A Few Hours At SF Great Adventure on a Beautiful Spring Saturday 5/4

Carrie J. said:

As far as poaching goes, I'm not a fan. I think when the park is empty and clearly the walk around is unnecessary, then it's fine as long as the ops are ok with it. But when it's crowded enough for there to be confusion about what seats are actually empty because folks are putting things in the bins and such, then I think it's bad practice.

I agree with essentially your entire post, but wanted to quote this specifically. There have been a couple occasions where I was able to either poach a seat (I hate the term, makes me think of poached eggs or something) or remain in my seat since no one was in line.

In the former case, on Tennessee Tornado, it was a very slow day at the park and the station was empty most of the day, so the ops were fine with me grabbing another seat. I rode it five times in a row, and I actually exited the station and walked back to the entrance the first couple times. After that, the ride ops recognized me and said if I wanted to go ahead and stay put they were fine with it.

The latter scenario was on Medusa at SFGAdv right before the park closed, so again the station was empty and the ops even instructed on the loudspeaker as our restraints unlocked that if our row had no one waiting we could sit tight and ride again if we wanted.

I wouldn't think of doing it in even a moderately crowded station unless I was specifically given permission. And the only time I might ask is if it's completely dead and the next train is going to dispatch with most of its seats empty. But my attitude towards poaching could stem from being one who doesn't generally enjoy marathoning anything.

Carrie J. said:

In a situation where there are safety gates in the queue area, I can't see anything wrong with requesting to wait as long as it takes to get to ride in your preferred seat. I understand for the coasters that don't have those gates where it's a safety concern to allow a guest to wait on the platform and they have some kind of need to get you in a specific seat.

But in this case, I agree that as long as the exchange was respectful and Mike wasn't demanding to go out on that first train, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with deferring to ride until they are ok with you riding in the seat of your choice.

Exactly my point. The exchange was respectful and polite, if not "friendly." I made it very clear, multiple times, that I would be perfectly willing to wait until I could ride in my preferred seat. Travis' point about the fellow that appeared to be a maintenance worker is valid, and was something I honestly didn't consider. And I define poaching as taking an empty seat on the exit side of the platform AFTER the next train has been seated. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how that takes away from anyone's ride experience.

Then of course we move into territory of ride ops being control freaks. They have the authority to tell you what to do, but there is a line they sometimes cross. Some ride ops aren't yet (and never will be, in some cases) well-versed with the ride operation or rules enough, so they opt for the "dicketry" move.

But of course, it's not an easy job being a ride op. Add to that the layer of different instructions you get from assorted authorities, and stuff gets messy.

Tyler Boes said:

I didn't know you were a repair man.

Yeah, I'm just fulla surprises. Or fulla something, anyway.

Mike Gallagher said:

Exactly my point. The exchange was respectful and polite, if not "friendly." I made it very clear, multiple times, that I would be perfectly willing to wait until I could ride in my preferred seat.

So you were politely a dick? ;)

I dunno. A park employee asked you to not ride there and you insisted - it's this or nothing. Honestly, the employee messed up when they didn't make you get off.

Doesn't matter how pleasant it was. You were being asked to do something and refused.

At least that's how I see it. Which is why it feels dick-y to me. I can't in a million years imagine telling the dude, "No, I have to ride in this seat or not at all." Seems really weird and embarassing, but whatever, I wasn't there.

And I define poaching as taking an empty seat on the exit side of the platform AFTER the next train has been seated. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how that takes away from anyone's ride experience.

When people get confronted about downloading illegally (music, games, whatever) a common excuse is, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so it's no net loss to the people who made it."

This seems like the exact same excuse.

And this does get back into what Carrie was saying - we always talk about the equity involved in earning your ride. We pay with time by waiting. Parks let you pay with money by selling FOL or VQ - which some disagree with. But this is taking a ride that you didn't pay for. Does everyone who waits get two rides? So why do you?

They could probably sell an option for the "single rider" line and fill every single train. People would buy it.

Or just actually have a single rider line like many rides do.

It would be nice to see all the B&M coasters at Great Adventure have single rider lines and start at the beginning of the queue. Green Lantern's line is so far in the line that it barely saves any time (if any at all) if the line is more than 30 minutes. And a lot of the time they have it closed even when there is somewhat of a line. It is very frustrating to be waiting for a ride like Nitro and counting 10+ empty seats going out on a train.

^I've counted up to 12 on Raging Bull (on a busy day). It does take minor tweaking of the operating procedures, and the "crowd control" ride op (if there is one during that shift) really has to be on top of things. I've heard Magic Mountain is having more and more single rider queues, so things seem to be going in that direction.

The empty seat thing doesn't seem to bug me nearly as much as it bugs some of you guys. Then again, I couldn't tell you the last time I stood in line for a ride for more than 15 or 20 minutes. I guess if the wait was really long, it might get frustrating seeing empty seats go out, but that just doesn't affect me because I'd never be in that line...or probably in the park on a day that lines got long enough for it to be an issue.

Also, the last thing I'm doing at the park is counting seats and figuring how below capacity the ride is running and then working myself up over it. At some point it becomesmore about you ruining your own day than the park making it suck for you.

It seems weird to me - I just don't obsess over the number of rides I get. You get in line, you ride, you move on, you have fun. No need to be so neurotic about it.

Lord Gonchar said:

Also, the last thing I'm doing at the park is counting seats and figuring how below capacity the ride is running and then working myself up over it. At some point it becomesmore about you ruining your own day than the park making it suck for you.

This sort of indirectly relates to the thread about the idiot who lost his life savings (more so about the ensuing debate about luck vs. controlling one's outcome). Getting frustrated about park ops is all on you. There are many ways to avoid it, and it's all about the choices you make: choosing not to go to the park on crowded days, choosing not to wait in long lines, choosing not to produce an in-depth analysis of low capacity while standing in the station...or, if you've failed at all three of those, choosing to not let the calculated results of said analysis piss you off and ruin your day.

There's my motivational speech for the decade.

I don't mind "some" empty seats going out when trains are hustled in and out of the station (or if it's slow and there's no real traffic in the park). Does drive me bananas when there's a posted 45-minute wait, trains are stacking badly, and the trains go out half-empty.

It's just SO easy to fill trains by having staff direct you to a row...and the faster moving lines mean more time in the restaurants and gift shops...

rollergator said:

It's just SO easy to fill trains by having staff direct you to a row...

Well, that'd be nice, but as we learned in the post that started this very thread - folks don't take kindly to being told where to sit.

As much as I don't get worked up about the whole thing, this actually makes sense. If an op is filling seats, then the train gets filled. But now you have people whining about not choosing a seat and refusing to ride in other rows.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yeah, I think that you will get resistance from some no matter what at being told where to sit, but many parks do it for certain rides. But I also think you are taking the original situation way out of context when you use it as the example. Mike wasn't in a full station on a busy day where the ops were trying to fill trains. The entire station is empty except for the front two rows. I still don't see anything wrong in that circumstance with saying, I'd be happy to wait until it's ok to sit here.

When I walk into a restaurant on an average Tuesday when the place is practically empty and the wait staff hands me a menu, I would be taken aback at being told I can only order one specific thing on it...seemingly because the other person in the restaurant ordered it first and they only want to make one thing and split it. In that case, I would likely say no thanks and leave the restaurant.

Despite my teasing Mike about the back row, he's got a point. It's one thing if they're roping off the other rows as they do on some of the rockets from time to time, but if Mike was cool chilling and this wasn't an attempt at plugging empty seats with single riders, I'm not sure I get the issue. Now, would I have said that I'd prefer to wait for my desired row? No, especially if it's something I ride on a regular basis. I prefer the front row on El Toro, but honestly, I'd sit anywhere if it got things moving. I don't begrudge people for feeling differently, though, within reason. If it meant forcing everyone else to wait twenty minutes for the next guy, I might take some issue with it, but then, it isn't that guy's problem that you can't send a train loaded a certain way.

I really don't see the issue here.

It's my experience that SFGAdv (and othe rparks) fill the fronts of trains when rides are cold. My immediate assumption is that early runs with nearly empty trains, the park wanted to play it safe and put the weight in the front.

I suspect this is the case here. It doesn't matter what was roped off or whatever. They (the ops) were trying to do the right thing. Soon the station would fill and they'd be sending full trains.

Seems weird to me because I've run into the same situation more than a few times and I can't in a million years imagine being difficult when the ops are just trying to make sure thing go smoothly. I'm happy to slide up to the front and get some quick rides in...and I'm never going to fight or argue with people just trying to do their jobs.

Had they waited for the station to fill so they could send full trains we'd be getting a TR about how they just sat their for 15 minutes before operating the ride.

It really is lose/lose.

Carrie J. said:

The entire station is empty except for the front two rows. I still don't see anything wrong in that circumstance with saying, I'd be happy to wait until it's ok to sit here.

Fair enough. He did offer...after he refused to leave that row. To me the one outweighs the other though. I don't see how this isn't being a disagreeable tool:

"Sir, could you please move to the front of the train?'

"No, I prefer the back."

"Well, we'd really rather you rode in the front car of the train"

"Well, I'd really rather ride in the back, if it's all the same to you"

We volleyed back and forth for a few moments...

I mean, is it any different that the park requesting that you don't sit on the handrails or wear a shirt on rides or whatever? They have rules and procedures. Under the circumstances they asked if you'd ride in the front.

Offering to wait it out after you've been disagreeable doesn't suddenly make it ok. I can't imagine the crap these guys deal with on a daily basis. What would have been great is if the train actaully had valleyed because of the distribution of weight.

"We're sorry, folks. El Toro is down for the day because this guy refused to leave the back of the train."

But, then again (as has seemed to become the trend) I'm not the type of person who frets over sitting in a certain spot. I get in the station, I pick the shortest row.

Between things like this and the annoyance at empty seats, it must be downright stressful to visit the park for some of you. More power to y'all, I just don't get it.

I don't get why you are hellbent on the idea that the issue was morning warm-up. I don't get that at all. If that was the case and was explained in the exchange, then I missed that part.

But even still, if the park asked him to move because they were concerned about valleying and in the end let him ride in the back even after he offered to wait until it was good to go, then they have bigger problems than a persistent fan of the back row.

I don't think stating a preference is necessarily being disagreeable. But like you, I wasn't there. Only Mike knows how pleasant the exchange was. I'm willing to take his word for it.

Personally, I think only The Man would try to force someone to ride in a specific seat. I'm willing to fight The System. Power to the riders, man! Power to the riders! ;-)

Carrie J. said:

I don't get why you are hellbent on the idea that the issue was morning warm-up. I don't get that at all.

Because I've seen it happen firsthand multiple times. I'm applying my knowledge to the situation. It seems reasonable to me.

Why else would they ask him to move? You really think they just felt like dicking with the guy sitting in the back? There HAD to be some reason. I'm trying to connect the dots.

Do you guys really think they wanted him to move for no reason?

But even still, if the park asked him to move because they were concerned about valleying and in the end let him ride in the back even after he offered to wait until it was good to go, then they have bigger problems than a persistent fan of the back row.

Right? I totally agree with this. In fact, earlier in this thread I said:

Honestly, the employee messed up when they didn't make you get off.

I'm with you 100% on that part, Carrie. There's no way he should have been allowed to ride after they asked him to move. If he insisted on riding in the back, he should've had to stand there watching trains dispacth until the weight distribution and/or temperature allowed them to run with weight in the back.

"Fine sir, you can wait right there then. But I have no idea how long you'll be standing there before we can let you board."

I'll even give that the overall situation could've been handled better on the employee side...but it still doesn't outweigh the fact that you were asked to move and refused.

Flat out. Dick move.

Double post, sorry. Dick move on my part. ;)

Carrie J. said:

When I walk into a restaurant on an average Tuesday when the place is practically empty and the wait staff hands me a menu, I would be taken aback at being told I can only order one specific thing on it...seemingly because the other person in the restaurant ordered it first and they only want to make one thing and split it.

Actually, that's a horrible example.

What it's more like is visiting the restaurant when they first open and aren't really busy so they only have one small section in the main dining area set up to take seating and staffed (which makes perfect sense - happens all over the place during slow hours). But you insist that you only like the tables in the back near the window and refuse to sit anywhere else in the restaurant.