Another pay-to-ride scheme, and this might be the worst of all...

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:02 PM

Lord Gonchar said:


Seems that the more and more we go over this is really does come down to how well the park pulls the wool over the patrons eyes. People don't like the dirty work done out in the open. The more obvious it is that someone is getting a benefit, the uglier things seem to be.


I think that's part of it for most people, but personally I don't care how it's being done- if someone is paying to cut someone else in line, it's a benefit I don't agree with. But that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone around here ;)


The other theme that seems to reoccur is the prior knowledge thing that JRS brings up. Is the answer really as simple as renaming/describing the various methods of entry so that paying standard gate prices is now known as a stand-by ticket?

I don't think so. I've stood in line at Disney and have often been surrounded by people complaining about people in "the other line", even though the people in "the other line" aren't doing anything that they can't do without paying anything extra. I've also seen people about to board a train say something along the lines of "what the hell?" when someone comes up the exit ramp and takes their seat. I know that some people might be led to believe that the regular guest doesn't care about what's going on, but I beg to differ.

What irks me is paying to get into the park and being classified as a "standby" rider because I didn't opt to pay the park even more. Another instance where perception enters into the conversation, I suppose. I don't think that anyone that pays upwards of $65 to enter a theme park deserves to be treated with the "we'll get to you when we get to you" mentality.

When I was at SFDK, I briefly considered the idea of going for a Q-Bot, wondering if it would help us get everything done in the amount of time we had (especially since the park was so busy). I couldn't bring myself to do it. There are some things I can't bring myself to do. Shop at Wal-Mart. See a movie starring Sarah Jessica Parker. And pay to cut someone else in line. That last thing seems to put a lot of people in an uncomfortable situation, and uncomfortable situations are things I go to amusement parks to get away from. As others said, this Busch system seems to stick a lot of people between a rock and a hard place.

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:30 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

What irks me is paying to get into the park and being classified as a "standby" rider because I didn't opt to pay the park even more. Another instance where perception enters into the conversation, I suppose.

Indeed. I think it is a perception (or information...or PR issue) because if you just shift that perception a little it becomes clear as to what's really happening.

Imagine any given park charges $60 for entry. Then they decide to offer a 'value' entry for $35 or $40 that in some way involves the occasional situation where you will be treated like a 'stand-by' rider. You know up front that by paying less, something like this could (and probably will) happen at some time during your visit, but that's the tradeoff for getting in with a 30% discount.

That would make it clear as to what's happening, create multiple classes of service within the park and everyone would know what they were purchasing up front. I doubt many people would complain about that.

Well, this is kind of what these parks are doing...with one small (yet significant) adjustment. They moved the prices upward instead of downward. Instead of reduced service for a lesser price, they went with increased service for a higher price. (it's easier to sell that way ;) )

What used to be 'standard' admission is now 'value' admission. All the parks need to do is explain it as such. (that's hard to sell though :) )

And while it may sound silly to have to decide which 'plan' to purchase when entering a park, keep in mind that a lot of parks do this already with parking (regular vs preferred - even KW has a closer area marked off for folks wanting to pay to park n their free parking lot) and with the different kinds of season passes some chains sell (CF's park specific, Maxx and Maxx Plus passes) and even with prepaid food options (Orlando, some SF parks). You have to decide what 'plans' make sense for your park visit.

It's not as simple a buying a ticket and riding the ride anymore (at the big parks, at least) and hasn't been for quite a few years now.


+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:35 PM
I know we've gone over this umpty-gazillion times already...but I don't see where front-of-line access is somehow different than a hundred other situations.

If I pay $10 at the box office for a standing-room ticket to a playoff game, I'm not going to get a courtside seat. I'm not going to get the best view. I shouldn't expect it. Why? I didn't pay for it.

If I pay cover to get into a nightclub, I'll still have to pay more to get into a VIP suite...if I didn't pay to cut to the front of the line to begin with.

If I buy a season pass? I'm already getting a tremendous break on admission, given the number of visits I'm going to make. I'm not going to expect to get red-carpet treatment, too.

In almost every other entertainment venue with admission prices in the range of an amusement park, there are different levels of service you can select. A great seat or merely a seat. Special extras or the standard level of service. There's a market for it. People will gladly pay extra for it. If it were my business? I'd offer it too. I'd be crazy not to.

I'm so sure I changed somebody's mind by posting this. YEAH RIGHT. But at least it's out of my system. For today.

-'Playa


NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:48 PM
rollergator's avatar

Lord Gonchar said: Imagine any given park charges $60 for entry. Then they decide to offer a 'value' entry for $35 or $40 that in some way involves the occasional situation where you will be treated like a 'stand-by' rider. You know up front that by paying less, something like this could (and probably will) happen at some time during your visit, but that's the tradeoff for getting in with a 30% discount.That would make it clear as to what's happening, create multiple classes of service within the park and everyone would know what they were purchasing up front. I doubt many people would complain about that.

You, my friend, are PURE unadulterated GENIUS....

What you've just done is create a plan where *everyone* IS in fact informed up front, where the "classes" of guests are made clear from the beginning, and there's not the confusion that reigns over most every form of pay-to-ride option. MOST of the problems from creating classes of guests stems from the fact that, other than enthusiasts, NONE of the guests really understands all the systems, operational policies, and implementation. They learn by watching us cut in front of them. Then again, pain is an *excellent* teacher...

Think about how cheap Dollywood's Q2Q was this year...think THAT will go up next year? I'd stake my place in line on it... ;)

On top of that (as if there needed to be more, LOL) it gives the "value" ticket-holders the perception that they're being PAID to wait an extra train here and there. Marketable? You betcha... :)

I kinda like 'Playa's analogies...but then again...should I have to pay to get into the VIP area just so I don't have my place in line to order a drink sold out from under me when I *paid* to get into the club in the first place. Geez, no wonder I don't go to bars anymore... ;)

I guess where I'm coming from is that baseball and football and basketball have *always* had multiple seating options....the difference to me is that people have known about different seats in those venues for a LONG long time - almwayss been that way since I've been alive. In amusement parks, people are JUST now beginning to catch on - and the learning process IS a painful one, LOL.

*** Edited 6/5/2007 6:55:18 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:59 PM
I still think the "pay per ride" system OR the "jack prices up they where they should be" system is best. If there is one thing we are learning from these systems...it is that there are plenty of people with the means and willingness to pay more and wait less. First decent sized park to charge $200 for a one day ticket and $2000 for the annual pass...WINS!

A bunch of rich people in the park spending their heart's desire...a business dream. Of course the decreased attendance means decreased operational expenses too.

The conflict we have is in the tiers (class envy). Park's need to start serving their desired customer...much like a fine restaurant serves their clientele. McDonald's is for some people...Emerald is for others.

I'm lucky enough to be able to afford most of this stuff (within reason)...but grew up in different circumstances...and therefore feel much like gator did when he was cutting. I'd prefer to not be put in the situation where I feel like I'm pissing on somebody else's day...or I have to let them piss on me in order to ride a coaster.

Life is full of high perk options (limos, caviar, etc). The differences…those eating caviar are not grabbing it out of Joe Six Pack and his family’s hands. Joe Six pack does not even care because he knows he cannot afford it in the first place.

There is the next way for the park to charge even more. Find a way for us to buy the pass, cut the line, and steal the hot wife without all the guilt. Maybe they could build separate rides for the elite…? Provide hoods so we cannot be recognized…?

Or they could just charge more at the gate and let the market take care of things…

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:04 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

rollergator said:You, my friend, are PURE unadulterated GENIUS....

About time someone noticed. :)


What you've just done is create a plan where *everyone* IS in fact informed up front, where the "classes" of guests are made clear from the beginning, and there's not the confusion that reigns over most every form of pay-to-ride option. MOST of the problems from creating classes of guests stems from the fact that, other than enthusiasts, NONE of the guests really understands all the systems, operational policies, and implementation.

Agreed...and I've come to that conclusions as well the more and more we discuss this same issue. So add $25 to my theoretical new pricing scheme and what do you have?

$60 for 'value' entry with the associated downfalls and $85 for "standard' admission with the preferrential treatment; essentially what the parks are doing now with one big omission - the upfront information.

Perhaps a park like SF shouldn't sell Q-bots inside the park but as part of a ticket at the gate. It's on the sign as you check pricing, it gives a description and everyone knows going in what the deal is:

SF 'preferred' entry is $85 at the gate and includes virtual queue services for the ticket holder.

SF 'value' entry is $60 at the gate and requires waiting in a 'stand-by' line.

Problem solved. (and you can change SF to any parks that offers such perks)

The only complaint left is the price and that mustn't be an issue because that's what people are paying already. It just sounds scary to have it listed like that. It's easier to sell it the current way...much like it's easier to sell free drinks and parking rather than saying it's included in the admission price.

Seems so simple to me...


+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:14 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Jeffrey R Smith said:
I'm lucky enough to be able to afford most of this stuff (within reason)...but grew up in different circumstances...

Ditto. Very different circumstances.


and therefore feel much like gator did when he was cutting. I'd prefer to not be put in the situation where I feel like I'm pissing on somebody else's day...or I have to let them piss on me in order to ride a coaster.

And that's where you lose me. I'll never feel guilty about being lucky enough, good enough, or whatever enough to have fallen into a position where I may be doing better than someone else. I was once that guy who had to wait an extra train (and sometimes still am), all it makes me want to do is work towards being the guy causing the wait. "Someday."

I'll never feel guilty for being 'doing well' - that's silly. We all strive to be there in some capacity. What's the point if you can't enjoy the fruits of your labor?

I quite proud of the fact that my children will not know the same needs and wants I had as a child.

The dice fall where they will and we all have the same ability to influence that roll. Nothing is certain in life and next year at this time it could be me standing there wondering when the hell I'll finally get to ride and Joe Sixpack flashing his platinum pass for a re-ride.


+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:49 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
Imagine any given park charges $60 for entry. Then they decide to offer a 'value' entry for $35 or $40 that in some way involves the occasional situation where you will be treated like a 'stand-by' rider... Well, this is kind of what these parks are doing...with one small (yet significant) adjustment. They moved the prices upward instead of downward. Instead of reduced service for a lesser price, they went with increased service for a higher price.

You responded to your own statement before I had a chance to. And there is a huge difference between the two, even if, in theory, it seems like the same thing. I have no problem with paying more and getting more- I'm the kind of person that pays more for better concert/sporting event seats and buys his cars with just about every option box checked- but I have a big problem with getting less for what I was originally paying (adjusted for inflation, of course).


CoastaPlaya said:
In almost every other entertainment venue with admission prices in the range of an amusement park, there are different levels of service you can select. A great seat or merely a seat. Special extras or the standard level of service. There's a market for it. People will gladly pay extra for it. If it were my business? I'd offer it too. I'd be crazy not to.

You listed some excellent examples, but they're similar to what I said about spending money for better seats at a concert or baseball game or buying a car with all the bells & whistles. You're listing things where you pay more to improve your overall experience. I see a line for a ride being somewhat different because that's a guaranteed part of the experience. A ticket for a concert or game doesn't guarantee you'll be sitting in the front row. Buying a car doesn't guarantee it's going to be the top-of-the-line model you saw on TV. But a line at an amusement park? That's something that everyone is guaranteed, so I see it as being a bit different. But I'd understand if that sounds a little confusing... it sounds better in my head than it looks on the screen.

*** Edited 6/5/2007 7:49:52 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:09 PM
I like the idea of selling it as value and deluxe packages, but what happens when everyone buys the deluxe package?
+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:15 PM
The big softy takes another shot for conversational purposes…as he agrees with a lot of Gonch's "never feel guilty" spiel. My opinions are based more upon the idea that the parks are creating unnecessary conflict and could profit as much...if not more...through MAJOR price increases.

From a very early age people are taught manners. Typically this is by parents…but these days it might be friends, school, enemies, etc. One of the pillars of good manners is the concept that you must “wait your turn.” Try skipping the lunch line at school…you may get your arse kicked come recess. Try jumping to the front of the Dairy Queen Line and your dad may back-hand you across the face. While these may be extreme examples…they illustrate that one way or another…almost everybody learns that they must “wait their turn” whether they like it or not.

Now we’ve got amusement park chains trying to profit off behavior that clearly violates social norms. I appreciate all the sound business opinions, and profit potentials…yada yada…BUT most people inherently know/feel that you must “wait your turn.” We’ve got sports examples for multi-tiered ticketing options that are close to parallel…BUT not really. Let “Court-Side Stan” ditch in the middle of the first quarter and try to cut the hot dog line…watch what happens.

No matter how you try to justify it, profit from it, etc…people believe you must “wait your turn.” There is no getting around this reflex reaction.

It is with this base understanding of human behavior that I form my strong opinion…that most of these pay to cut systems will ultimately fail in the long term. And even if I’m wrong on the demise…I still think the behavior is wrong. Over time…those unwilling to pay the premium will get pissed and stop coming. Parks will realize that the vast majority are paying the up-charge…and then make the up-charge standard admission. Why not just charge more now and skip all the frustrations involved with pacifying tiered clientele?

I’m clear on my belief that parks are exponentially under-priced. I also think parks are barking up the wrong tree by facilitating tiered clientele. In life there are certain common sense responses to forced polarization. For example…you do not hold the democratic and republican conventions in the same city and building at the same time. You do not hold an outdoor music festival featuring Jay Z and George Strait. You get the point…?

You do not facilitate line-cutting no matter the profit potential (within reason). You are just asking for ancillary problems and frustrations…which could easily spill over into the realms of violence. The “wait your turn” instinct is up there with the “fight or flight” response in terms of basic reflex reactions. My lawyerly mind is already grasping “negligence” charges for the first park unlucky enough to get a sanctioned line-cutter shot on their grounds. Extreme example…yep! Beyond the realm of possibilities in today’s climate…certainly not!

The key for any successful line reduction policy is to find a solution that does not involve segmenting the clientele and thus creating an atmosphere of conflict. This is also within the realm of basic business sense. The only reasonable option is to reduce the numbers of people waiting to use the attraction at any given time. You do this by either “pay per ride” and/or “pay what it is worth” pricing options…

P.S. I guess I could “go” for the Gonch suggested “stand-by” admission…BUT this suggested solution does not address the basic “wait your turn” reflex. His solution merely pays people to suppress their reaction. On a hot summer day…after a long wait…I’ve my doubts about how much 30% savings can really motivate somebody to ignore instinct. It is just so much easier to change your business model to attract the clientele that fit your profit aspirations. Given the initial success of these “pay to cut” systems…it should be so simple for the companies to acknowledge that their base pricing structure is exponentially too low. Difficult and confusing tiered pricing structures seem so unnecessary. Just jack up admission across the board (and then double that number on weekends).

P.P.S. Gonch…did your upbringing involve a mobile home? ;) *** Edited 6/5/2007 8:16:31 PM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith***

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:32 PM
Most sports arenas aren't in the 1970s any more...Court-side Stan either ate somewhere good before the game or he's in a private box 16 rows from the court getting much better food catered.

Unless he really, really wants to? He's not eatin' kill-floor sweepings. :)

But speaking more specifically of waiting your turn? Not only do first-class (and even business-class) customers 'cut' in line for flights and eat better food than those flying coach, they don't even have to LOOK at the folks flying steerage as they wait in their own lounge. Nor will the airline hesitate to tell you to sit and 'wait your turn' while they traipse past you to board...

And that's while you clutch a single-use boarding pass much more expensive than a season pass.

-'Playa


NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 5:43 PM
Jeffrey, I like your post. You make some good points. If Six Flags (and whoever else, including Disney) would drop their virtual queuing, I'd support an increase in gate price.

Heck, it would simplify things in the process. No longer would royalties have to be paid to the QBot company, no longer would multiple queues have to be monitored, no longer would they have to pay employees to work the Flash Pass shops and queues, etc. Plus, they would be getting more money out of every ticket sold, not just people who "opt" to get Flash Passes.

Throw in a giant dose of efficiency and a helping of good customer service, and Six Flags could become a good place to go again.


coastin' since 1985

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 5:46 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Jeffrey R Smith said:
P.P.S. Gonch…did your upbringing involve a mobile home?

No, it didn't. But it involved a lot of government checks and food.

As far as the waiting your turn thing - the psychology behind that makes perfect sense, but I still see the big picture in a different way.

All through life I saw other people getting special treatment and wished I could be like that. I don't see a situation that qualifies (line jumping, special treatment, perks, priviledges, whatever you call it) and think, "That's not fair." My immediate reaction is, "I want that." or "How do I get in on that?" or "If I work for it, I can get that."

That seems to be my main difference in approach. The parks are offering this stuff to everyone. If you want it bad enough, go get it.

Having spent time on both side of the fence, I guess I just subscribe to the "Life isn't fair" policy...because it's not. Do what you can to make it as advantageous to your circumstances as you'd like and the rest falls where it may.

So when someone says something like "It isn't fair." my instinct is to reply, "It's never been. What took you so long to notice?"

But I'm with you on the pricing thing. :)

*** Edited 6/5/2007 9:56:01 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***


+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 5:55 PM
The people who should be most pissed by the plan gator mentioned in his original post are the groups who spent 15 minutes and 10 ride cycles gaging the line so they could all ride the same train together-- only to realize in horror, those people sitting on the train aren't moving!

Gonch's tiered plan may be the most "honest" representation. Except I don't know of too many people who like to be told to their face they belong in the lower tiers. They may realize it, but they don't want someone telling them that.

As far as the arena analogy goes, I am a season ticket holder for minor-league hockey. I was fully aware of the various seat prices, and what percs went with what seats when I bought the seats. I chose the level I wanted to pay knowing what was available. I didn't feel many of the percs being offered (like waitress service for drinks, and a padded seat) were worth the additional cost-- especially since my seats are only across the aisle and the vantage point for the action are virtually the same. In fact, some of the box seats with the catered food have a worse view of the game than I do.

But the point is I knew up front what I was paying and what I was getting for it. I was not told I couldn't be seated until every last person in the more expensive sections was in place, even if it would mean missing part of the game. I was not told a had to wait to "use the facilities" at intermission until those who paid more had their turn. From the top row down to those pounding on the glass at rinkside, we all have the same choice of concessions-- first come, first served. And those who come to the box office have to wait their turn, even if they want the most expensive seats.

OK, I admit "Season ticket holders" get in a few minutes early, and we get first dibs at that game's giveaway. But that perc includes season ticket holders for the top row seats too. The one-timers in the boxes have to wait for regular admission time.

It's up to the parks how flagrant they want to get with thise tiered admission (and apparently tiered customer service as well). If the income they make from the VIPs exceeds what they lose from those who have a lousy time and never return, then it pays off. But if not, they'll either have to change and hope to get people back or keep losing money.

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:22 PM
Gonch and playa…you guys seem to be coming at from the angle that “the good life” is called that for good reason. I’m with you 100%.

My angle is from a park perspective. Why are they trying so hard to appease everybody? That is the big question. I guess you can argue that they need the “little guy” to make their profit margins. But the fact that so many are snatching up the “pay to cut” services demonstrates they probably do not need the “little guy” at all. In fact, the success of the “pay to cut” systems tells me that these services, much like their gate prices are exponentially under-priced. I don’t understand why they subjugate themselves to criticism through tiered policies when they could concentrate on higher end clientele and do the job better and more efficiently…and make MORE MONEY!

Some of this fits into my earlier opinions about why the regional theme chains are stuck in the “old growth” category. Disney and the better run privates are growing just fine. The regional themers seem stuck in reaction mode…or worse…inaction mode. They are sitting on a gold mine in terms of the inelastic property of their product. People love thrill rides…including rich folk. There are plenty of rich folk willing to shell out a lot of money to ride thrill rides if you get rid of the damn lines and give them high quality service. Rather than half-step the process…I say dig in and service 5000 guests on a Saturday instead of 20,000. Charge the 5000 people 1,000 percent more for the reduced wait times. Concentrate on the much more manageable guest experiences…yada yada. The sad reality is that I believe the fair market price for a day at a good sized theme park (8-20 coasters) with capped attendance and related wait time reductions…should be out-of-reach for 80-90% of the population. We have over 300 million people in this country…there is money to be made at the top. The operational costs to service the top end clientele would be less than the current tiered practice.

To play off playa’s example above…

I envision Court-Side Stan spending $3000-$5000 for a day at the park with his family…fine-dining at the in-park steak-house…and then taking the limo to the game. Stan is not the type of guy who tolerates unnecessary crowds. Why do the parks presently turn Stan away?

I’ll try to get to the airport analogy later. My daughter is crying… Airports are a different beast due to regulations, governmental interference…etc.

Amusement Park’s are much more like the restaurant Stan eats at before the game. That restaurant is NOT doing anything to cater to the masses. They want Stan and his ilk!
Seems like smart business sense.

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:22 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar The only reason the hockey analogy (or any arena, concert, movie, show comparison) don't work for me is that it's something everyone does at the same time - watch a game (or movie, show, concert, etc). The difference in price comes in the ticket and supposedly, the views of the action.

At the parks there is a turn based structure to the actual attractions, not just the details. That's why it's hard to contrast between the two.


"Season ticket holders" get in a few minutes early, and we get first dibs at that game's giveaway. But that perc includes season ticket holders for the top row seats too. The one-timers in the boxes have to wait for regular admission time

I'm presuming that even season ticket holders in the cheapest seats handed over more money than the one-timer with the most expensive seat. If so, the 'he who pays more, gets more' thing holds true. The comparison isn't good seats vs cheap seats, it's season ticket holders vs one-timers.

As far as the details such as 'first come, first served' concessions - that still mostly holds true at parks, but even at the hockey game, you talk of catered food, waitress service and early entry (and in turn earlier access to those concessions) clearly leaving the ol' first come, first served line to the plebians.

I'm still not sold on the comparison, but if there is one to make I say it just further reinforces the idea of unequal treatment - based pretty much entirely on how much you're willing to spend.


+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:27 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

I say dig in and service 5000 guests on a Saturday instead of 20,000. Charge the 5000 people 1,000 percent more for the reduced wait times. Concentrate on the much more manageable guest experiences…yada yada.

You just described "Gonch's Business Model" - something I've been trying to sell these forums for ages now.

Quite simply - sell less for more.

It would be physically and mentally impossible for me to agree with that approach more than I do already. (short of making sweet, sweet love to you ;) )


+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:41 PM
While "sell less for more" does work, Walmart, Microsoft, McDonalds and a lot more giants got where they are with the opposite philosophy.

The parks already do cater to Court-side Stan. If Stan's got the bucks, he can have exclusive use of the park for him and his guests. Funny how buy-outs don't engender the same response as the pay-to-ride schemes.

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:50 PM
Here I am everybody!

I think I have figured out why our opinions differ so drastically, Gonch. You have made yourself think that stand-by line guests only have to wait one or two trains extra, while I see it as the stand-by guests wait much, much longer. You don't think that the two differing classes are so different from each other. Is this correct?

What is the percentage of people cutting compared to the percentage of people standing in a non-moving line? Are line-cutters more likely to ride more (BG evens encourages it), thus causing riders in the stand-by line to wait even longer?

The game HAS changed, I agree. It just seems corrupt to me. I still consider it a scam, because it does not in any way cause capacity to be any higher, as many people think. It actually LOWERS the overall capacity of some rides.

I wish parks would treat everyone the same, like they used to. No one would mind if they were trying to make an honest profit but lately they are risking appearing greedy. I would even pay a little more for admission if everyone was treated equal.

But should it really cost someone $100 to get into an amusement park?

+0
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 8:12 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

BogeyMon said:
While "sell less for more" does work, Walmart, Microsoft, McDonalds and a lot more giants got where they are with the opposite philosophy.

Dude, you need to catch up. The commodities vs non-commodities portion of this neverending discussion took place months ago. ;)

And is it more than mere coincedence that the businesses you listed all generally suck? :)


dexter said:
I think I have figured out why our opinions differ so drastically, Gonch. You have made yourself think that stand-by line guests only have to wait one or two trains extra, while I see it as the stand-by guests wait much, much longer. You don't think that the two differing classes are so different from each other. Is this correct?

Not at all. In my mind it doesn't make a difference whther it's one or two trains or a wait time that's tripled - the point is you bought a ticket that offered that kind of deal.

And no, there's a HUGE difference in what you'll get inside the park based directly on what you choose to pay at the gate.

I will concede that the problem seems to be that not many are totally clear on just what they're buying.


I still consider it a scam, because it does not in any way cause capacity to be any higher, as many people think. It actually LOWERS the overall capacity of some rides.

I don't think it was ever sold as a way to increase capacity. On the same note it doesn't lower capacity either. If a ride is moving 1000 people an hour, it's moving 1000 people an hour. All that changes is where you pull those 1000 people from.

Don't confuse less riders with a longer wait for some of those riders.


+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...