Does Six Flags Neglect Parks

Monday, July 22, 2002 10:54 AM
I have noticed that a few of the Six Flags Parks are being neglected. Six Flags Astroworld being (in my opinion) the main one. This park is so dirty, and every ride, except Serial Thriller, could use a major paint job. All of the big parks like Six Flags Magic Mountain have enough rides, but they keep getting more, while the smaller parks, that could actually use something new, are left neglected. How do you feel about this?

-----------------
I Survived Millennium Force!

1.) Millennium Force 2.) Steel Eel 3.) Raptor 4.) Mantis 5.) Magnum XL-200

*** This post was edited by Lance Baker on 7/22/2002. ***

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 11:00 AM

That's really two issues. The cleanliness of a given park is the responsibility of the staff working there. Obviously Six Flags expects some sort of standards, but it's up to the local staff to live up to that.

As far as which parks get new rides, etc. It's all about the market. Obviously SF wants to make their biggest moneymakers grow even more. A park like SFMM has tons of competition and needs to compete. Ditto with SFWOA. A park like Astroworld has little competition and investing huge dollars into a park people will tend to visit regardless just doesn't make sense. It's not neglect, it's business.

-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park visits in 2002: 14

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 11:07 AM
SFeg looked like it was neglected but now it got TFC.

-----------------
Sean

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 11:12 AM

Lord Gonchar said:

The cleanliness of a given park is the responsibility of the staff working there. Obviously Six Flags expects some sort of standards, but it's up to the local staff to live up to that.

...and it's up to the local GMs and such to enforce those policies, and to set a good example...Hate to bring up HW again (lol) but when the OWNERS of the park are seen picking up trash, it certainly sets a strong example that employees are MUCH more willing to follow.

Once last year I saw a SFA employee walking down the path with her boyfriend while he was drinking a soda. He stops RIGHT between two trash cans less than 20 feet apart to deposit his cup on the concrete wall....guests will follow the lead they're given, by and large....


+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 11:20 AM

rollergator said:

Hate to bring up HW again (lol) but when the OWNERS of the park are seen picking up trash, it certainly sets a strong example that employees are MUCH more willing to follow.

Not related exactly... but that brings up two different accounts I read of Milton S. Hershey. He would often be seen walking through Hershey Park (as it was then called... the one word name is as recent as 1970 or so), and he would stop to pick up trash... unless it was a Hershey Bar wrapper. It was said that he would leave those laying on the ground... face up. Nothing like free advertising.

Just goes to show that over the decades, some park owners still do get out and about themselves and are not above doing even the smallest thing to make their parks better.

-----------------
"Roland yelled 'Hey, man, we done run out of track!" (Bill Cosby, "Roland and the Roller Coaster")



*** This post was edited by SLFAKE on 7/22/2002. ***

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 11:20 AM

Lance Baker said:

"Does Six Flags Neglect Parks"

Is a frog's butt water-tight?

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 11:32 AM

I think Six Flags pumps up a park with ride and then when they realize they can't add any more, they neglect the park, but still keep it as their own. For example with SFWoA. I know there is still some room but I think Six Flags is about to give up with trying to get permission from the town to build taller and more up-to-date rides. I think they added on to SFEG because it has room and it already had one good ride there. SFMM gets stuff because it has room and there seem to be no problems building things.

Or...How ever much a park makes a year depends on if they get something the next year. That might be why SFMM keeps getting rides and why SFEG got TFC. I don't know about anything else and please don't take my word for it. It's just my theory.

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 12:55 PM

SpongeBobAlex said:

I think they added on to SFEG because it has room and it already had one good ride there.



SFEG did not get TFC because it has room. The coaster is so small you could probably fit three, maybe four on a football field. And they even had to take out some parking lot to add it. The reason SFEG got TFC is because SF has only added Boomerang to the park, and besides that, has just taken away rides and added Turbobungy. Parks like SFMM get new rides almost every 2 years, while SFEG gets two small and rough coasters in 4 years. But, SFEG is a clean, well kept park. I think with SF Astroworld, part of the problem is the local managment at the park, if they want a clean park they can have it, and SF will most likely give them the funds.

Here's what I think about SF neglecting parks. Do they do it? Yes. Will they continue to do it? Yes. Is it smart of them to do it? Yes. Why add coasters every two years to parks like SFEG when the guests will continue to come either way. It is smart financialy to do it. Whereas at SFMM there is so much competition that the attendence will decline if you don't add the next best thing because you have plenty of parks around you that are.

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 1:12 PM
I totally agree that Six Flags parks are neglected. I don't think it matters that SFMM has room. There is no need to get three coasters in one year (right after getting Goliath). I think the main reason for this was to catch up with CP in coasters. I think that SFMM should definetly have 15 coasters, but not now. They should have put in new flat rides after adding Goliath. Then in 2002 they should have added EITHER Deja vu or X. I just think it's too much too fast. Now there are all the problems with X. I think Six Flgas needs to slow down and start giving to each park equally. To say that SF Astroworld doesn't need to get new rides because it has no competition is lame. Every Park shold get something new each year (wether it be a ride or coaster) if they have the proper requirements (hight, space, etc.) To just throw 4 coasters into one park in 2 years and neglect the others is not a good idea. I think Cedar Fair does the same thing. Don't they own a chain of parks? Latley (besides Knott's) I haven't heard anything but Cedar Point from them. IMO, Paramount's does the same thing. I think King's Island is a little spoiled.
+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 1:28 PM

It's all based on return on investment. A big park like SFMM has high attendance that allows them to afford more (as well as more expensive) rides than a park with lower attendance (SFEG, SFAW).

I can imagine a certain calculation based on admissions collected that affects how quickly (or not) rides are added at each park. Does that create "two classes" of parks, yes. But no corporation can dump endless amounts of cash into a location that cannot support the improvements that are going in there...

-----------------
Posting, "Me too" like some brain dead AOLer. I ought to to the world a favor, and cap you like old yeller...

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 1:34 PM
I think in some cases Six Flags ignores rides that are no longer the main attraction...especially wooden coasters. I think it is fair to say most SF parks have a wooden coaster that needs serious attention. I understand they will spend $$ for new rides which attract the crowds but it is sad when old woodies are ignored...or reprofiled for no reason, then ignored and left in disrepair.

-----------------

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 1:35 PM
Yeah, attendence is a big thing. But SFEG gets enough attendence in 4 years to pay for TFC over and over again. It's not like all the money that SFMM makes or SFEG or SFKK makes stays at that park. A lot of SFEG money has gone to benefit other parks. It's like Taxpayers pay for the welfare, it happens, but it is smart by SF.
+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 2:12 PM

Lance, you and others disappointed in their home parks should send them an Email or write a letter. Most parks are happy to hear from their customers. If enough people write in to the top brass and tell them how disgusting the park is or how bad the ride ops were or the food was no good or whatever is the case, changes will be made. The public is a parks bread and butter and they know if we are unhappy, we will not be back as often.

On the other hand, I always try to thank them when the park is clean and for good food and friendly people.

-----------------
The worst day at Cedar Point is better than the best day at work.

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 2:29 PM

I agree. This notion that parks don't care what their customers have to say, for the most part, is false. I wrote a nice little letter to SFMM and got a very satisfying response!

Thing is, I didn't write them complaining because they don't build a giga coaster, or because X is closed or because some stupid bathroom was dirty. It was a positive letter, first complimenting the park on where I felt they suceeded, then adding a few suggestions from "my family" and I. Parks can't resist it when you mention family, and the fact that you spend LOTS of money in their park.

It's all how you play the game...

-----------------
"Escuse me, can you tell me where the heck the Mystery Lodge is"?

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 3:37 PM
uh.....yes. Just at one yesterday. Understaffed, dirty, full and poor capacity.

-----------------
There's nothing like a woodie...

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 4:13 PM

Palwine:

The maintenance of wooden coasters at Six Flags parks seems to be a function of local management and maintenance.

SFA takes excellent care of their woodies even though they are not the featured rides.

SFSt. Louis doesn't seem to do a good job of caring for the Boss even though it is new and a featured attraction. Screaming Eagle is also neglected.

SFKK takes pretty good care of their woodies.

There is good reason for the one woodie at SFGAdv to be retered to as "Rotting Lumber".

SFWoA takes so so care of its woodies.

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 4:45 PM

SFMW takes pretty good care of Roar. I know people will disagree with me, but I think the notion that Six Flags does not care about their wooden coasters is a bunch of hogwash. I certainly don't think it's by design anway. There is an art to making a wooden coaster run like the ones at Holiday World. If everyone could do it, they would.

Just because Mean Streak runs like crap, doesn't mean Cedar Point doesn't care about it.

-----------------
"Escuse me, can you tell me where the heck the Mystery Lodge is"?

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 5:28 PM
I believe wholeheartedly that SF does neglect their parks. For example, this last Saturday SFEG had over 12,000 people in the park at one time. It is like that almost every weekend and the park is not exactly deserted on weekdays either. It has been like this for the last 2 or 3 years, yet the first thing we got was the Flying Coaster, which as someone said is not exactly a huge investment. Don't take me wrong, I am very pleased that we did get a new ride this year. I just want to know where the money we have made for SF over the last 2 or 3 years has gone. Could it have paid for that giant peice of yellow and pink architecture that is currently collecting dust out in LA? I think that is very likely.

-----------------
"Standing in line to see the show tonight and there's a light on, heavy glow, by the way I tried to say I'd be there."-The Red Hot Chili Peppers

*** This post was edited by Mustang on 7/22/2002. ***

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 5:36 PM

A lot of people are saying that if the park brings in more money they will get a new ride. Well the biggest way to bring in more money is to build new things. If a park is only doing so so they aren't goin to just start doing good. They need new rides to ring in more money. In big chains like six flags they should think about distrubuting there money so that even if park does bad then the others can help it out. That way the parks aren't neglected as much

+0
Monday, July 22, 2002 6:05 PM

Is there a correlation between the way a park takes care of its wooden coasters and the way it cares for its guests......(or maybe its employees). I just have to wonder why some of the parks seem to have ongoing "staffing issues"....

If you can afford 15-20M for a new coaster, go ALL out and spend an extra 50 bucks an hour to staff rides, and to keep the park clean...while you're at it, why not treat your guests in a friendly manner, that costs NOTHING.....just my random thoughts...

-----------------
If you're not watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", you're just watching the news....

+0

Closed topic.

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...