Six Flags and Cedar Fair Merge

[DonHelbig]

9 hours ago, SmartCat7162 said:

Do you have the attendance number for the two or a rough estimate?

Indiana Beach does not release attendance figures. Six Flags does not release individual park attendance, though by park are found through third-party reports like the Themed Entertainment Association. However, those attendance figures, often reported in news stories, are not accurate. They’re estimates, off by as much as 500,000 ether way. 

 

[DispatchMaster]

9 hours ago, KI Guy said:

What does the size of the park have to do with the business model for how the park makes money on food?

Because, as mentioned, serving food at scale is a challenge, regardless of the model used. Parks like KI and CP serve thousands of guests per day. That comes with serious logistical challenges, such as supply chain management, consistency, quality control, throughput, infrastructure, etc. How does decentralizing food service address those challenges?

11 hours ago, KI Guy said:

Oktoberfest in Munich provides food to crowds of 120,000 and is served by independent vendors

That there exceptions that prove the rule further proves the rule.

Whether they are chain restaurants run by franchisees or independent local vendors does nothing to mitigate the logistical challenges of serving food at this scale. Could independent vendors produce good results efficiently? Sure, it's possible. But it's not as though being an independent vendor has enough built in advantages to make up for the logistical issues involved.

There is a reason parks the size of CP have been moving away from small window serve eateries and toward fewer, larger cafeteria style locations (Grand Pavilion & Farmhouse at CP, Harmony Hall at CW, Plymouth Rock Café at HW, etc.), and it's not because these companies like spending millions of dollars on infrastructure for the heck of it. It's because centralizing these efforts leads to overall better outcomes.

[DispatchMaster]

11 hours ago, DonHelbig said:

Indiana Beach is 376 acres. Kings Island 364. 

The park in Indiana itself, if we're generous and round up to 96,200 sq ft, is ~2.1 acres. Measuring the park in Sandusky, even ignoring the parking lot which I did not for IB, CP is ~6 times the size of IB.

But the land size is merely a proxy for the size/scale of each park. Are suggesting that IB compares to places like KI and CP in terms of the scope of what they offer and, more importantly. their respective annual attendance figures?

[KI Guy]

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

Because, as mentioned, serving food at scale is a challenge, regardless of the model used. Parks like KI and CP serve thousands of guests per day. That comes with serious logistical challenges, such as supply chain management, consistency, quality control, throughput, infrastructure, etc. How does decentralizing food service address those challenges?

Yes, Kings Island needs food to be delivered on a large scale but so does everything with large crowds. They are not so unique.

Decentralizing food service incentivizes performance. With a meal plan the park has their money already. Any food they serve to someone with a meal plan actually costs them money. The most senior employee "in charge" of each restaurant's livelihood is not dependent on each sale. Selfishly, why should he or she care how much food is served or if a customer is happy?

The performance of one restaurant is minuscule in the grand scheme of Kings Island not to mention Six Flags. For an independent operator the performance of that restaurant is their entire business.

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

That there exceptions that prove the rule further proves the rule.

Park operated eateries are not a rule but an industry-wide norm. With any sea change, someone is always first.

Disney popularized pay-one-price admission.

Kings Island brought back the roller coaster. The business and the business model changes. They aren't having the best time with food at present; I'm suggesting a way to improve it.

 

[Orion-XL200]

Plus quality control, consistency, throughput fails almost every single operating day at these parks. We see, not only on KIC but through other methods, people complain about the portion sizes, quality of food, the wait times, etc. I've often went to guest services or talked with a supervisor about the portions or quality of the food when getting a meal in park. Sometimes it gets fixed, sometimes it doesn't. 

It's only a challenge if they choose to look at it that way....but often they look at it as "we've got your money...doesn't matter." 

[Tr0y]

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

Because, as mentioned, serving food at scale is a challenge, regardless of the model used. Parks like KI and CP serve thousands of guests per day. That comes with serious logistical challenges, such as supply chain management, consistency, quality control, throughput, infrastructure, etc. How does decentralizing food service address those challenges?

That there exceptions that prove the rule further proves the rule.

Whether they are chain restaurants run by franchisees or independent local vendors does nothing to mitigate the logistical challenges of serving food at this scale. Could independent vendors produce good results efficiently? Sure, it's possible. But it's not as though being an independent vendor has enough built in advantages to make up for the logistical issues involved.

There is a reason parks the size of CP have been moving away from small window serve eateries and toward fewer, larger cafeteria style locations (Grand Pavilion & Farmhouse at CP, Harmony Hall at CW, Plymouth Rock Café at HW, etc.), and it's not because these companies like spending millions of dollars on infrastructure for the heck of it. It's because centralizing these efforts leads to overall better outcomes.

I think the main reason they do it is because of the significant savings at the scale that SF operates at, by centralizing its food operations.

By eliminating independent vendors they essentially eliminate the middle man. Which gives SF more control over the overall product and what it cost, good and bad.

[DispatchMaster]

3 hours ago, KI Guy said:

Decentralizing food service incentivizes performance.

Yes, I recognize that there are benefits to what you're proposing, but that's beside the point, which is that any benefits are outweighed by the challenges.

What you're suggesting for regional parks is that a local restaurateur would have to open, efficiently run, and then close a restaurant every single season that is capable of serving thousands of guests every day. That you think this is no big deal suggests an unfamiliarity with what it takes to open and run a successful restaurant. Could it be done? Sure, it's possible. Could it be done while providing equal or superior quality at a similar value proposition compared to what can be achieved currently? No, there are just too many inefficiencies trying to serve food at scale without any of the infrastructural benefits of operating at scale.

3 hours ago, KI Guy said:

They aren't having the best time with food at present; I'm suggesting a way to improve it.

One of the few things regional parks, at least KI and CP, have actually gotten better at in recent years compared to the 90's/00's is food. 

 

3 hours ago, Orion-XL200 said:

Plus quality control, consistency, throughput fails almost every single operating day at these parks.

OK, so how would having independent operators correct this? And you can't just say something meaningless like "market factors" or "increases competition", because those are "why's", not "how's". I'm interested to hear how these independent operators can achieve better quality control, throughput, etc. How will, say, 30 independent operators achieve cost efficiencies when each of them is ordering smaller quantities of product? How are they going to arrange delivery to each eatery more efficiently than what exists now? How are several smaller food stands going to better handle huge crowds than a cafeteria setup?

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

Divesting themselves from in-house food service is not something I think the current Six Flags is going to do. They've spent a good amount of money already to improve food quality at Legacy Six Flags parks and hired new Executive Chefs at parks while removing a ton of other positions. The chain has also actively been in the process of renovating the larger dining locations at the Legacy SF parks where they see future growth.

I don't think it would be smart at all to rely almost entirely on local/mom & pop restaurants/restauranteurs as a park's main dining services provider. Adding to what DispatchMaster said above, most local establishments don't often have the resources to open and close seasonally, especially on the scale of a park like Kings Island. Ice cream stands are one of the only business models that seasonal operations seems to work for.

 

If the parks want to rid themselves of needing to worry about food then they should look into hiring an independent dining services provider like some universities and stadiums do (although I've consistently had much worse experiences with those than I've had with any food at KI).

Kings Island and Cedar Point, for the most part, have good and decent food for what they are. Out of nearly 30 meals at Six Flags parks this season, I can count the number of poor experiences I've had on one hand.

[SmartCat7162]

19 minutes ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

Divesting themselves from in-house food service is not something I think the current Six Flags is going to do. They've spent a good amount of money already to improve food quality at Legacy Six Flags parks and hired new Executive Chefs at parks while removing a ton of other positions. The chain has also actively been in the process of renovating the larger dining locations at the Legacy SF parks where they see future growth.

I don’t see the divesting happening ever. Kings Island has a dedicated food warehouse and warehouse team and also an ordering team. If the park were to have outside vendors more shipments would show up requiring more warehouse workers to unload trucks/ more shifts that will need to be worked thus more labor hours. The park makes more money by keeping food in house. If you had third party vendors you would also probably have more shortages in product due to the fact that they wouldn’t have as much dedicated space to storage.

[KI Guy]

6 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

What you're suggesting for regional parks is that a local restaurateur would have to open, efficiently run, and then close a restaurant every single season that is capable of serving thousands of guests every day. That you think this is no big deal suggests an unfamiliarity with what it takes to open and run a successful restaurant. 

The rollout would not need to be a full change to third-party operations in one season. Six Flags could have a pilot program with one location at the larger parks and see how it goes. Just because something has not been done doesn't mean it is not a viable or preferred path. All innovational moves weren't the "wise" move at the time.

6 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

One of the few things regional parks, at least KI and CP, have actually gotten better at in recent years compared to the 90's/00's is food. 

Kind of, there are more options than there were in the 90's and 00's, but I don't know if I would say the food situation is much better overall. The lines are longer and the prices are less affordable when factoring for inflation. And before someone says "all restaurants are like that," go to Indiana Beach or Knoebel's, and look at their food prices. Two years ago at Knoebel's, I got a half chicken dinner with two sides for $12. For such small operators without "cost efficiencies" they seem to be able to keep the prices down!

There are benefits to this that I haven't yet mentioned— think of the reduction in headcount. How about the steady income from rent? Food would be one huge issue to no longer worry about, they could focus more on park maintenance, appearance as well as ride operations— KI's ride ops are great, other parks not so much.

6 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

OK, so how would having independent operators correct this? And you can't just say something meaningless like "market factors" or "increases competition", because those are "why's", not "how's". I'm interested to hear how these independent operators can achieve better quality control, throughput, etc. How will, say, 30 independent operators achieve cost efficiencies when each of them is ordering smaller quantities of product?

An over emphasis on "cost efficiencies" has gotten them where they are now. Cost efficiencies mean rewriting guidelines for keeping pizza 10 more minutes under the heat lamp before throwing it away. It means using frozen fries even at a place dedicated to french fries. They mean limiting the number of people refilling syrup in the soda fountains. Because of the meal plan, the goal is to get you the cheapest food possible with the ultimate goal of being just good enough that people still purchase the food plan.

Specific reasons are not necessary, but I'll give you one anyway. The restaurants that are actually going to make it will be open every day the park is open. The main reason that the food would be better is that someone will care, because there will be consequences if they don't. That's the main reason anything ever gets better.

[SmartCat7162]

1 hour ago, KI Guy said:

Kind of, there are more options than there were in the 90's and 00's, but I don't know if I would say the food situation is much better overall. The lines are longer and the prices are less affordable when factoring for inflation. And before someone says "all restaurants are like that," go to Indiana Beach or Knoebel's, and look at their food prices. Two years ago at Knoebel's, I got a half chicken dinner with two sides for $12. For such small operators without "cost efficiencies" they seem to be able to keep the prices down!

They are able to keep costs down because they do not order for one restaurant and do not have different suppliers for everything. They are still producing enough food to be able to have the cost of the goods be low enough. But if you are operating as smaller individual locations you are not able to get the bulk discounts since you are ordering for one location and not able to use the same type of chicken. You aren't getting the discount you get when you order a full pallet of chicken breasts as individual locations and that would cause the cost to make higher and thus less profit. Also if they franchise food locations they make less money since they are renting out the location versus running it. If the park runs the location they get all the profit and all the loss. But if they rent it out they only make money on the rent which would have to be less then how much the stands make or else it wouldn't be profitable for an outside person to come in and run it and that means the park loses the money they would get if they just ran it themselves.

While it seems like a good idea on paper at the end of the day the park makes less money since they don't run the stand. The chain wants to make as much money as it possibly can so keeping food at the park level helps to bring in more revenue.

[Orion-XL200]

8 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

OK, so how would having independent operators correct this? And you can't just say something meaningless like "market factors" or "increases competition", because those are "why's", not "how's". I'm interested to hear how these independent operators can achieve better quality control, throughput, etc. How will, say, 30 independent operators achieve cost efficiencies when each of them is ordering smaller quantities of product? How are they going to arrange delivery to each eatery more efficiently than what exists now? How are several smaller food stands going to better handle huge crowds than a cafeteria setup?

Man, I don't know. I literally just said that quality control, consistency, throughput fails almost every single operating day at these parks already. It's highly unlikely that these things are going to improve with the way things are going so far with the merger. I know when I've ordered food at a Legacy Six park, I experience the same things....it's not like all the sudden they are going to care to make these things better. They're going to keep going with the model they're already doing. 

[DispatchMaster]

On 9/15/2025 at 4:14 PM, KI Guy said:

Just because something has not been done

Except decentralized food service has been done. The only difference you're proposing is that parks have less control over how those food service stands are operated, which isn't a novel idea either.

I also think it's telling that you keep pointing to two relatively tiny parks - IB and Knoebels - as "evidence" that this model can be easily and successfully scaled up, and without providing examples of other similarly sized parks that have done so.

On 9/15/2025 at 9:29 PM, Orion-XL200 said:

I literally just said that...

Just because it is your anecdotal experience that the modern food service setup is unsatisfactory does not mean that the average guest agrees.

And even if that were the case, the decentralized food service model offers few, if any, built in advantages that would improve things like quality control, throughput, etc., that would be necessary to improve guest satisfaction.

[KI Guy]

8 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

Except decentralized food service has been done. The only difference you're proposing is that parks have less control over how those food service stands are operated, which isn't a novel idea either.

I also think it's telling that you keep pointing to two relatively tiny parks - IB and Knoebels - as "evidence" that this model can be easily and successfully scaled up, and without providing examples of other similarly sized parks that have done so.

What I'm proposing is novel at large parks which is why I didn't provide any examples of large parks doing it.

If you are again trying to conflate what was done at Cedar Point—the license deals for the park to sell Chick-fil-A, Johnny Rockets, Subway, and Chickie's & Pete's with what I'm proposing—again, that is not at all the same thing. 

Separating the park from operations is entirely the point. Was the Kings Island Chick-fil-A ran as effectively as a real Chick-fil-A? No, not at all! Each restaurant has to stand on its own two feet. If you know of a large park that has third party food vendors not operated by the park I'd like to hear about it.

Your assumption is that my model would not work because no large parks are doing it. You are trying to somehow disprove the viability of something before it's even been tested.

You also assume that scale and reduced cost of goods sold provide a nearly insurmountable advantage in the restaurant business. If that were the case, you there would be almost no independent restaurants out there today. 

Lastly you are not seeing or are dismissing disadvantages of the park's current model.  The current model crushes flexibility that might be beneficial in the restaurant business. For example, a private business might decide it is in their interest to pay its employees more than Kings Island's existing food server wage. It might decide that it will have waitstaff that will work on tips. It might decide to have sales or promos. It would have expertise in its business and allow for specialization of its staff that the current model doesn't support.

Most importantly the human factor is big. There is next to nothing that incentivizes performance under the current model. A private business might offer employees bonuses for throughput or seasonal bonuses. The manager and owner will truly care how the business does since they will be personally affected.

[Tr0y]

9 hours ago, KI Guy said:

What I'm proposing is novel at large parks which is why I didn't provide any examples of large parks doing it.

If you are again trying to conflate what was done at Cedar Point—the license deals for the park to sell Chick-fil-A, Johnny Rockets, Subway, and Chickie's & Pete's with what I'm proposing—again, that is not at all the same thing. 

Separating the park from operations is entirely the point. Was the Kings Island Chick-fil-A ran as effectively as a real Chick-fil-A? No, not at all! Each restaurant has to stand on its own two feet. If you know of a large park that has third party food vendors not operated by the park I'd like to hear about it.

Your assumption is that my model would not work because no large parks are doing it. You are trying to somehow disprove the viability of something before it's even been tested.

You also assume that scale and reduced cost of goods sold provide a nearly insurmountable advantage in the restaurant business. If that were the case, you there would be almost no independent restaurants out there today. 

Lastly you are not seeing or are dismissing disadvantages of the park's current model.  The current model crushes flexibility that might be beneficial in the restaurant business. For example, a private business might decide it is in their interest to pay its employees more than Kings Island's existing food server wage. It might decide that it will have waitstaff that will work on tips. It might decide to have sales or promos. It would have expertise in its business and allow for specialization of its staff that the current model doesn't support.

Most importantly the human factor is big. There is next to nothing that incentivizes performance under the current model. A private business might offer employees bonuses for throughput or seasonal bonuses. The manager and owner will truly care how the business does since they will be personally affected.

There are a lot of benefits by having a centralized food service that @DispatchMaster has mentioned, but the main reason the parks do it is for a better profit margin. An independent vendor is essentially a middle man taking a piece of the profit pie.

[DispatchMaster]

15 hours ago, KI Guy said:

Your assumption is that my model would not work because no large parks are doing it.

No, my position is not that what you are proposing "would not work." I'm saying that there are known built in disadvantages to what you are proposing, and that whatever advantages you're suggesting exist are either nonsensical or not well defined (e.g. "the free market will win the day!", "the human factor!"). And therefore the proposal is, on balance, worse than the modern status quo of fewer, larger centralized food service locations.

15 hours ago, KI Guy said:

You are trying to somehow disprove the viability of something before it's even been tested.

What you are proposing are not remotely novel concepts. It's not as though parks don't understand the cost-benefit balance with having an outside vendor sell stuff in their parks compared to selling that stuff themselves. And it's not as though parks don't understand the cost-benefit balance of having multiple small food service locations compared to fewer, larger venues. 

15 hours ago, KI Guy said:

...a private business might decide it is in their interest to pay its employees more...

So, the downsides are that product costs (lower volume, more waste), operations/infrastructure costs (rent, utilities, etc.), and labor costs (both number of employees and, now, wages) will increase, while overall efficiency/throughput will decrease. It seems, therefore, that quality would have to improve by a massive margin to make it even a wash, much less an improvement.

[KI Guy]

10 hours ago, Tr0y said:

There are a lot of benefits by having a centralized food service that @DispatchMaster has mentioned, but the main reason the parks do it is for a better profit margin. An independent vendor is essentially a middle man taking a piece of the profit pie.

I can understand that. They fully believe what they are doing now maximizes revenue and it's a very tough sell to switch to a rent collection model when the anticipated dollars from that are fewer than the amount they'd generate from food sales.

The incalculable value of better park food and happier customers (vs. higher food revenue) would not win the day at any corporate board meeting. I am curious though how much of it would balance out as I'm confident that third-party operators could generate more money at least given some time and could pay higher rent than what we would think initially.

This is a more theoretical than anything. I know they're not going to do it; I just would like to see it in action because it works so well for the private, smaller parks I've been to.

[jzarley]

Merlin did outsource food service a few years ago (in the UK & US), but instead of outsourcing each unit to different franchisees they outsourced the whole F&B operation at each park to Aramark. All of the food service employees were terminated from Merlin and converted to Aramark employees. This was done toward the end of my time there, and I have no idea whether or not they realized the cost savings/operational improvements they expected, or if they eventually backed off that strategy.

Similarly, one of the last projects I worked on at SeaWorld was the reorganization to outsource all games to a third party company. It was a similar situation in that a single third-party was selected to run all of the games, and the existing employees were converted to that company. In this case, I thought the strategy made a little more sense, since the vendor specialized in games and had some economies of scale and training. The goal in both cases was that the outsourcing would be transparent to park guests.

Most parks (I’m assuming Six Flags as well) outsource some of the more specialized skill positions that they don’t want to recruit or train for (like caricaturists, face painters, etc.)

I’m not saying whether these strategies were good or not, but it’s not a unique approach in the industry.

 

[DispatchMaster]

1 hour ago, KI Guy said:

The incalculable value of better park food and happier customers

Why do you assume this would be the result of outsourcing?

[Orion-XL200]

1 hour ago, jzarley said:

Merlin did outsource food service a few years ago (in the UK & US), but instead of outsourcing each unit to different franchisees they outsourced the whole F&B operation at each park to Aramark. All of the food service employees were terminated from Merlin and converted to Aramark employees. This was done toward the end of my time there, and I have no idea whether or not they realized the cost savings/operational improvements they expected, or if they eventually backed off that strategy.

Similarly, one of the last projects I worked on at SeaWorld was the reorganization to outsource all games to a third party company. It was a similar situation in that a single third-party was selected to run all of the games, and the existing employees were converted to that company. In this case, I thought the strategy made a little more sense, since the vendor specialized in games and had some economies of scale and training. The goal in both cases was that the outsourcing would be transparent to park guests.

Most parks (I’m assuming Six Flags as well) outsource some of the more specialized skill positions that they don’t want to recruit or train for (like caricaturists, face painters, etc.)

I’m not saying whether these strategies were good or not, but it’s not a unique approach in the industry.

 

Six Flags...well Cedar Fair moved the KI arcades to a third party vendor a few years ago. I think they are doing well from what I've seen. I haven't heard of anyone complaining that the arcades are not operated by KI. 

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

In my experience, Aramark can be kind of hit or miss in terms of their operations. Outsourcing games, caricature artists/face painters (Kaman's), ride/guest photo services (FunPix/Colorvision), app/website services (Six Flags used to use Amazon Web Services at least as their hosting), and park map services are somewhat common. I don't really know how things like the dining plan might be affected by outsourcing, but I can't imagine they'd immediately choose to keep them.

I'll maintain my stance of hoping that Six Flags keeps their F&B in-house. It not only feels more authentic, but the third-party dining suppliers tend to care less about experience and more about standardization. What you may gain in monetary savings or manpower, you lose in guest experience. They are far more likely to change legacy recipes, over-standardize menu options, and skimp on portion sizes while raising prices where applicable; and they won't often even get blamed for any changes. Their employees wear the institution's uniforms and their food is branded as coming from the institution.

[Orion-XL200]

5 hours ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

They are far more likely to change legacy recipes, over-standardize menu options, and skimp on portion sizes while raising prices where applicable.

Cedar Fair and now Six Flags already does this. It'd be no different than now.