Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:14 PM
Now I am just curious as to how SF was operated under Time Warner. So that means how things were at SFStl, SFMM, SFGam, SFOG, SFGadv, SFFT, SFOT, SFFT, and SFAW before the Premier buyout. Basically, all the "original" six flags parks.
I was just wondering how the customer service was, capacity issues, and cleanliness were dealt with under Time Warner. Were certain parks operated better or when Premier came into the picture did things take a turn for the worse at certain Six Flags parks?
Now I am not trying to say that all Six Flags parks are all poorly run and are just bad now since Premier took over. There are certainly good Six Flags parks such as SFGam(which seems to be the best), but in other SF parks there have been major problems such as at SFMM.
I'm just curious
Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:25 PM
The only thing i know for sure about SF and Time Warner is that TW lost money on the venture for several years prior to Premiers acquisition of the parks/brand. They may have been operating them well, but they weren't managing them; er, wait a minute, that sounds vaguely familiar. Now they aren't managed well or operated well either!
Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:39 PM
SFoG was much worse under Time Warner's management. In fact, the owners of the park won a large lawsuit against Time Warner regarding mismanagement of the park in an effort to drive down the value so it could be bought cheap. There was rarely any consideration for park guests - at least I rarely saw it. All in all, SFoG is much better since Time Warner has been out of the picture. *** Edited 12/25/2003 4:40:29 AM UTC by Fafolguy***
Thursday, December 25, 2003 12:20 AM
All in all, SFoG is much better since Time Warner has been out of the picture. *** Edited 12/25/2003 4:40:29 AM UTC by Fafolguy***
The last I recall, the General and the Texas are out rotting in the woods....
Other than that, I guess SFOG has improved. I hear the parking lot trams will be back next season, and MP is getting some new lighting effects as well.
Thursday, December 25, 2003 12:43 AM
Under Time Warner, they built Viper at Great Adventure. Need I say anymore?
Thursday, December 25, 2003 6:33 PM
From what I heard from someone who used to be a manager at SFGAdv, (NJ), I took his talking about the park when he left to mean that things went down hill as soon as Premier took over. Supposedly, he left SF shortly after, and now manages a movie theater.
Then again, this is only hearsay. I have never been to SFNJ, and probably will not be able to visit until I have enough income to do an east coast trip.
Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:53 PM
If you go back into the archived threads on Geuaga Lake/SF Ohio/SFWOA you'll find plenty of discussions of how things were before Primier took over and what happened afterwards.
Thursday, December 25, 2003 11:55 PM
Perhaps an equally relevant question:
How was Premier before they bought Six Flags?
I know my local Premier Parks seemed to be run better by pre-Six Flags Premier Parks than since they bought Six Flags.
If that opinion has any root in reality, then perhaps it suggests that the problems Six Flags is facing now have less to do with Premier Parks than with the general financial health of the company.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Saturday, December 27, 2003 8:17 AM
I personally thing each park has its own story. Premier Parks seemed to do okay as a company, SFA pre-SF was a small park that was dear to the D.C. area, and other premier parks seem to have been dear to the area they were in. Six Flag parks under Time Warner had great theming, and good points too, but you add 2 companies together, put them under a company that didn't run some of the biggest parks in N. America, and put both companies problems together, and you have what you have now.
Same thing now, some parks are doing good, and some aren't. Things won't change for now because the company has some problems they need to work out. Are they? We don't work in the Corporate office, so none of us can say. Will they fix things? They'll eventually have to do something to some parks, if they want to make $$$ and keep their holdings.
But thats just my opinion:).
Saturday, December 27, 2003 11:53 AM
Another great point made by RideMan. I have to agree that the company was much better off before the acquisition of the SF brand. Now that i think of it i don't believe that Premier was ready or understood what it took/takes to run a branded concept like Six Flags. Add in debt and you have further complications. The company's strategy changed drastically with the purchase of SF and not for the better.