Kings Island Prestige Pass

[IndyGuy4KI]

2 hours ago, Orion-XL200 said:

Hah I'm aware. I would never consider Prestige as it's nothing of value to me. 

Not even a consideration for me.

• The extra 50 yards closer for parking is not worth it.
• I prefer to sit by the fountain or at a show to relax. Not in a VIP next to a bathroom.
• I have a meal plan. I don't need to snack. 
• Extra pass perks???  Ummm no explanation needed here.
• I sprung for all season fast lane, so the 1 use fast lane doors not really help me.
• I guess the 2 bring a friend is nice, but not worth the extra cost for me. 

[disco2000]

8 minutes ago, IndyGuy4KI said:

Not even a consideration for me.

• The extra 50 yards closer for parking is not worth it.
• I prefer to sit by the fountain or at a show to relax. Not in a VIP next to a bathroom.
• I have a meal plan. I don't need to snack. 
• Extra pass perks???  Ummm no explanation needed here.
• I sprung for all season Fast Lane, so the 1 use Fast Lane doors not really help me.
• I guess the 2 bring a friend is nice, but not worth the extra cost for me. 

Yeah but the cooler water 

And don't forget about the trash compactor.

I never considered the 2 bring a friend as a benefit given you can put a price on that.  And what are we going to charge our friend to recoup that cost LOL.  I bet most haven't even used that as their friends all have passes or don't want to go LOL.  None of my friends with Prestige have used that perk yet.

The front of the line is a nice perk for some but now they started selling that so there is a price associated with it.  Start adding that up and it takes awhile to get to the price difference.

 

[BoddaH1994]

14 minutes ago, IndyGuy4KI said:

Not even a consideration for me.

• The extra 50 yards closer for parking is not worth it.
• I prefer to sit by the fountain or at a show to relax. Not in a VIP next to a bathroom.
• I have a meal plan. I don't need to snack. 
• Extra pass perks???  Ummm no explanation needed here.
• I sprung for all season Fast Lane, so the 1 use Fast Lane doors not really help me.
• I guess the 2 bring a friend is nice, but not worth the extra cost for me. 

Plus… the BAF isn’t a benefit to you. It’s a benefit to someone else. You have a pass! 

[disco2000]

They are using the new prestige money to fancy the lounge up.  Instead of a basket to hold the bags of chips, they now have a vertical display like you see at a gas station lol

[Tr0y]

After visiting other parks in the Chain, Kings Island by far has the nicest lounge.

[Cedar Fair Fanboy]

[DispatchMaster]

19 hours ago, BoddaH1994 said:

Perhaps they’re right.

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.

19 hours ago, BoddaH1994 said:

Personally, I think the guests deserve better.

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:

1. Substantially increase the price of admission
2. 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.

[KI Guy]

21 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Unfortunately I think it would take about 10 years of absolutely nothing being added before an appreciable attendance drop would occur.

Kings Island is a mature theme park in a mature market. Despite what Cedar Fair might tell the media, investment they've done over the last 15 years has largely been for maintaining revenue/attendance rather than growing it. The parks that go ten years without large investments have largely resigned themselves (or have been determined by corporate) to be mid-tier or lower tier parks with steady but more modest revenue/attendance.

Additionally, the long-term damage from lack of investment could be significant. Every ride except maybe wooden coasters would be 10 years closer to end of service. Corporate just can't hit pause on investment and not expect to have to make it up later, that is unless they are only thinking in the short term (imagine that!) or have a more modest vision for the future of the park.

When a park gets this large and frankly old, you have to consistently make major investments every 3-5 years with minor investments in-between just to maintain the status quo. It was different in the Paramount days when the oldest major rides were 25-30 years old. Now that's Flight of Fear rather than The Racer. And that's just rides, you can't forget infrastructure ages like everything else.

[disco2000]

15 minutes ago, KI Guy said:

Kings Island is a mature theme park in a mature market. Despite what Cedar Fair might tell the media, investment they've done over the last 15 years has largely been for maintaining revenue/attendance rather than growing it. The parks that go ten years without large investments have largely resigned themselves (or have been determined by corporate) to be mid-tier or lower tier parks with steady but more modest revenue/attendance.

Additionally, the long-term damage from lack of investment could be significant. Every ride except maybe wooden coasters would be 10 years closer to end of service. Corporate just can't hit pause on investment and not expect to have to make it up later, that is unless they are only thinking in the short term (imagine that!) or have a more modest vision for the future of the park.

When a park gets this large and frankly old, you have to make major investments most years just to maintain the status quo. It was different in the Paramount days when the oldest major rides were 25-30 years old. Now that's Flight of Fear rather than The Racer. And that's just rides, you can't forget infrastructure ages like everything else.

That is exactly my point said in a different way.  There are many passholders that haven't ridden any of the new rides built in the last 10-15 years and will continue buying passes and going to the park as long as it represents a good value to them.  They go for the atmosphere, the shows, the meal plan, taking family that do ride the rides, etc. 

Now new attractions do contribute to the atmosphere and as you said maintain the attendance base.  But at the same time they could stretch the years out a bit and not put in the latest and greatest and most expensive attraction and still maintain the attendance base.

I mean look what a fresh coat of paint and rename can do.  Hanks rarely had a line. "Sales" are exponentially higher this year and many times the line is out the door all because of a paint job and rename lol.

Now obviously some of that increased foot traffic is attributable to Adventure Port being right there, along with picking up the Skyline customers with the removal of one of them in favor of the rarely busy Grain & Grill.

[KI Guy]

@disco2000 But where would the park be without those investments from the last 10-15 years?

The top tier ride list might be:

Beast

Vortex (assuming they invested enough to keep it)

Firehawk (same)

Flight of Fear

Racer

Bat

Adventure Express.

Invertigo

 

Can you truly say that that park would not be considerably less desirable (demand lower prices) due to staleness of what they offer?

If you want a real-world case study of letting a park go stagnant look at Great Adventure --very little investment and a park largely coasting on what they built from the 90's until 2006ish. A great park don't get me wrong, but a park that is showing its age and is down in attendance. They are just now starting to invest again post-pandemic although relatively modestly. 

My point is that you have to pay to play unless you're changing what the park is or who they market to.

[beastfan11]

3 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

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.

Agreed-to transactions? Like the Prestige Pass bait and switch perks? Oh, wait. That’s right. They have the ability revoke any agreed upon “transactions” at their discretion.

And while nobody is forcing either side to “engage,” this type of business practice is damaging to your potential/current customer base. 

Yes, it’s a business. But taking advantage of your consumers in the way Cedar Fair has been doing as of late is absolutely the opposite of what you would want to do as a business owner. 
 

I’ll echo other’s sentiments by agreeing that customers deserve better. 

[disco2000]

9 minutes ago, beastfan11 said:

Agreed-to transactions? Like the Prestige Pass bait and switch perks? Oh, wait. That’s right. They have the ability revoke any agreed upon “transactions” at their discretion.

And while nobody is forcing either side to “engage,” this type of business practice is damaging to your potential/current customer base. 

Yes, it’s a business. But taking advantage of your consumers in the way Cedar Fair has been doing as of late is absolutely the opposite of what you would want to do as a business owner. 
 

I’ll echo other’s sentiments by agreeing that customers deserve better. 

Keep in mind that he admitted in another thread that he has spoken with his wallet and hasn't been a passholder for who knows how long, so he has no skin in this fight and apparently refuses to think that the very reasons that caused him to discontinue getting a pass hasn't got worse....things have got much worse and the Prestige Pass bait and switch gives a glimpse into what they may do as times get worse.

Since he isn't an active passholder/park visitor going thru these issues personally, his opinion doesn't carry the same weight as those that are.

[KI Guy]

5 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Maybe it isn't 10 years, but the point is they don't need a record breaker or major improvement every year or other year and people will continue to renew the passes and add-ons because they represent a great value.

It represents a great value because of the efforts they put in over the last 15 years. If they had invested in those 15 years as they've done over the last 3 years it would not be such a great value.

All past evidence of major amusement parks says (reasonable) investment means profit. If that's no longer the case, then either something has fundamentally changed, or every operator of major parks has been wrong for the last 50 years! 

Amusement parks are like hotels you either invest or go down market. You cannot coast for the long-term and stay what you were. There are other options for people's entertainment and for a lot of non-superfans that doesn't have to be an amusement park.

[DispatchMaster]

56 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

Since he isn't an active passholder/park visitor going thru these issues personally, his opinion doesn't carry the same weight as those that are.

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.

1 hour ago, BoddaH1994 said:

...look at all of the Prestige benefits that were quietly removed. They got away with it. They may do it again.

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. 

1 hour ago, BoddaH1994 said:

Also, people have been promised a Haunt. They can deliver 10 houses or three. The customer made their purchasing decision before any of this was presented to them. Would they have bought a ticket if they saw the product presented?

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. 

[disco2000]

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

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. 

Maybe you are the irrational enthusiast that gets butthurt over one thing and then quits going to the park because of it 

Even with all the issues, fun and value is still had at the park by most of us. 

Nothing is perfect.

Nothing is pure black or white.

If we wait around for perfection, we are sitting in mommy's basement because it ain't happening.  Such is life.

Or, as you see us, we are not as intelligent as you because we haven't spoke with our wallets and continue to go to the park because it doesn't meet every one of our expectations 

At the end of the day, we each decide how to spend our entertainment dollar and are free time.  You have decided to not spend it at the park and spend your time trolling those that don't accept your viewpoint LOL. 

Look, you make some great claims and points that many of us agree with (plus many we think you are wrong LOL), but you appear to not be willing to listen to other peoples ideas and opinions and maybe change your opinion based on what is presented to you.

Many of us have said and agree with you that "there's no business case for catering to finicky complaints from customers who will purchase what you're selling regardless."  It appears that is the business model going forward until metrics tell them to change.  As long as people show up regardless, there is not a lot of incentive to improve.

One area were we disagree with you is "no one is "promised" anything, and no one "deserves" anything beyond what's spelled out when agreeing to a transaction." and your refusal to accept the changing conditions of the Prestige pass.

This isn't the only time that the park has used "terms subject to change" clause in the season pass, but this one was so blatant, obvious, and many "promises" that Prestige passholders "deserved" as it was spelled out as the benefits to the the Prestige pass that were then silently removed and many have screenshots showing what they agreed to at the time of the transaction.

I guess because of the "terms subject to change" clause in the passholder agreement we should expect that you will never purchase a pass again because they may change the terms of something that you feel you deserve and was promised and agreed to at the time of the transaction....

Most of us though acknowledge that even with that clause, there should be an expectation that we should get what we paid for and agreed to at the time of the season pass transaction, and have to use our past history, experience, and reputation of the company to determine how much of the agreement they will hold up on.

But if their model continues to be bait and switch, then we will start to see more people speak with their wallet.  

The question is how much bait and switch will it take for it to make an appreciable dent into the metrics for them to take note and make changes?

 

[DispatchMaster]

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.

[Tr0y]

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

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.

What CF did to prestige pass members is textbook bait and switch.

the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.

"a bait-and-switch scheme"

 

”Subject to availability” More or less is a phrase used as an item is out of stock or broken. They’re still selling bottle drinks. 

[DispatchMaster]

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.

[Tr0y]

2 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

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.

Just because they have some legal language written down doesn’t mean they can’t be faulted and or sued and lose.

If it wasn’t intentional then why remove those benefits to begin with? Was it Coca-Cola pandemic? Coca-Cola shortage? Coca-Cola broke down? Coca-Cola inclement weather? Coca-Cola construction delay? Or was it done with the intention of being able to pocket more money?

 

 

[DispatchMaster]

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.

[disco2000]

Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't a bait and switch either. 

Perception is reality and if a customer believes they bought something with the expectation of receiving a certain benefit that is listed as a benefit of said purchase and then it is removed, in their eyes that is a bait and switch.

OK, so you spoke with your wallet and said that once they devalued the platinum pass you had by allowing more passholders with lower tiered passes access to ERT you quit renewing.

You said "We place a lot of value on Early Entry" and that de-watering/devaluing of that benefit was your reasoning for not renewing.

So you would have simply accepted mid-season if they did away with Early Entry all together?  You wouldn't come to sites like this and wouldn't go to guest services to express your dissatisfaction of a benefit promised when you purchased and simply would have chalked it up to "Season Pass benefits subject to change without notice." and remained totally silent and simply just not renew the following year?

Well be glad you don't have a Prestige Pass with your extreme value of Early Entry.  

One of the said benefits of the Platinum Pass is a Preferred entrance for the first 2 hours of park opening.  This is a tremendous benefit to those that get at the park for ERT or during the morning rush.

EXCEPT - the park doesn't enforce it and lets everyone come thru that entrance.  Many times Prestige holders coming as a group will split up at the entrance as a game to see who gets thru first.  Sadly those in the Preferred Line are usually the last to get in LOL.  

Many people clog that preferred entrance up because they also think it is a guest services line.

Prestige Passholders have complained many times to the on-site supervisor and expressed it in writing that they are not providing a promised benefit.  Supers have told Prestige passholders they don't care and are unwilling to enforce that line prior to people getting in that line and will probably eliminate that benefit next year.

Since you are big on a pass simply provides you access to the park and nothing else, The Platinum pass is to provide them preferred access to the park and they can't even provide that.

You speaking with your wallet but not providing any input to the park as to why isn't really speaking.

One would hope that being an active paying customer like many people are here and making complaints to the park in writing about issues would carry more weight as the park hopes to not lose them as a customer.

But sadly, as you, I, and others here have pointed out, as long as people continue to renew regardless, they really don't have an incentive to improve.

And then they are many that don't get to the park early and never take advantage of ERT and think it is silly someone wouldn't renew simply because they let more passholders in for ERT....

To each their own.  What you put value on someone else doesn't and vice versa.

 

[super7]

On 10/20/2023 at 11:07 AM, DispatchMaster said:

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.

Any business that advertises a product, then has a disclaimer that they may not provide the advertise product, is an unethical business. Period. 
 

an ethical business provides what is advertised and does not use disclaimers to fool customers. 

[standbyme]

On 10/20/2023 at 1:38 PM, DispatchMaster said:

There's just no universe where such a lawsuit would not be laughed out of court…

Why argue with someone who now claims to have such a vast knowledge?! 
 

(DispatchMaster…nothing personal, the comment just struck me as funny.)

[DispatchMaster]

On 10/20/2023 at 2:17 PM, disco2000 said:

You speaking with your wallet but not providing any input to the park as to why isn't really speaking.

Reading is hard:

On 10/20/2023 at 8:02 AM, DispatchMaster said:

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.

 

On 10/21/2023 at 9:52 PM, super7 said:

an ethical business provides what is advertised and does not use disclaimers to fool customers. 

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.

[disco2000]

3 minutes ago, DispatchMaster said:

 

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.

 

Says the guy that quit getting passes because they devalued the ERT perk by letting more passholders have access to ERT 

[Tr0y]

On 10/20/2023 at 1:38 PM, DispatchMaster said:

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.

Do tell about these “countless reasons” since it wasn’t intentional because the only thing they are counting are dollar bills that they are now pocketing by not delivering remotely close to the product that was advertised.
 

They advertised a VIP lounge with bottle drinks then as soon as the season starts they switched to tap water. That is text book bait and switch. The chain is simply using caveat emptor as a means to make it “legal.” It is unethical regardless. 
 

[disco2000]

Prestige passholders have been complaining that the 2-hour preferred entry benefit wasn't being monitored and they simply would let anyone come thru that entrance and many times that was the slowest line to get into the park because it is so close to guest services that people went thru the Prestige line after coming out of guest services.

I have heard from several people that complained that said supervisors told them they don't monitor/enforce that line because it isn't fair to have a long regular line and nobody in the Preferred line and that they would probably do away with that benefit.  With that mindset, do they wave the regular line over into the Fast Lane line if nobody is in it LOL 

I am hearing that they didn't have the preferred lane set up for Preferred entry this weekend.  Any early Prestige holders here to confirm that?  If it was gone, was it intentional or an oversight?

 

[IndyGuy4KI]

29 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

Prestige passholders have been complaining that the 2-hour preferred entry benefit wasn't being monitored and they simply would let anyone come thru that entrance and many times that was the slowest line to get into the park because it is so close to guest services that people went thru the Prestige line after coming out of guest services.

I have heard from several people that complained that said supervisors told them they don't monitor/enforce that line because it isn't fair to have a long regular line and nobody in the Preferred line and that they would probably do away with that benefit.  With that mindset, do they wave the regular line over into the Fast Lane line if nobody is in it LOL 

I am hearing that they didn't have the preferred lane set up for Preferred entry this weekend.  Any early Prestige holders here to confirm that?  If it was gone, was it intentional or an oversight?

 

If true, they may need a fast lane at Guest Services for the Prestige pass holders. I honestly feel bad for the people who purchased that pass. They are the highest paying season pass holders and really have gotten the shaft with this "perk".

[disco2000]

17 minutes ago, IndyGuy4KI said:

If true, they may need a Fast Lane at Guest Services for the Prestige pass holders. I honestly feel bad for the people who purchased that pass. They are the highest paying season pass holders and really have gotten the shaft with this "perk".

They would rather tick off the Prestige "we already have your money" passholder than tick off a daily admission by telling them they are in the wrong line and need to move down.

At this point, what's one more thing to add to the "bait and switch" tactics that the Prestige Pass has become.  

They will just keep checking the items off the list until there is no benefit other than someone being able to say "I am a Prestige pass holder" and are willing to pay a premium simply for that.  It will simply become a status symbol of wealth and sadly some would still purchase LOL 

[DispatchMaster]

5 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Says the guy that quit getting passes...

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.

3 hours ago, Tr0y said:

They advertised a VIP lounge with bottle drinks then as soon as the season starts they switched to tap water. That is text book bait and switch.

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.