Opinion: Upcharge perks at theme parks just a matter of supply and demand

Actually I live only a couple hour drive from the park and have multi-park season passes to both Six Flags and Cedar Fair, however I am single with no children so for me going is a simple day trip to the Bay. I'll still use the perks if I feel I might actually benefit from them(and I have the extra money to spend), case in point; I went to CGA for Gold Striker a couple of weeks ago and bought the fast lane pass, it was a Thursday and the pass was very unneeded for most of the rides, but Gold Striker had an hour+ line all day long and I still manage to hit it a dozen times throughout the day. That is of course going on all of the other rides multiple times as well.

But as to your meaning I have to agree, if you're unable to get to the parks that often, then spending the extra money for the perks can increase time spent actually doing stuff instead of waiting in line. This is why I shelled out so much for my families trip, they are not as fortunate as I am, half are on disability and supporting children.

Just reading the title alone is funny to me. Of course they're a matter of supply and demand. They're typically thrilling attractions with very low capacity. Without the upcharge, the demand would immediately out-strip supply and you'd have irritating long lines. By charging *some* amount, you can simultaneously make money AND reduce the demand to a more manageable level.

The exception was Frontier City, and that park was so empty we could have sat on Eruption all day. Sad to see the ride has since been removed...

If my park had one of these (Skycoaster, Skyscraper, reverse-bungee, etc.) - there would be two price schedules...one for daylight hours, and another for after dark. To quote Stephen Abootman: "More money."

Psst!

Upcharge perks. Not upcharge rides, Gator. :)

(/Emily Littella)

Nevermind.

;~P

CoasterDaddy said:

We were at CP not too long ago and heard people compaining about waiting 60 min with a fast pass for Maverick. The regular wait line was 60 min. :-) Serioiusly there is a point where you need to jack the price more so that you make as much money but less get it.

I was there a few days ago, and found Maverick to have a 75 minute wait, and the Fastlane queue was all the way to the entrance. Depending on the Fastlane/stand by ratio, it was probably a 30-45 minute wait from there.

From my observation, I found a line of Fastlane for Millennium Force, and Maverick. I saw a trickle of Fastlane on Gatekeeper. The line for Millennium moved slower than normal (it moved quickly once past the merge point), Maverick moved at a snail's pace, and Gatekeeper moved at a good clip. This makes me think that most people are buying the standard Fastlane, rather than the plus, and using it primarily on Maverick and Millennium Force. Now, I'm not saying that they power ride it like an ideal ERT session, but I will bet that many of the users try for 3 or 4 laps on each.

Due to the slow loading nature of Maverick, I think they need to reduce the number of Fastlanes that use it. Maybe make it part of the Fastlane Plus. Personally, I would like to see Dragster, Maverick, and Millennium all in the plus. However, I will admit that Millennium has a higher capacity than Dragster or Maverick, so maybe it's OK in the standard Fastlane.

Like I said, fastlane at CP should be $150-$200. Otherwise, it over affects the non-fastlaning average Joe, or, as Robb calls them, peasants.

I've been thinking, and I just realized that the biggest difference between fastlane and VIP is marketing. Fastlane is advertised all over the park. To find out that VIP is available, you have to search it out. There are a lot of people that visit Cedar Point that want to spend a little more to avoid waiting in line. I bet if VIP were advertised in the park to the extent that Fastlane is, a lot more people would use it. (Note: The obscurity of this perk is a good thing.) I would also venture to guess that, all things being equal, the use of Fastlane will increase, at least for the first few years, as more people find out about it, more people will want to use it.

I do agree that, at least on the busy days, fastlane is impacting the standby lines too much. When you have a 60 minute wait for both standby and fastlane, like you mentioned above, you are going to have upset guests in both lines. Standby can get irritated at how slow the line is moving, fastlane gets upset that they shelled out a lot of money, and didn't get anything for it.

LostKause said:

I hate it less when it is limited. Busch Gardens offers one cut per ride.

Busch Gardens offers Quick Que and Quick Que Unlimited. You have the option for both.

I don't understand why the Fastlane line for Maverick is so terrible. The only thing I can conclude is that it's that much more popular than all of the other rides, because the lines aren't a big deal elsewhere.

The failure of CP's Fast Lane program seems like an implementation error. At every Six Flags park, if the regular wait is 60 minutes, the fast lane wait (for the most part) is also 60 minutes, you just don't have to stand there and can go ride something else in the meantime.

Maverick is a unique instance of where the park opted to go with a low-to-moderate capacity ride (mostly low) despite the park's relatively high seasonal attendance numbers. The ride then quickly became a favorite of many visitors which maybe wasn't entirely expected by management.

Maverick also appeals to a wider range of guests at the park compared to MF and Dragster due it being a 'small' coaster (in the bottom half of coaster heights at CP, I believe). I personally know some people who have never rode MF or Dragster but absolutely love Maverick. So, at the end of the day, low capacity and high popularity/broader appeal makes for a tricky situation.

Adding Fast Lane to the equation makes the queue waiting even more challenging to remedy. Let it be said, however, that I am all in favor of Fast Lane. It's a delight to walk by the near constantly filled, slow-moving queue on this particular ride. :-)

As much as I hate Lo-Q, why wouldn't Cedar Fair just get them to do the line-cutting thing for them? They get to split the money 50-50, and there will be more satisfied customers.

I mean, CF have proven time and time again that they don't know how to implement pay-to-cut properly. When will it be time for them to give in and leave it to the experts?

How did we get from "sometimes the Fast Lane line for Maverick is as long as the standby line" to "the failure of the Fast Lane program"?

That escalated quickly.

Seems that if it's enough of a problem (in that the above condition aren't just met sometimes, but rather regularly) you shift Maverick to the Plus program in 2014.

Problem solved.

LostKause said:

As much as I hate Lo-Q, why wouldn't Cedar Fair just get them to do the line-cutting thing for them? They get to split the money 50-50, and there will be more satisfied customers.

We're talking about the company that dropped Nickelodeon because Snoopy gave them a better cut of the money. (from what I've been led to understand)

Seems they'd rather have more of a cut of a lesser product than less of a cut of a better product.

With that said, they get to keep 100% of Fast Lane takings. A 50/50 Lo-Q deal has no chance.

The Nick drop happened before we met Ouimet (see what I did there?).

I tend to think the new regime would be more willing to pay more for better product...

....as always, I'm willing to be wrong.

That's a good point.

But Fastlane is still cheaper to implement, pays the park better, and I have yet to see the major backlash that everyone predicts is going to happen, and its selling. I personally think Fastlane is the superior product in many ways.

^^^

Yes, but the current Fastlane implementation happened under Ouimet.

I don't see how the park could justify the cost increase for a qbot over what they have now. Overall, I think the system they have is good, but has a few kinks that need to be worked out.

First, for rides like Maverick, they should limit the number of fastlanes that are given out. This can be done by moving it to Fastlane+, or make it a 1 time deal with the fastlane. For simplicity, the first option is probably better.

Second, with the windfall profits they are making off fastlane, I think its a good idea to hire a couple extra ride operators for the busiest days. Pretty much all Satrudays, and most days in July and August. The way the rides are staffed right now, they can hit interval as long as there isn't a slow loading guest or two. Having the extra staff could minimize the time impact of a slow loading guest, and make it easier to hit interval. More train dispatches = more guests riding = faster lines. With the extra staff, they could also have someone trying to fill all empty seats.

Add Maverick to the Fast Lane plus if the line is too long for it. If its still an issue, they could sell single, skip the line tickets. From what I have seen, I don't view Fast Lane as implemented as a failure. Also not clear to me that the SF approach is better. Though I do expect Cedar Fair to continue to tweak Fast Lane over time.

Just to clarify, when I said, "the failure of Fast Lane" I meant in this specific case where the Fast Lane line was as long as the regular line, not the program as a whole.

While I hate Lo-Q (I know, I already said that), I like the way it works better because it makes you wait your turn, so people are not clogging up the lines. Unlimited ERT is not a good thing while also trying to give non-ERT riders some seats too.

And let me say that I know they Lo-Q also offers different tiers, but the regular wait-your-turn option is the most popular (cheapest).

And let me also say that while you are waiting your turn with a Q-bot, you can also be riding more rides, which has the "standing in two lines at a time" effect. That still clogs up the lines, but I suspect it has less of a negative effect as allowing unlimited ERT during regular operating hours.

In other words, the pay-to-cut method that affects the regular "stand-by-and-wait" line the least is the pay-to-cut method that I endorse the most.