DispatchMaster

Even if they can't easily produce video that often (it's easier said than done), it would be trivially easy to add a few extra pictures and provide some basic accompanying context in the update. "Here are some footers. This is the station platform, where guests will load. Here's where the queue will be." Instead they share a single picture that looks like it may have been shot with a Razr V3. It's not that hard. We're enthusiasts, we're easily entertained.

An 87 word paragraph accompanied by a 0.14 megapixel picture of ~8 feet of track is an absolutely embarrassing excuse for a construction update.

Parks in "neighboring states" don't compete with one another, so why wouldn't they put a same or similar ride in two parks? Beyond that, parks get (or should get) cap ex commensurate with their respective markets, so that's probably what Paramount was doing.

But, as you mention, these attractions help round out and balance what the park offers in terms of variety. The continued lack of investment in these areas is a massive factor in our family no long being pass holders.

If upper management is wondering why the small, off-the-shelf addition to their kids' area wasn't included on an arbitrary list, they are wildly incompetent managers, and we should be far more worried about upper management than their marketing team.

All that list tells us is that Elizabeth is more excited for one ride versus another. Interpreting anything beyond that is meaningless conjecture. "She would have been more excited for Roller Coaster 1 if only KI had sent her a better media packet" is a giant, nonsensical leap that also happens to be insulting to her intelligence. Maybe she prefers the theming of HW's ride. Maybe, as ACE President, she understands that GG is a more interesting debut for HW - considering it's their first family coaster - than SSBR is as an addition to the much more mature KI coaster lineup. Maybe she prefers GG because it isn't KI's bland, off-the-shelf model that has existed at other parks for the better part of a decade. Or maybe she just prefers red track to yellow. There are obviously plenty of earned, valid criticisms of KI's marketing team without resorting to nonsensically blaming them for nearly every perceived negative outcome.

There was absolutely nothing to indicate that was the case at the time. The previous management team would have provided Forbidden Frontier and SRE a much longer runway to establish itself, as that team clearly understood the business CP is in. I mean, FF alone was a pretty big investment, and that level of investment shows that they expected it to last for quite a while. The new management team obviously feels much different, hence the two attractions' removal.

Because, as far as I can tell, the list appears to be the coasters the ACE President happens to be personally looking forward to, which is a pretty meaningless and arbitrary metric. Obviously it's better to be on the list than not, but I think trying to figure out "why" SSBR is not on the list is silly, given how completely subjective the list appears to be. Ask 10 enthusiasts what their most anticipated rides are, and you'll likely get 10 unique lists. See above. That it's not on this list appears to simply mean that Elizabeth Ringas isn't personally looking forward to it. As the President of ACE, she is, no doubt, aware of the ride, so I don't see how marketing would have much, if any, effect on whether or not she is personally excited for the ride. HW adding their first family coaster is bigger news than KI expanding their already well-rounded family-friendly offerings. Then again, if one's preconceived notion is that poor marketing is the reason for all things bad, then of course that's the lens through which everything will be viewed. Objectivity is hard, I guess. They don't build rides for "awareness" of the ACE President, they build rides to entertain guests. And so long as the ride's operating cost per rider metric is met, then it is "fulfilling the plan for the funds".

This is a pretty fantastic idea, and would fit well thematically. I realize there was a lot less to do back in the mid-80's, but I have very fond memories of riding PWE back then, and always enjoyed seeing the park from the unique perspective that ride provided.

Yeah, agreed. It's a family coaster, and while that is a wonderful, necessary addition to the park, it's more along the lines of routine additions than it is some marquee attraction. It would honestly be bizarre if it were highly-anticipated, in my opinion. HW's is more notable at least in part because it's their first family coaster.

The continued self-destruction of Cedar Fair in my opinion.

You misspelled "Ron Howard".

My "puppeteer"? What on earth are you blathering about? Anyway, is it fair to say that your kids won't like this show?

We all do. It's just that as we age, the number of rides until we drop trends toward 0.

Just curious about the demographics here - how many of you complaining about this show have kids? There are already a ton of things for adults to do, and comparatively little that kids can do, and even less that kids and parents can enjoy together. To that end, and speaking from a parent's perspective, this show seems like a crowd pleaser.

Reasons 2,416 and 8,348 why this merger is ominous for the future of CF parks.

Nor do we. Special events and discounted FLP spoiled us to the point where, for the most part, any line longer than ~20 minutes is a big nope for us. Plus, as many incredible memories I have of running around parks in the 80's and early 90's, a fair portion of my favorite moments have been quieter ones in more recent years, enjoying the atmosphere, my kids' enjoyment of the rides, and outrageously-overpriced beer.

Budget aside, 10 continuous days anywhere seems like a waste of entertainment dollars to me. If I were doing nothing but marathoning coasters, yeah, 3 days would be too much. But the family-centric stays we've done there included shows/live E, copious beach/pool/resort time, water park time, etc., and we've never felt we overstayed during our 4/5 day visits. YMMV.

In other words, a change for the worse.

Because that's the threshold defined in the CF partnership agreement, at least as far back as 2011, the date of the most recent revision as far as I am aware. Specifically, so long as CF continues "to represent (either by remaining Outstanding or by being converted or exchanged for voting securities of the surviving or resulting entity or its parent corporation) more than fifty-one percent (51%) of the voting interest of the partnership interests", no vote is required. Yes, on paper, it is a "merger of equals", but only on paper. Show me any previous so-called "merger of equals" that was truly beneficial to both parties involved. SF was barely treading water before this, hence their justification to pay $85 million specifically to avoid a CF unitholder vote they knew they'd likely lose. And the current CF board seems clearly fixated on short term gains at the expense of long term health, probably so they can put some bullet points on their resumes when they abandon a sinking ship in the future.

Yes, and nothing says "camping in the forest" quite like a seaside amusement park in one of the largest cities in the World.

Not exactly clear on what you're alluding to, but they explain why in that article and others than proceeded it - the deal was structured in a way that gives FUN 51% ownership, thus negating the requirement of a vote by FUN unitholders.

This is not accurate. You are referring to fixed costs, which do not vary with attendance. But there are variable costs in addition to the fixed costs. Every body in the park consumes resources. Someone at the extreme low-utilization end of the spectrum - someone who merely wanders around the park and does nothing other than use the bathroom every few hours - still consumes park resources in water, consumables, and labor to clean the restroom. Someone on the extreme high end - someone who marathons rides for 10 hours on an early June weekday - well, those rides, which have a fixed hourly capacity (thus more bodies = more ride cycles) consume ride power, labor to run the rides, maintenance, etc., and so on. Yes, this is what I'm suggesting. And since the bottom line goal of any business is to earn revenue in excess of expenses (i.e. profit), and one time visitors tend to be more profitable than season pass holders on a per-visit basis (see fixed vs. variable costs above), the park should be focusing their efforts on the former at the expense of the latter. And, to bring it back around to the OT, park ambassadors were likely far more valuable for the one time visitors than for pass holders, so axing that value-added resource while chasing volume instead of margin with cheap passes is a terrible strategy in the long term. They're driving away more lucrative one time customers as they chase low margin season pass holders. Not good.

I think you're misreading this. It states that season long FLP gets you one FLP wristband per visit, and that FLP wristband provides unlimited access to all the rides therein, including TT2. Taken the way you're interpreting it, season long FLP would only provide one ride each on all of the FLP rides per visit, which I'm fairly certain is not the policy.

I get that, but the point is that the park should be striving to get the highest per cap they can, and season passes are antithetical to that, at least with CF's bargain basement pass pricing strategy. Yes, a pass holder will spend more in absolute terms during the duration of the season, but that's spread over many, many visits, and each visit carries a cost for the park, which means lower per cap and lower margin compared to the guest who visits for a few days annually, but spends as much or more in that span compared to a season-long visitor.