Kingda Ka: Could it work anywhere else in the SF chain

Before you guys read this, this isn't a knock on the ride or where it is going, I am just curious to your opinions.

SFGAd is one of the chains top parks, with some of the highest attendance rates. Do you think that adding Kingda Ka here would be better for SF to receive more attendance and profits and etc., or do you think that if they put it somewhere at one of the "failing" parks like, let's say, Astroworld (keeping height and room restrictions out of the argument) they could have had more of a turnout at this park, and increased profits, etc.?

Just curious on your opinions

SFGAdv is in between numerous major markets, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, all able to make day trips to the park...it's right along the Northeast Corridor, the busiest train route on Amtrak. I'd say they made the right move.

I strongly believe that SF needs to even out their rides and then attendance will rise.

I mean think about it, I'll go to Cedar Point no matter what because of their great collection of coasters, and the additions each year are more like 'presents' than to bring up attendance. They've established the park so well people will come back new ride or not.

However the smaller parks like Astroworld that are suffering, with the addition of a new ride, will have a huge jump in attendance.

I think that the ride should have gone to a different park. It would have been more successful and would have a greater impact.

But SF has two parks in markets you mentioned(SFNE, Boston/Hartford/Springfield & SFA,Baltimore/Washington DC) so they can't really market KK to those two parks as easily.

SF's profits would increase if they'd just run their parks efficiently (with multi train operation on most rides) & better staffing as well as new crowd drawing rides at most....if not all of their parks,new rides alone won't accomplish that goal.

I still believe the ride was a major mistake for SF regardless of what park they put it in especially with all the downtime the other rockets have had so far,the true test will come on the rides opening day however.

I agree with BigJim. They probably made the right choice for the location where it will make the biggest splash. Lots of major markets nearby, and ample oppurtunity to detract from Dorney and Hersheypark.

Honestly, I'd say an investment as big as Kingda Ka would be wasteful just about anywhere else, with the minor exception of SFGAm, which seems to support its new additions well.

SFMM would be a disaster. Way too similar to Superman, and I think that a lot of LA residents know by know that the park is a dump. They have a lot of things to fix (like their reputation) before they can prepare for another big coaster investment. IMO, they need to vary their rides a bit more and reach for a wider segment of guests.

SFoT doesn't need it, as there probably isn't a lot of new guests to appeal to. Its not like people will go to any other parks than a Six Flags park in Texas (or Lousiana or Oklahoma for that matter).

Even so, with all of the big cities nearby and potential guests, SFGADv is by far the best choice.

It could probably also work at sfgam also, because that is also a good market and a well run park (from what i hear). I am not sure if they have a height limit or anything. That seems to be another logical location, however i think sfadv is the best probably.

I think that SFGAdv was the best chice in the chain. But I feel that a company that is under Huge amounts of debt needs to work on the CHAIN not just one park. Becasue one park will not support All of SF's parks. THey need to distribute their capital more evenly not splurge on just one park and one coaster. Parks like AstroWorld and SfDL could use a new Investment. And the tiny parks in the SF chain (Wyandot Lake) are being Overlooked entirly. I think In a decade SF will be only a memory and better run chains will fill that void easily.

^I agree. Even small investments in the smaller parks can make an impact.

For example, building Scream! at SFMM was a big mistake. It was an expensive ride that got very little attention in comparison to rides like X, Deja Vu and Goliath. People were still very much enamored with the previous new rides, X and DV. So adding one (mediocre) coaster was simply a waste of money.

If you had given Scream (or bought a few smaller rides) for another park, it would have certainly made a better impact.

Yes, but think of the media exposure this will give Six Flags (hopefully positive if it runs well). From there, even more popularity will hopefully come to the Six Flags chain, increase attendance a bit (get numbers up overall...no bad weather!) and make investors happier, buying more stock, more money comes in, more rides...it's the start of something big!

I think the real question is "Kingda Ka: Will it work at all?"

My thought: No. Even if GAdv. manages to overcome all maintenence issues, their staff is sub par, their policies, operations and customer service are spotty at best. My prediction - They'll have a billion people in their park, all of whom they will piss off one way or another.

I'm not saying I'm upset to have this coaster in my backyard, but I think it was a terrible choice, regardless of where it was going.

I agree, a prime example of Six Flags ignorance to fix rides is Superman: The Escape.

No to the original thread question also, because if it could of worked anywhere else, it would probably be going there.

---

Ride of Steel said:

I mean think about it, I'll go to Cedar Point no matter what because of their great collection of coasters, and the additions each year are more like 'presents' than to bring up attendance. They've established the park so well people will come back new ride or not.

---

I strongly disagree. The employees were constantly rude and unsocial to us all during our visit there, and they were overall terrible to other guests as well. And, the park is the most over-hyped place I've ever been too. Yea, MF, what's so great about it? My entire family said that after getting off. The same went for all the other attractions in the park, except for TTD. That was the only surprise in the park. We had more fun the night before our trip playing mini golf and driving go karts. I don't think we'll ever, EVER, return to Cedar Point, regardless if they add the lastest, and greatest attraction on the planet.

Sorry, I just had to get that out SOMETIME. I just really don't see what is the big deal about Cedar Point "America's Roller Coast" *rolls eyes*.

---

I strongly disagree. The employees were constantly rude and unsocial to us all during our visit there, and they were overall terrible to other guests as well.

---

I have actually found that they are the only park with relatively intelligent workers that can load and dispatch trains in 20 seconds.

They aren't there to socialize, and thats what distinguishes CP workers from SF workers.

By being socialable, I mean interacting and making the guests have a good time. Cedar Point should take some notes from Disney!!

Well maybe you've just had a bad experience. Some are grumpy, but every time I go there and sit down somewhere waiting for someone a worker always comes over and gives me a glass of water and asks me how my day is.

I've found the ride ops to be very friendly as well as safe.

I'll take your word for it that they weren't the best the day you went but generally I've found them to be great.

In terms of flat out potential draw why would you stick any major ride anywhere but SFGAdv.

The park sits right between NYC and Philly - both in the top 5 US cities in terms of population. (9.5 million people in those two cities alone and that doesn't include nearby satellite cities or suburban areas - add Baltimore and you go over 10 million easy)

I think it's about which park has the most potential to draw.

Add to that the allure of the world's tallest and fastest coaster and you'll even draw the more curious from overlapping markets (D.C., Boston, etc)

Why the hell would you add anything to the smaller markets that are already tapped or have no more draw to offer before you tried a move like this?

They could build identical clones of this as SFMM and SFGAm and still not only be reaching 60% of the people they could at SFGAdv. Twice the cost, half the potential reward.

Add to this the general competition and the need to 'keep up with the Joneses' - and you don't exactly have to be rocket scientist to figure out why certain parks get new coasters much more often than others.

Trust me, they're not losing attendance because SFEG, SFDL and SFKK aren't constantly getting new rides like the other more competitive or lucrative markets. If anything they'd be in ever worse shape if they sunk the money into these smaller market parks that do just fine as they are. Nobody's being neglected.

If you think in terms of potential market and competition, the park that (in my eyes) truly gets spoiled is SFOG. Atlanta isn't exactly hugely populous and there's nothing nearby to compete with on an amusement park level, but the additions keep flying there. With Acrophobia, Deja Vu, S:UF and this past year's smaller additions, I'd be surprised to see much more go in down there anytime soon. That's the park that doesn't make sense to keep adding rides to to me.

Just the way I see it. :)

Visionland, which does keep a little bit of the Birmingham area crowd from going there. Virtually everyone in the Birmingham area has gone to or goes to SFoG so if several thousand stay closer to home, that is a loss for the park.

Stone Mountain is adding a few things as well, therefore taking a few dollars away.

Wild Adventures in southern Georgia can surely take away a few more guests that would otherwise make a couple hour drive.

Dollywood may have a minor impact on northern GA, however with the fact that Dollywood is located in a tourist area, that may be negligible.

---

Ride of Steel said:
I strongly believe that SF needs to even out their rides and then attendance will rise.

I mean think about it, I'll go to Cedar Point no matter what because of their great collection of coasters, and the additions each year are more like 'presents' than to bring up attendance. They've established the park so well people will come back new ride or not.

However the smaller parks like Astroworld that are suffering, with the addition of a new ride, will have a huge jump in attendance.

I think that the ride should have gone to a different park. It would have been more successful and would have a greater impact.

---

Your looking at it from an enthusiasts point of view and not the view of the general public. The average person who attends Astroworld is going to live in Houston and have no clue that Cedar Point exists much less an idea of where Sandusky Ohio is.

---

Ride of Steel said:

They aren't there to socialize, and thats what distinguishes CP workers from SF workers.

---

Ok not all SF parks are alike. It depends on what park you go to to experience the bad seeds.

I would say that more SF parks have terrible service than have passable service. I would call the good parks the good seeds and the bad parks "par for the course."