Six Flags Entertainment made three major announcements this week aimed at generating excitement among guests and coaster fans. Wall Street’s reaction, however, went in the opposite direction.

On Monday, Six Flags introduced Flex Pay by Upgrade, a new financing option allowing eligible guests to purchase Season Passes and other qualifying products of $49 or more and spread the cost over fixed monthly payments. Approved passholders can begin using their benefits immediately while continuing to make payments.

Then came Tuesday’s announcement — one Six Flags had teased as something that would “turn heads across the amusement industry.” The company revealed it had acquired ArieForce One, the acclaimed Rocky Mountain Construction coaster from the former Fun Spot America Atlanta. Six Flags plans to relocate and enhance the coaster before reopening it at an undisclosed park in 2028 or 2029.

On Thursday, Six Flags Magic Mountain unveiled Thrill Glider, a first-of-its-kind Vekoma coaster coming in 2027 with multiple launches, five inversions and a top speed of 50 mph.

But investors haven’t shared the enthusiasm. Six Flags Entertainment (NYSE: FUN) closed Friday at $13.12 per share, down $1.92 — or 12.77% — over the past five days, according to the accompanying stock chart.

Six Flags wanted to turn heads this week. Its stock price certainly did — just not in the direction the company probably had in mind.

Shareholders are worried when they hear investment because unfortunately, six flags can’t afford it right now. They still have a debt to pay.

I don't know how they will get out of the current rut they are in. If they would run the park like they did for our 50th anniversary season every year, I think they could get ahead.

Nothing screams success more than buying a ride that forced the closure of another park....and telling folks a service provided for years is now interest bearing....

Perhaps if the conditions of the sale were released that average Joe would say that is a steal and made financial sense, it would be tempered some.

Imagine what it would do for said park season pass sales if naming the park it is going to now during the biggest sale period of passes for next year and announcing it would be 2028 or 2029 before it is operational....at a park like CP, many folks will sit out next year for sure and likely the same action to some extent would happen at whichever park it was announced for...

At this rate, We may not see six flags last long enough to even dismantle the coaster.

5 hours ago, IndyGuy4KI said:

I don't know how they will get out of the current rut they are in. If they would run the park like they did for our 50th anniversary season every year, I think they could get ahead.

I don't think they make it out and I'm actively hoping for either a sell off, split, or the dream— a sale to a private owner.

There will be several people on this forum who will sing "ding dong the witch is dead" when it finally happens. Some parks likely won't survive, but that's just how it has to be.

I'm not renewing my pass for just the 2nd time in 23 years and I'm not the only one.

6 hours ago, KI Guy said:

I don't think they make it out and I'm actively hoping for either a sell off, split, or the dream— a sale to a private owner.

There will be several people on this forum who will sing "ding dong the witch is dead" when it finally happens. Some parks likely won't survive, but that's just how it has to be.

I'm not renewing my pass for just the 2nd time in 23 years and I'm not the only one.

Everything comes down to scale. My rough estimate is that Kings Island sells somewhere around 200,000–300,000 season passes. So even a 5% decline would mean roughly 10,000–15,000 people choosing not to renew. That's a lot of people, but in a publicly traded company, it's still a relatively small number compared with the interests of shareholders.

I can understand why people aren't renewing, but unfortunately, consumer dissatisfaction alone probably isn't enough to force meaningful change. If shareholders really wanted to push for change, they would have to use their voting power—and the shareholders with enough ownership to really matter are the major ones. At around 1% ownership, you're talking about roughly 1 million shares. That's an enormous position for an individual investor.

That's one of the fundamental problems with publicly traded companies: the interests of employees and consumers can sometimes take a back seat to the interests of shareholders. The larger companies become and the more they consolidate, the greater that tension becomes. That's where I think government has a legitimate role in preventing excessive consolidation and monopolistic behavior.

I actually agree that a private owner could potentially be better for the park. The catch is that a private owner wouldn't have the same purchasing power as a company the size of Six Flags. Food, drinks, supplies, insurance, equipment, etc. could all cost more. Pass prices might have to increase to make up the difference. And eventually, that private owner could face the same temptation to sell to a larger company.

So I'm not convinced that public ownership is inherently bad or that private ownership is inherently good. Both have their problems.

For all the complaints, though, I'm still grateful that these parks exist. People travel thousands of miles and spend thousands of dollars to visit American theme parks. Getting into Kings Island for around $120 is still an incredible value.

As for whether Six Flags makes it through all of this? I think they will. And if they do, it probably won't be because of our measly offerings to the gods of capitalism. It'll be because the major shareholders decided it was in their interest.

Rich protects rich. It's the good ol' boys' system—and the number of good ol' boys keeps getting smaller.

Eventually, the proletariat will overthrow the bourgeoisie. May we all be around to see it.

4 hours ago, robintodd said:

I actually agree that a private owner could potentially be better for the park. The catch is that a private owner wouldn't have the same purchasing power as a company the size of Six Flags.

Remember that a private owner could also be a pretty large company not just a wealthy family.

Taft Broadcasting was kind of a sweet spot because the parks were a small slice of the larger corporation.

Under Paramount the parks promoted the movies and the performance of the parks themselves to justify every capex dollar was not as scrutinized as it was under CF and now Six.

Regarding purchasing power Herschend seems to be doing just fine with that with their $30,000,000 Fire in the Hole and $60,000,000 million NightFlight Expedition.

Last thing to consider. Kings Island is currently pumping more money into the corporation than they are getting out of it. Money they generate is going to less successful parks for investment in them. That would not happen as often in a smaller group of parks.

What I find sad in all of this is we lost Cedar Fair as a company. Before purchasing SIX, they had a good reputation. Sure the purchase of the Paramount Parks in hindsight wasn’t the best decision for them at that time, yet they made it out in the late 2010’s looking good. Matt Ouimet as CEO got Cedar Fair back on its feet enough to the point Zimmerman could take over in 2018. Maybe that optimism the takeover team was feeling led to the SIX purchase. A lot influenced that choice.

In the end Zimmerman is the one that made the handshake with Selim. I’m not going to bother having to explain what has happened since, the sentiment is very loud among the enthusiasts, general public, and stockholders.

And remember, perception is reality. X2 has nothing to do with KI, but now that it's problems are being aired out, everything is "six flags is unsafe, did you hear about the people who died on that roller coaster?". We all know the safety record criteria, but the "gp" doesn't. So the company has to carry THAT stain around. When the accident at TTD happened, not many would associate that with knotts or over Georgia.

I know it has a huge brand recognition, but if I were in a decision making position, i'd want to walk away from the name quickly.

The fact that these corporate morons thought this merger was a good idea, coupled with the fact they thought the Six Flags name had any brand equity/positive reputation, is proof (in my opinion) that this was never going to work. And I’ll say it…. The hype around AF1 is stupid. It’s a hand-me-down coaster from a failed park that may not even come to fruition. And if it does, it’ll most likely be altered in some capacity to be forced into a park it’s ill fit for.

I remember a time when Six Flags was mocked for ride relocations, parking lot coasters, and terrible customer service. Well… here we are. And unfortunately there are quite a few stellar parks, KI specifically, who are going to suffer because of idiotic, greed fueled decision making processes of a bunch of out of touch boomers. Not to mention the talented folks who got fired a few years back because of this merger.

6 hours ago, KI Guy said:

Remember that a private owner could also be a pretty large company not just a wealthy family.

Taft Broadcasting was kind of a sweet spot because the parks were a small slice of the larger corporation.

Under Paramount the parks promoted the movies and the performance of the parks themselves to justify every capex dollar was not as scrutinized as it was under CF and now Six.

Regarding purchasing power Herschend seems to be doing just fine with that with their $30,000,000 Fire in the Hole and $60,000,000 million NightFlight Expedition.

Last thing to consider. Kings Island is currently pumping more money into the corporation than they are getting out of it. Money they generate is going to less successful parks for investment in them. That would not happen as often in a smaller group of parks.

Remember, however, that Taft lost interest in the parks and they started to stagnate until they were sold to keco. I think KI, as the flagship, was sold to a local business man with keco as the operator. Then Paramount happened and we lost Australia's Wonderland.

I digress.

The future Six Flags will probably look a lot different than the present six flags. 2028 is supposed to be the year of "the great reset.". So maybe that means they will be pared down to just the major profit centers. Hopefully Kings Dominion survives Six Flags or the entity it is spun into.

5 hours ago, beastfan11 said:

And I’ll say it…. The hype around AF1 is stupid. It’s a hand-me-down coaster from a failed park that may not even come to fruition.

Using AF1 as a way to change the conversation about SIX may be a bridge too far. Trying to get people excited about a coaster that they may get also may be asking too much.

With that said, AF1 is generally considered one of the greatest coasters in the world ranked above any Kings Island coaster. I don't see how it being a "hand-me-down" or from a "failed park" make any difference in the ride experience. It's an excellent ride.

Lastly, I think you can rest assured they're not going to heavily modify this thing because after all that costs money. They'll get it running and maybe add a third train by way of adding an unload station.

17 minutes ago, KI Guy said:

Using AF1 as a way to change the conversation about SIX may be a bridge to far. Trying to get people excited about a coaster that may get also may be asking too much.

With that said, AF1 is generally considered one of the greatest coasters in the world ranked above any Kings Island coaster. I don't see how it being a "hand-me-down" or from a "failed park" make any difference in the ride experience. It's an excellent ride.

Lastly, I think you can rest assured they're not going to heavily modify this thing because after all that costs money. They'll get out running and maybe add a third train by way of adding an unload station.

I think by adding a third train, they will have to modify the end of the ride for it to have a longer brake section. Even with the two-train configuration AF1 had at Fun Spot, there were notable overspeed issues during that final brake run.

On 9/12/2026 at 4:30 PM, BeeastFarmer said:

I know it has a huge brand recognition, but if I were in a decision making position, i'd want to walk away from the name quickly.

I'd take the step to also say that their seeming refusal to step away from most of the legacy Six Flags branding is contributing to the harm/dissatisfaction that it has been causing for nearly 20 years. At the very least they need to strip it from their corporate social media accounts and all three HQ locations. If I had the chance to sit down with John Reilly that would probably be the first thing I'd tell him. People will see the accounts posting about all of the fun stuff going on, but their brains have been trained to see that logo and associate it with something of low quality.

(They should also start rebranding some of the legacy SF parks to remove the SF name, but that could take a few years depending on the park. There's no reason for Darien Lake or Frontier City to retain their legacy Six Flags branding IMO, especially when Frontier City has an entire unique logo.)

23 hours ago, KI Guy said:

With that said, AF1 is generally considered one of the greatest coasters in the world ranked above any Kings Island coaster. I don't see how it being a "hand-me-down" or from a "failed park" make any difference in the ride experience. It's an excellent ride.

I see it as a hand-me-down mostly because it was built for a different size of park and will require a lot of effort from Six Flags to fit into one of their existing parks. For it to fit anywhere at Kings Island would require either a ton of new supports or the loss of another roller coaster. If it does land at KI then I just hope it doesn't make us wait another 4-8 years for a Vortex replacement.

On 9/12/2026 at 10:59 PM, KI Guy said:

With that said, AF1 is generally considered one of the greatest coasters in the world ranked above any Kings Island coaster. I don't see how it being a "hand-me-down" or from a "failed park" make any difference in the ride experience. It's an excellent ride.

Lastly, I think you can rest assured they're not going to heavily modify this thing because after all that costs money. They'll get it running and maybe add a third train by way of adding an unload station.

Fair enough. I say “hand-me-down” because it was designed for another park. I just think the standards are slipping when the masses are excited about a used coaster, when KI (and other potential parks) really justify something suited to the park specifically. Shoe horning this in for the sake of “just wanting a new coaster” is silly for a lot of reasons.

1. The ongoing rhetoric behind not having any recent/major coaster additions is a wild take, given Orion, the parks largest coaster, opened six-ish years. I guess you could argue that it didn’t meet expectations or make the splash it was expected to, but it’s still a large investment (and a really solid coaster) that came on the eve of a global pandemic and shortly before this ridiculous merger. Expectations should be realistic, with no need to just “settle and be happy with what we have.” In short, it’s a major coaster addition that shouldn’t be overlooked or discounted., regardless of opinions.

2. There are other options for the park that would be a better choice than forcing AF1 into an a space where it doesn’t fit. Between the ongoing potential of AZ’s future, the infamous Vortex plot, and the Tomb Raider building, it’s probably best to exercise a bit of patience in favor of seeing those potential projects come to fruition since they’ll (god willing) be tailored to KI in particular.

3. I have no doubt it’s a great coaster, and I’m glad the plan is to save it as opposed to the wrecking ball solution. But like @WoodVengeance said, it would almost have to be modified in some way for it to fit at KI, whether it be layout or capacity related. It would be a shame to see it altered in any way that could alter the ride experience.

I just can’t help but think the hype and excitement around the “new coaster, any coaster now” rhetoric is ultimately going to do more harm than good when it comes to future additions. It’s a weird time and the future is uncertain. It’s odd to me that a company that’s neck deep in a shark infested wave pool, financially speaking, decided to hedge their bets on this project turning things around. Unless they bought it for a song and the relocation costs justify it. Guess I don’t know for sure, so who knows.

None of this is directed specifically at you @KI Guy. I get what you’re saying. This just seems like a very bizarre direction to take. But like I said before, I’m happy it’s being saved. Too many great parks, coasters, and rides have been lost. So that’s something to celebrate, at least.

Vortex plot? I don't think that would work because:

1. The lift hill is loud. Those pesky neighbors on that side of the park would throw a hissy fit, whine and complain.

2. This is more preference but I want whatever goes there to be placed so as to keep The Beast mystique or enhance it. No flashy lights.

I do have a potential proposal for the company that could solve some problems. Kings Island develops its own farm to table farm over in the River Town area, back behind the Midway quite a bit. A real farm to supply food to the park, for protein, specific to chicken, pork and beefy. The patrons benefit by having a new land to explore and learn from authentic seasonal KI farmers, the park has very fresh food and it is quieter than a loud coaster.

Odor wouldn't be a problem because industrial fans could channel air south and east.

Surely I jest ..or unsurely?

( If you've never had experience with a hog farm, a feedlot or large brooder houses, you may struggle with the attempt at humour).

On 9/11/2026 at 10:37 PM, Captain Nemo said:

At this rate, We may not see six flags last long enough to even dismantle the coaster.

I wouldnt hate that, sometimes it has to happen and this is one of those times just like Chrysler SHOULD have been allowed to collapse and fail in 09. Fighting/borrowing/bailing out to save a fundamentally bad company is never a good idea.;

15 hours ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

I'd take the step to also say that their seeming refusal to step away from most of the legacy Six Flags branding is contributing to the harm/dissatisfaction that it has been causing for nearly 20 years. At the very least they need to strip it from their corporate social media accounts and all three HQ locations. If I had the chance to sit down with John Reilly that would probably be the first thing I'd tell him. People will see the accounts posting about all of the fun stuff going on, but their brains have been trained to see that logo and associate it with something of low quality.

Are we actually sure that the "Six Flags" brand is harmful and/or associated with low quality in the eye of the park-going public? What I mean by that is that while, yes, within the enthusiast niche the brand isn't held in high regard, is that the case with John Q Public at large?

Often it is the case that the things enthusiasts focus on or take note of are in now way on the minds of the average guest, most of whom couldn't name a coaster manufacturer with a gun to their head.

2 hours ago, beastfan11 said:

The ongoing rhetoric behind not having any recent/major coaster additions is a wild take, given Orion, the parks largest coaster, opened six-ish years.

Is it really wild in the context of Kings Island history? Orion was only $4.5M more than Diamondback in 2020 dollars.

This is an unprecedented gap between major coasters. It's going to be a minimum of 8 years. That's 3 years longer than the park has ever gone.

I get that the parent company hasn't been doing well, but as a customer that's not my problem. I just want Kings Island to return to what it always was which is a great park that was always home to something new.

@DonHelbig used to always say "There's always something new at Kings Island." That's just not true anymore.

If this goes on for much longer the park starts to look like Great Adventure circa 2021 where people come to ride rides from it's heyday 15+ years ago with only mediocre filler added since.

4 hours ago, BeeastFarmer said:

Vortex plot? I don't think that would work because:

1. The lift hill is loud. Those pesky neighbors on that side of the park would throw a hissy fit, whine and complain.

2. This is more preference but I want whatever goes there to be placed so as to keep The Beast mystique or enhance it. No flashy lights.

I do have a potential proposal for the company that could solve some problems. Kings Island develops its own farm to table farm over in the River Town area, back behind the Midway quite a bit. A real farm to supply food to the park, for protein, specific to chicken, pork and beefy. The patrons benefit by having a new land to explore and learn from authentic seasonal KI farmers, the park has very fresh food and it is quieter than a loud coaster.

Odor wouldn't be a problem because industrial fans could channel air south and east.

Surely I jest ..or unsurely?

( If you've never had experience with a hog farm, a feedlot or large brooder houses, you may struggle with the attempt at humour).

Cue the Living With The Land music.

2 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

Are we actually sure that the "Six Flags" brand is harmful and/or associated with low quality in the eye of the park-going public? What I mean by that is that while, yes, within the enthusiast niche the brand isn't held in high regard, is that the case with John Q Public at large?

I think there's some truth to what you said, but I also think the issue is big enough to warrant some introspection. There are probably a ton of legacy Six Flags guests who can just go enjoy the parks as they have for years. Where it matters is with the sizeable chunk of guests who had not previously bought into the Six Flags brand (cough, legacy Cedar Fair fans, cough) and who saw it as the biggest value brand of amusement parks. One big reason why I'd like to see them shift to a new branding strategy is because it would show that the current Six Flags is not the same one that has consistently made bad decisions since being acquired by Premier Parks in the 90s.

3 hours ago, IBEW_Sparky said:

I wouldnt hate that, sometimes it has to happen and this is one of those times just like Chrysler SHOULD have been allowed to collapse and fail in 09. Fighting/borrowing/bailing out to save a fundamentally bad company is never a good idea.;

I wouldn't necessarily hate seeing Six Flags cease to exist in its current form, but I also don't want to see Kings Island get trudged through years of a Six Flags bankruptcy declaration. Split the company up? Yes. Let the company get to a point where it goes bankrupt? Please no. Some of these scenarios are what lead to a private equity takeover, and I definitely don't want to see that.

8 hours ago, KI Guy said:

Is it really wild in the context of Kings Island history? Orion was only $4.5M more than Diamondback in 2020 dollars.

Well Orion is only 50ft longer, and 57ft than Diamondback.

3 hours ago, Tr0y said:

Well Orion is only 50ft longer, and 57ft than Diamondback.

You must have misunderstood my long post. I definitely wasn't defending the investment.

13 hours ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

Where it matters is with the sizeable chunk of guests who had not previously bought into the Six Flags brand (cough, legacy Cedar Fair fans, cough) and who saw it as the biggest value brand of amusement parks. One big reason why I'd like to see them shift to a new branding strategy is because it would show that the current Six Flags is not the same one that has consistently made bad decisions since being acquired by Premier Parks in the 90s.

The portions where I added emphasis are what I'm questioning as a given. Is there more than a tiny fraction of guests who are even aware of who owns what parks? And how many of those are aware of any consistent differences between the brands?

I'm not saying I have strong thoughts either way, just questioning whether the CF vs SF branding is as meaningful as we assume, considering the majority of guests are happily clueless to the minutiae that us enthusiasts tend to obsess over. For example...

6 hours ago, Tr0y said:

Well Orion is only 50ft longer, and 57ft than Diamondback.

Some enthusiasts look at Orion and qualify it as "only" a faster coaster that is ~25% higher, with a ~40% taller, considerably steeper drop, whereas a typical guest probably just sees what looks like another thrilling world class ride in a park filled with them, hops in line and has a great time riding.

In other words, a typical guest does not focus on inane details the way that enthusiasts tend to. My prior is to assume that extends to their knowledge and perception of quality of owners' branding.

All this to say - are there any reputable brand-focused surveys that suggest otherwise? Again, I have no fervent opinion either way, just questioning the assumption that "Six Flags = poor quality" in the eyes of a nontrivial number of guests.

4 hours ago, DispatchMaster said:

The portions where I added emphasis are what I'm questioning as a given. Is there more than a tiny fraction of guests who are even aware of who owns what parks? And how many of those are aware of any consistent differences between the brands?

I'm not saying I have strong thoughts either way, just questioning whether the CF vs SF branding is as meaningful as we assume, considering the majority of guests are happily clueless to the minutiae that us enthusiasts tend to obsess over. For example...

Some enthusiasts look at Orion and qualify it as "only" a faster coaster that is ~25% higher, with a ~40% taller, considerably steeper drop, whereas a typical guest probably just sees what looks like another thrilling world class ride in a park filled with them, hops in line and has a great time riding.

In other words, a typical guest does not focus on inane details the way that enthusiasts tend to. My prior is to assume that extends to their knowledge and perception of quality of owners' branding.

All this to say - are there any reputable brand-focused surveys that suggest otherwise? Again, I have no fervent opinion either way, just questioning the assumption that "Six Flags = poor quality" in the eyes of a nontrivial number of guests.

A small sample size for sure, and it's anecdotal - not published. Family, friends, coworkers etc constantly question me about Kentucky Kingdom and my patronage it. They still call it Six Flags and it's close to 20 years since they operated the park.

Dropping faster than a Steel Vengance train plummeting down the first drop!

I don’t think people are as oblivious as we make the GP out to be overall. There's certainly a strong sense of brand awareness. It's been used as a punchline on SNL, for example (2:01), and a quick Google places it at one of the most recognizable brands in hospitality and entertainment. It's also a high profile publicly traded company ranked in the Fortune 1000. People are aware of its presence in the world.

Beyond that, the company has historically wanted you to say its name. You can't really get out of saying it if your home park has Six Flags in front of it, which is notably... every legacy Six Flags park, I'm pretty sure. In many ways, the park identity is tied to the brand which is tied to the park; and when guests talk about their time at the park, they have to talk about Six Flags first. We are conditioned to think of Six Flags parks as a collective, and they all offer comparable experiences.

Now, taking their brand recognition into account, Six Flags has had some significantly sizable safety and legal issues over the years: consider the incidents with Kentucky Kingdom's Drop Tower, New England's Superman, Darien Lake's Superman, and Magic Mountain's X2, for example. When these incidents hit the news, it's not hard to see that "Six Flags" is the common denominator, regardless of the incidents themselves.

Compare that with Cedar Fair's record: Dragster, Son of Beast, Xcelerator... Keeping the brand name out of the park's name makes these incidents appear isolated to the parks themselves. When Xcelerator's cable snapped, it wasn't "Cedar Fair's safety issue," it was Knott's Berry Farm's issue. It didn't have any connection to Dragster's reputation, whereas reporting on any Six Flags issue at one park makes it seem like it could logically happen at another. For proof, take this headline from CNN a couple weeks ago: "Riders suffer life-threatening brain injuries after braving famous Six Flags roller coaster." The caption beneath it references years of brain injuries reported. You have to be able to identify the roller coaster or click on the link to know it's Magic Mountain's roller coaster. Otherwise, it's Six Flags's mistake first. Again. And that reinforces people's impressions of the brand as they scroll through the news or their feed.

Listen to guests talk in the park. They talk about the Six Flags brand.

I'm starting to get concerned about the future of John Reilly. Based on discussions on here, other forums/discussion board, Tower Topics videos, and people actually in the industry. John Reilly has a very strong vision for the company based around enhancing the guest experience and we've seen that with focus group meetings at select parks as well as bringing back Christmas events at GAdv and Over GA after the previous regime axed them. However, with the stock continuing to plummet along with the decreasing guest sentiment surrounding the brand recently mainly due to X2, I have a very bad feeling shareholders may try and push him out which I would hate bc a lot of this stuff is not his fault, but more the fault of his predecessors going back like 20 years.

I'm not an analyst, but to push him out prematurely would probably make the stock tumble even more. Shareholders want to see stability and most investors are either in it for the long haul, or they get in and out quickly. Buy low and hold or buy low and sell when it climbs back up.