawn", but it seems the golden rule isn't taught nearly as much these days as it was when I was raised.

Not remotely surprising that they would be more generous with a plate that costs them a few pennies than they would with a condiment that probably costs at least an order of magnitude more.

Again, a "sub-par product" is something that is below a certain level of quality. Delivering raw meat in a bun is not what I would call "sub-par". It's flatly unacceptable, at $25, $5, or $0. The price is not relevant, other than a mechanism to get clicks on clickbaity articles. Ignoring for a moment that you seem to be unable to engage in discussion without resorting to ad hominem comments, which is a telltale sign of an impotent argument, did you miss the part where I said that serving raw meat is unacceptable? Weird that my "handler" or whatever would feed me a line like that. I never suggested it wasn't "a bad thing". I took issue with your qualification/quasi-quantification of this story as being "VERY damaging to the park". If you're going to make a claim as strong as that, shouldn't you have evidence that supports the claim? That a fringe, clickbait story made the rounds on coaster/park nerd forums doesn't mean there will be a measurable impact on the bottom line for the park. And a measurable impact on the bottom line is the bare minimum threshold for being "VERY damaging", no?

If someone is going to charge $1 for a burger, it shouldn't be dangerously undercooked. Hell, if someone hands me a free burger, it should be cooked, and anything less is unacceptable. Again, I don't understand the focus on the cost, since that suggests there is some price point where it's expected that one would be served food that is liable to give them food poisoning. It should go without saying that there is no price point where that is acceptable. I mean, we're not talking about the quality of the lettuce, or the staleness of the bun, or some other detail like that. Citation needed. And random Internet quotes don't qualify as citation.

Exactly this. They don't want their issue addressed or problem solved, they just want need attention.

Yeah, food poisoning is way more tolerable with lower interest rates. Also, anyone who posts a picture of their raw burger online rather than simply requesting a refund or replacement deserves a little explosive diarrhea.

Swinging gates wouldn't remove the floor from the rider envelope.

The drop floor, as far as I can tell, is necessary to keep the floor/railings out of the rider envelope, and, if so, has nothing to do with the intensity of the ride.