jzarley

Yes, any concerns with ESPN have to do with the whole "unbundling" phenomenon facing the entire cable channel industry itself...operationally, ESPN is as strong or stronger as it's ever been. What's funny is that I did actually read one article that mentioned Jeffrey Katzenberg as a possible replacement for Iger...considering the ugliness that went down between Eisner and Katzenberg in the 90s that would be sort of like Cedar Fair hiring Jack Falfas to be the next CEO! :-)

According to this Reuters article, the board would not guarantee Staggs the CEO/Chairman role, so he ("mutually") elected to leave the company...the article also quotes one analyst who believes that Disney is looking for someone with a stronger technology background to lead the company into the future (Sheryl Sandberg--who is already on Disney's board--was rumored as one potential candidate...) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-expands-search-ceo-coo-000518883.html If they're looking for someone from tech, I also wonder about someone like Jeff Williams (Apple's COO) or B. Kevin Turner (from Microsoft).

For some reason, I got a good chuckle at this line in Al Weber's bio on the Apex Parks corporate site: In 2002, he was appointed CEO of Paramount Parks, operator of five major theme parks in America. Weber led the organization for four years before selling the parks to Cedar Fair Entertainment for a near record valuation. Just a nice little reminder to say "wow, thanks Kinzel—you paid a LOT!"

Absolutely! Well, the room was in good shape, so you took good care of it :-) Also, I agree with your point about the coffee maker. They have all of the other convenience amentities (refrigerator, microwave, full-sized ironing board & iron, hair dryer, safe), so the lack of one of those room-sized Keurigs seems like an odd miss. Maybe it was an agreement with Starbucks as part of getting the franchise...or maybe since we both stayed in the same room, we just happened to get one that missing it for some reason! (Of course, I didn't really see a logical location for it, so that's probably not the case :-))

Couldn't agree more with this. Hopefully they don't lose focus over the years, and that goes for both service and general property upkeep. With much of the furniture being bright white, I worry that it will be too easy for things to start looking crappy after a few years of wear and tear. I was in 5318 as well! (At least I'm pretty sure that was the room number...directly facing the lake). I was there Thursday & Friday night :-)

I'm just back from my annual few day end-of-season trip to CP. Once again, I stayed at Hotel Breakers. I was very anxious to see the final results of the two-year renovation project, and was very impressed! I've been staying at Breakers every year for the past ten years or so...I've complained quite a bit (including posts here) about the horrible quality of the property and the lousy service (but continued to stay there solely for the convenience and location), so while I was happy about the major renovation—I really wasn't expecting a whole lot of improvement. But, I was pleasantly proven wrong! Having spent the first several years of my corporate career in the hotel business, I'm no stranger to "surface" (read: half-a**ed) hotel renovations. However, I was pleasantly surprised with the changes to Breakers. This is truly a complete top-to-bottom renovation. The rooms and public areas are very well done with quality finishes, and the enhancements to the beach front are great. They did a very nice job of updating the hotel with modern amenities while keeping the historic charm of the property. The addition of the Starbucks and Surfside Bar in the rotunda (facing the beach) were both good adds. We stayed in a fifth floor room in the rotunda, and the room's shape gave it a unique layout. The furnishing, decor, and room amenities were done well. My only nit-pickey complaint (and it's *very* nit-pickey) was that for the size of the bathroom (which was huge) there weren't a lot of towel hooks or places to hang wet things. (But, when that's my biggest complaint about the room that tells you that overall it was done pretty well...) The other thing I really noticed was a significant upgrade in the service. Even for the end of the season, the hotel was well-staffed, and the staff was professional, hospitable, and very friendly. That tells me that they didn't only work to improve the physical property, but their training and processes as well. It will be interesting to see if they can maintain that level of service—it's easier with a shiny new product to promote a feeling of pride and quality from the staff. The real test of management will be to see if they can sustain that quality of service a few years down the road. I think the best thing I can say about The Breakers is that it's *finally* a hotel that provides legitimate value (property, service, and location) for the average $300 room rate they've been charging for years. Great job on this renovation, Cedar Fair!

That's too bad, but kind of surprised it's hung around this long. If internet rumors are to believed, lack of parts and the difficulty in keeping it operating was what did in King Cobra (which, it's hard to believe now how long ago that was!). I was always a fan of the Togo stand-ups...much more so than the B&M model. In fact, the only Togo I think I've ridden that wasn't a standup was the one at NY/NY in Vegas, and that coaster was horrible!

I realize that the annual TEA/AECOM attendance report is far from "official", but I still really enjoy reading it every year. (And, in the lack of other industry metrics, for good or bad--it's become the source most often quoted...) However, comps to previous years do need to be taken into context...for instance, let's say that USF happens to drop 5% in next year's report from 2014 to 2015...that's still UP 12% from 2013. Sometimes in business metrics the worst thing for management is to have to compete with exceptionally good comps from the previous year. Does anyone know what the maximum daily attendance for KI is (when they close the gates and won't allow anyone else in)? I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 40-50K? With 120 operating days (roughly) that would put KI's MAXIMUM annual attendance in the neighborhood of 5.4M or so, which means they're currently hitting around 60% of absolute maximum. While I know that wouldn't be stellar occupancy in the hotel business, I wonder how that metric would be "interpreted" in the theme park industry? (And, I'm assuming Terp can provide some color here )

I was actually here for the first time this past weekend, which is kind of strange considering I grew up in Zanesville and used to work for the corporation that donated all of the land (and they were always encouraging us to visit...) We did the zip line tour and it was a blast! The first time I had ever zip lined and loved it. I didn't get to do the full safari experience, but saw quite a few animals...it's a cool facility. It feels really hard to believe you're in Southeastern Ohio! From what I've heard from others, the operational professionalism has really stepped up since the Columbus Zoo began managing operations and back-office functions several years back...

Actually, change of plans...booked a week in Italy (Rome & Capri) in July instead of London. (I was last in London in 2012, and decided to do something different...might be doing a post-Christmas London trip instead.) Yes, I too have done the "7 destinations in 10 days" European trips a few times...in Spain, France and the UK. (I drove over 1,500 miles around Spain...swore I'd never do that again) This time, I've decided to take it a little easier...just a week and no more than a few destinations and a few hotel changes. (Maybe I'm just getting old, but that just sounds a lot more enjoyable to me now )

Thanks for the advice guys...after looking around, I think I'm going to try to visit Thorpes instead of Alton Towers. I think Alton Towers looks amazing (I always have), but the public transportation getting there from London just looks too daunting. And, while I might be willing to give it a go, my traveling partner isn't quite the same level of "enthusiast" as I am and he probably would use a veto vote on the 7+ hour round trip :-) Thorpe looks like a lot of fun as well...I don't think the theming is on quite the same level as Alton, but their thrill rides look amazing! (And, it will only be about a 45 minute train ride from Central London...) I'll be sure to post a trip report afterward.

Hi...just wondering if anyone has visited Alton Towers in England? I've always thought it looked like a cool park, and I'm going to be in London for several days in July so was considering making the trek up there. Unfortunately, getting there from Central London is a little more involved than what I was anticipating (about 3.5 hours each way requiring train & bus transport), so I was looking for some opinions on whether or not it would be worth the travel effort. Thanks! Edit: Also, if anyone has any thoughts on Chessington...that looks like it's a much easier trip from Central London (only about 30 minutes and directly on the train line...)

^ I agree...I saw the first Transformers movie and bits and pieces of others on cable. And, while I have an understanding of the overall premise, I had to Google "All Spark" after riding the first time just to figure out what had happened. (Good storytelling on a theme park attraction shouldn't require you to do research...) I also had a hard time following the preshow in Transformers...there was so much ambient noise with the crowd and the audio didn't seem very clear to me. (Or, maybe I'm just old! )

I'm actually trying to decide whether to buy some SEAS stock right now (it's not at the 52 week low, but pretty darn close). There's still a long way to go down, but I'm figuring some sort of buy out (either acquisition by other player or private equity) is likely. Of course, I'm only looking to drop a few hundred dollars into it, so the risk is pretty minimal regardless :-)

I'm sure the new Kong/Skull Island attraction will be very well done...they've set a pretty high bar for themselves. I prefer Spiderman to Transformers (especially after Spidey's upgrade to HD projection)...mostly because I think the story is a lot better and more cohesive. (I'm also not nearly as familiar with the Transformer franchise as I am the Spiderman cannon...) Gringotts is actually the first ride of that type where there were times that I had a hard time telling physical set pieces from some of the 3d projections. The immersive quality of that ride is amazing.

It was a link to a business article...not a commentary.

SF is reporting an attendance drop (blaming weather, mostly), while CF seems to be experiencing different results: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/21/investing/six-flags-attendance-drop/index.html

Yes, the Arrow Suspended coaster that became "Top Gun" was already well into the planning and development process when Paramount Pictures bought the parks...too far into the process to change the plans for Paramount's first season. (Which is why PKI's "Top Gun" ended up as an Arrow Suspended instead of a B&M Inverted that PGA and Carowinds received, or maybe we would have gotten the "Days of Thunder" motion simulator a year earlier than we actually did...but I'm guessing one or the other would have occurred if the timing would have worked out differently...)I've heard two possible names for the original version of Top Gun (and, I have no idea whether either one is correct, or simply Internet legend which has taken on a life of its own over the years)--one was "Thunder Run" and the other was "Swoop" (with a bird theme). Of the two, I think "Swoop" seems to fit well with the location of the coaster among the tree tops. (It definitely makes a lot more sense than an aircraft carrier out in the middle of the woods <g>).

Read the book...never saw the movie. I think that Viacom/Paramount had hoped "Congo" would be their answer to Jurassic Park...didn't quite turn out that way. I think it's also debatable that either FaceOff or Drop Zone were "themed" to anything...yes, the rides took on the same names as a few Paramount films, but there really was no theming involved. The Paramount Parks at that time definitely seemed to confuse "naming" and "theming" sometimes :-)

Well, then good thing then that "MGM" hasn't been part of that park since 2008 :-)

This has been a common business model of airlines and hotels (the latter refers to it as yield management) for years. I'm actually surprised more parks & zoos haven't moved to this model sooner.

I believe the Marvel wrapped monorail only ran only on the resort route, thus never technically entering one of the parks. I read in the Orlando Sentinel at the time that was Disney's way of honoring the letter of the Universal agreement (if not the spirit...) The article on themeparkinsider where the agreement was linked was actually about how WDW is promoting "Guardians of the Galaxy" in the parks on the premise that that particular "family" was not used at Universal, therefore that IP is not covered by the contract: http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201406/4061/ I sincerely doubt Disney has the ability to "terminate the agreement" at its will whenever it pleases...while any signed agreement can be undone, it usually takes copious amounts of cash to do so if the other party is not in agreement. And it's true that the agreement didn't specifically mention the possibility of the sale or dissolution of Marvel, it didn't specifically NOT not mention it either...so, if that was the only legal argument I think that one would be contestible (for that matter, Universal has changed hands three times since the agreement was written...from MCA to Seagrams to Vivendi to Comcast...) If Disney was so motivated (financially and otherwise) I'm sure they could find a way to terminate the agreement, but I don't agree with the assertion they can just wave a (magic <g>) wand to do so. Otherwise, on a related note, why pay Paramount to buy back the film distribution rights to their own film property (Indiana Jones)? Why not just unilaterally decide to terminate the contract on their own? (That would have certainly been the cheaper option :-) I do agree with you that Disney probably doesn't see a compelling reason to force the Marvel issue right now...after all, Universal is helping cross promote a Disney owned franchise, and Disney didn't even have to pay to build the attractions...a pretty good deal all things considered :-)

So, I know there have been a lot of posts regarding that while Disney now owns Marvel, they can't actually use the characters at WDW due to an agreement Marvel made with Universal (well, MCA) many years earlier that protects Universal's rights to use the IP in their Orlando parks. While the existence of this agreement is pretty well known, I had never actually seen the agreement before seeing a link to it posted recently on themeparkinsider.com: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312510008732/dex1057.htm I'm not a fan of reading legal contracts generally, but if you can get thru all the legalize, this one is pretty interesting!

Totally agree! I don't think I've ever laughed so hard as I did in that ride! It was such a simple concept, but really effective in its delivery. (Granted, it was just some special effects in the dark...and you didn't even move, but was a hoot.) Another simple (and somewhat similar concept) that I thought worked very well was a ride at Carowinds that was supposed to be the inside of a ship...you sat on a flat bench in the center of the room, and the outside walls moved around you. You absolutely felt like you were turning upside down, even though you never actually moved. It was wild! (Does anyone recall what that ride was called...I probably rode it around 1992 or 93...no idea if it's still there or not...)

Yeah, this is the one that really stuck out with me. I know Sea World had mentioned the timing of Easter for the attendance fall off in the latest reporting quarter, but the TEA report estimates attendance for the 2013 calendar year...I wonder if the same claim was made for Easter of 2013? I wonder how much of the decline can be attributed to bad PR from the "Blackfish" documentary and how much can be attributed to management structural challenges since the Blackstone spin-off? It's not unusual for Blackstone to load up a company with quite a bit of debt prior to a spin off then let management deal with it (they recently did the same thing with the spin off of La Quinta hotels). Having to deal with balance sheet issues like that can throw even the best managed companies off their game... (No real knowledge one way or another...just ponderin')