Bye bye Astroworld!
Coaster Cynic said:
We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I think if you understood the situation fully and had all the facts you woudn't agree. Even Amusement Today thinks it is a terrible choice. If it is such a good idea, why did Six Flags lie about their intentions until September 12?
Uh. That Amusement Today article online was the personal opinion of ONE editor, not the census viewpoint of everyone that is affiliated with them. Second, WHAT of their intentions exactly did Six Flags "lie" about?
But you know, it does not matter if we agree or not because in a few short weeks, the gates will close for the last time and after Six Flags gets the money from the land sale, Astroworld will not provide another penny to help the company pay off the debt. And Six Flags will need every penny.
You talk as if Six Flags doesn't have 30-some other parks still beneath their wing to generate cash flow for them.
And anybody who dismisses lack of agreement as "Whining" has shown a complete lack of respect for people who grew up with SFAW and supported the park for many years. C'mon, have some compassion here even if you disagree.
I can somewhat sympathize with you. A lot of people did grow up going to this park and it's hard to let go of something you've been familiar for so many years - and in some cases - since childhood. HOWEVER, for these exact emotional reasons a lot of you Houston locals or individuals that call AstroWorld your "homepark" are not thinking from a rational viewpoint and how the sale is in the best interest for the current situation and condition regarding the parent company, sister properties, and AstroWorld itself.
Obviously the people on this board who dont want this to happen are the minority.
If a lot of people didnt want this to happen the attendance of the park would have been higher.
majortom1981 said:
I am going to sound a little mean.Obviously the people on this board who dont want this to happen are the minority.
If a lot of people didnt want this to happen the attendance of the park would have been higher.
That's just dumb. Astroworld had better attendance than SFDL, SFA, SFEG, SFStL, SFKK, SFNO, Frontier City, Enchanted Village, Wyandot Lake, The Great Escape, La Ronde... * I suppose a lot of people want those Six Flags parks bulldozed too, huh?
The people on the board who want this to happen are largely jackals who'll take any grubby addition to their local Six Flags park at the expense of one of the founding and most historic properties in the chain.
SFAW wasn't performing all that bad, certainly in step with the rest of the chain and in relation to the amount of $ Six Flags had been willing to invest in the place. It's hard to lose money on a property you aren't spending any on, as was the case here.
This is just a desperate, shortsighted measure on behalf of the bean counters at SF corporate to do something about the huge financial mess they've made. A reasonably popular and moderately profitable amusement park in Houston's getting the scrap due to sheer incompetant business moves SF made all thoughout the rest of the country. We in Houston get to pay for their mistakes and lose the only large amusement park within 3 hours of this large metropolitan area (and 1/4th of the state's wooden coasters at that).
San Antonio is a pretty substantial drive from here, and with gas prices as they are I dont see a whole lot of folks paying $50+ just to get there and back (and then happily forking over an extra $8 to park). At least if they did there's a SeaWorld to visit instead of going to crummy Six Flags. Most of you if you lost your nearest amusement park have something else within a 2 hr radius, something a little better than a parking lot carnival.
Is the land Astroworld sits on really that valuable? A lot of analysts seem to think SF is being overly optimistic about what they can get for it. There certainly are a lot of unsold empty parcels of land nearby as is, not to mention car dealerships and other metal building establishments. And if this is really the best way to handle their current situation - should they bulldoze and sell Elitch Gardens and Six Flags America as well to cash in on the land value? What a despicable sentiment for so-called amusement park enthusiasts.
* going by the 2003 attendance figures posted by Amusement Business, they're charging $10 for the 2004 graph and I didn't feel like ponying that up to illustrate a point.
http://www.amusementbusiness.com/amusementbusiness/images/pdf/2003-top-50-north-america.pdf
Everyone seems to think selling a park to possibly pay for around 1/21* of SF's debt is going to do miracles for the well-being of the company for the long term... All this is designed to do is make investors a little more happy TODAY and make their stock go up NOW. There is another 20/21 of the debt to go- so hold on other Six Flags parks, there's a long way to go! The doomsday clock is still going even if it gets turned back by 1/21!
*based on a debt of 2.1 billion dollars (could possibly be as high as 2.7 billion in reality so I've heard)
*** Edited 10/13/2005 3:57:53 AM UTC by Cameraman***
"...how the sale is in the best interest for the current situation and condition regarding the parent company, sister properties, and AstroWorld itself."
Is it a good decision to close the park because it isn't profitable? Is it a good decision to close the park because it isn't going anywhere?
Well, that's where the misguided comes in. I think that a lot of people believe the park is draining money from SFI. However, once you think about it, it should be making a good deal of money without any pricy additions from the recent years to pay off and I'd imagine the land is paid off if not close. Fact is that Astroworld made money and I think that people simply cannot believe that (myself included on first glance) and therefore think this is a good move for Six Flags in trying to cut losses and gain some cash, when it will only do one of those two.
The park isn't going anywhere because it is dated and in need of massive improvements that Six Flags just hasn't given. If it got the correct attention it could be one of the top 5 Six Flags parks in attendance and revenue and be successful like it was in the early day.
Did I get that right for those more familiar with the park?
I think that's what 'Cameraman' was trying to say.
*** Edited 10/13/2005 5:44:10 AM UTC by Jophish***
Another misguided concept I was trying to present (in fact I DID say it and most of my post above was about this) was the belief that this sale is going to somehow make miraculous changes overnight! DIDN'T happen with SFWoA, WON'T happen with SFAW. It seems like everyone who argues that it should be leveled thinks this is the #1 solution and Six Flags knows fine and dandy what they're doing... Well, since when have they known what they're doing and why are they suddenly so "wise" now to sell this park? I'm not buying their excuse unlike many others around here!
Granted they've improved somewhat at a few parks, but overall it still seems to be greatly lacking for the majority of their parks. Let's put it this way, even at their very best customer service, SFI parks are no HW.
No *consultant* is going to be able to come in and fix what's broke if the GM running (ruining?) the park isn't committed to a more positive way of doing business...and importantly, the way the GM treats park staff is reflected in the way staff treats guests...sadly, as at SFAW, the park employees and the locals are the ones who ultimately suffer the consequences.
Unfortunately, guest relations is something that has a long "lag", and takes a longer-term commitment. The results aren't immediate enough to satisfy short-sighted senior management looking for a "quick fix".
First off, not only do they have to have a 'Customer Service Training' program in place, it needs to be an effective one. Then, lower levels of management have to be the ones enforcing that, making sure that the ride ops, food and retail personel, security, etc. are providing customer service.
Then Higher levels of Management need to look and see where things aren't quite working, and remedy the situation (is there a large portion of the employees getting bad reports that are under a certain manager?).
To do this takes training, committment, a want to provide customers with the best, and the will to compensate correctly.
People aren't going to be happy if they don't at least feel that it is worth their while to be happy. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be giving the best customer service possible at all times, but when it is a company wide problem, then obviously the problem lies with company controlled things like pay, benifits, treatment of employes, bonuses, management issues, discipline, action, and followup.
The only 'problem' with Six Flags Incorporated is a Customer Service Problem. If someone would fix that, then all of the other 'problems' that people think are unrelated would disappear. Maintainance would improve. Cleanliness would improve. Spending habits would improve. Everything would improve.
But you can't make the pee-ons provide the best possible Customer Service Experience if the highest levels don't seem to care about it either.
You must be logged in to post
