Ouimet says virtual queuing has potential for Cedar Fair

I don't have the money to buy a private jet, but don't think that owning one is wrong.

Perhaps people of less means see your going to an amusement park in the first place in the same way you see people upgrading with VQ? That it's unfair in some way.

The fact that you have discretionary income to spend traveling and visiting amusement parks in the first place makes you part of the game. Seems a little hypocritical to hate on those who have made it further along in the same game.

^I don't hate. I love :) And I have an abundance of hugs for you. I'm sure you love hugs too and can't wait.

I just dislike the idea of what we are talking about.

As long as you hug ALL of the VQ'ers to keep it fair.

If they are huggers, I'd be glad to :) But it can be awkward trying to initiate hugs with people you don't know well :(

The opposition seems to always feel like they're being outclassed. Do you also feel dissed by the people at the front of the plane, or eating in expensive restaurants? I don't see any moral issue here. It's pay-to-play in the free market.

^Not at all. But I feel different when I have to wait 10 extra minutes b/c a dad and his daughter have Platinum Flash Passes and get to ride 2x in the front seat, and I have to wait even longer. Yes, it's different for me at an amusement park than it is at a restaurant or a plane, or a concert.

Why do you feel different? You didn't pay to be able to ride when they did. You paid for access to the standby line. And you still get to ride, unlike the people at home that can't afford a day at an amusement park.

I'll never understand how this involves morals. No one is breaking any established rules or laws. And technically they aren't affecting you in any way because you have the same opportunity that they do, you're just a cheapskate.

The only way I think it's ok is if it's free to everyone; first come first serve kinda thing.

Perhaps I would agree with you if I had the money for flash pass.

In my eyes, this is where your argument falls apart.

You're stance seems to be that you're opposed to it because it's line-cutting, but then admit that if it was free or you could afford it, you wouldn't think it's wrong.

So if they raised the gate price of Dollywood to $75 and gave everyone a "free" flashpass, then what? Is it no longer discriminatory?

It doesn't seem that you're necessarily opposed to VQ, just jealous of it.

Probably the same way people feel about you when you talk about traveling to amusement parks all over the country when they can't afford to go in the first place.

I don't understand why this need to turn into a hating and name calling game. I just don't like pay to cut and think it's wrong. It's ok. It's nothing against any of you. It's just an opinion :)

Sorry, I've been very busy the last few days, and haven't been able to spend much time online. Anyways...

If Mom stands in line for Ultraman's Space Race, while Dad and the kiddies go ride Megaflight: Stunt Rocket, and then Dad calls Mom on her cell to see how far in line she is so they can all meet there, it's called line jumping.

But, in an alternative universe, if Mom, Dad, and the kiddies scan the Q-bert-Bot at Ultraman, then walk over to Megaflight, Mom waits for Dad the kids to ride while she sits on a bench, then they all go back to Ultraman for their scheduled ride, then it's not line cutting.

What's the difference? They paid for the special line-cutting privileges. These days, people have been conditioned to accept that, but it is still line cutting.

Lord Gonchar said:
The priority line boards first in the order of arrival, then the stand-by line does the same. Nobody has cut in front of anyone - everyone is just getting the access to the rides that they paid for.

The way I read that is that you are splitting people in to two groups; those who paid to be allowed to cut in front of those who didn't pay. Your version sugarcoats the whole idea of line cutting for a fee, in my opinion.

The biggest problem I have with a pay-to-cut system is the way that some parks do it. The cheaper the Permi$$ion-to-cut passes are, the more people that will (or are able to) use them, and the longer the other people will have to wait. I most dislike the Lo-Q way of allowing so much access. It clogs up the "stand-by" lines (you know, the lines where people just stand there and let other people who paid for special access go by). It makes a mess, because it's not a natural way of allowing people access to rides. Tempers flair, especially when a park is very busy, and/or when staff is slow. People who are allowed instant access to the rides, and get to ride over and over again without standing in line, are smiling, while the people who have to stand there and watch the others ride over and over while they wait their (turn) get upset.

Talking more about this specific news topic, I believe that Cedar Point will not fail their guests like Six Flags have done. By staying away from the so-called experts on "virtual queuing", Lo-Q, and doing this like the Busch Gardens parks and Knott's Berry Farm do it, we might not have to deal with many problems that it can create. Limiting it more severely will be a big help in not causing a lot of the problems that a virtual queue system can create. Making it more expensive, and allowing only one trip per ride per purchase will give people with money to burn what they want, while it will leave a more clear access to the rides for those regular folk in the "stand-by" line.

Tekwardo said:


Why do you feel different? You didn't pay to be able to ride when they did. You paid for access to the standby line. And you still get to ride, unlike the people at home that can't afford a day at an amusement park.
I'll never understand how this involves morals. No one is breaking any established rules or laws. And technically they aren't affecting you in any way because you have the same opportunity that they do, you're just a cheapskate.

Tek, Splitting people into have's and have not's is part of why a few of us feel it is wrong. Charging extra so that you don't get the shaft is wrong. Making me pay extra so no one cuts in front of me is wrong.

I would say that an established rule is being broken; the rule of not being rude and cutting in front of the person in front of you. People get to pay to be allowed to cut. That sounds morally wrong, friend.

And... not everyone has the same opportunity to spend an extra $40 on a "forgiveness to cut in front of people pass" A lot of the time, that $40 is either going to pay for my food for the day, or a line-cut pass. I can't afford both. When that happens, I do not have the same opportunity as some people do.

I am not saying "poor me" here either, because a lot of families who visit a theme park are on a strict budget. Visiting a park is already really expensive. A family of four can spend $150 on admission tickets, another $100 on food, and whatever gas and their hotel is going to cost them. Adding another few hundred dollars for line cut passes may not be in the budget for some of these families.

...And if Mommy and Daddy really love their nagging children, they will find a way to appease them by taking them on their once-in-a-summer trip to the theme park that advertises on TV during the cartoons.

CoasterDemon said:


I don't hate. I love :) And I have an abundance of hugs for you. I'm sure you love hugs too and can't wait.
I just dislike the idea of what we are talking about.

You are an awesome dude, Billy. Hugs.

Jeff said:
The opposition seems to always feel like they're being outclassed. Do you also feel dissed by the people at the front of the plane, or eating in expensive restaurants? I don't see any moral issue here. It's pay-to-play in the free market.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that my opposition comes from concrete operational experience. Again, in theory, I really don't have a problem with it. In fact, if they could operate just as efficiently with the VQ system in place as they can without it, I would be shouting its praises from the virtual queue rooftops. In reality, it has very real negative effects on operations and efficiency. Again, this is from real-world, operational experience. I've seen the historical numbers, I've seen the historical wait times. Real, overall guest service is negatively effected, and it does not always (in fact, I would say almost never) have the intended consequence of boosting in-park spending.

LostKause said:
You are an awesome dude, Billy. Hugs.

Seconded... :)

I'll be interested to see what they add to Cedar Point. I am probably one of the few people on this site who has never been there and even though I hope to get there in the next few years, the long lines for the major coasters has always been a concern. I'll gladly pay to skip a 90 minute wait for Maverick.

CP Chris said:

When I was at SF Great Adventure last summer, I estimated close to a 50% drop in capacity (based on dispatch times) on the rides that merged via the exit. The ones that merged at/prior to the station were much better.

Thankfully, that is almost a non issue now. Rolling Thunder now merges before the stairs (which is almost pointless because the ride is around 20 - 30 minute wait from that point with the slow dispatches the ride has) and Green Lantern merges. Scream Machine didn't merge. Now the only 2 rides that don't merge are Runaway Mine Train that rarely has Flashpass users and Skull Mountain,

CoasterDemon said:
I don't understand why this need to turn into a hating and name calling game. I just don't like pay to cut and think it's wrong. It's ok. It's nothing against any of you. It's just an opinion :)

*Sigh*

If there's any hating here, it's not coming from those of us that don't have a problem with VQing. I don't hate you, I don't' know you. And I wasn't specifically calling you a cheapskate, that was directed in general. If you think that's me 'name calling', sorry for ya, but I was making a point, not personally trying to insult you.

The way I read that is that you are splitting people in to two groups; those who paid to be allowed to cut in front of those who didn't pay. Your version sugarcoats the whole idea of line cutting for a fee, in my opinion.

Of all of the coaster geeks I've encountered, I never thought I'd see anyone say Gonch is sugar coating anything, lol.

I would seriously like an explanation as to why pay to cut is morally wrong, yet better seats at concerts, first class when traveling, a more expensive suite at a hotel is not. I'm serious, this ins't rhetorical. I'd actually like to hear thoughts from both Travis and Billy on this one, so please, do explain why one is morally wrong and the rest aren't. Maybe I can better understand your mindset that way.

... (you know, the lines where people just stand there and let other people who paid for special access go by).

Okay, I have to stop you right there. You as someone in line aren't 'letting' other people who paid for special access go buy. You have nothing to do with it, and no power over it. You never did. The park, an entity existing to make money, makes the decisions of who waits or not. They have that right because they aren't a necessity. They can run the park any way they want. If they're doing a poor job, attendance will show as such (See: Six Flags back when Travis actually went to a Six Flags Park). But when they're doing this mostly right, attendance doesn't suffer and may actually increase (See: Six Flags since the Shapiro days, during which more parks got Q Bot).

Why do we never talk about baby swap, which to me, is just as 'evil', especially at Universal Studios. Everyone waits in line, one person waits with the kids while the rest ride, then one different person waits behind while the rest of the group with the addition of the non-rider get to ride again without waiting. Heck, last time I was there with a group, there were 5 adults and 2 kids, and we got plenty of back to back rides on everything. Is that morally wrong as well?

Tempers flair, especially when a park is very busy,

How often have you actually witnessed this? I went to several dozen parks last year and never saw that once myself.

People who are allowed instant access to the rides, and get to ride over and over again without standing in line

That isn't totally true, and there are far less options where you get double rides than options where you do (and even those options where you get double rides have re-ride limits). There aren't even that many options that actually give you 'instant access'. And the people that pay to do that still end up waiting. They don't just get to walk up and ride whenever they want, as many times as they want, at any time that they want, on every single ride. Are there some options close to that? Yes, but they're extremely expensive per person, which means most likely you're not going to see anyone during your park visit thats doing that.

are smiling, while the people who have to stand there and watch the others ride over and over while they wait their (turn) get upset.

Again, how many times have you actually ever seen that happen as well? Me? I haven't. In fact, I have actually seen people go "Hey, why do they get to ride now?" "They paid to cut." "Daddy! Can we pay to cut next time?!"

I've never seen anyone get mad at pay to cut. I have seen people get mad at poor operations.

Tek, Splitting people into have's and have not's is part of why a few of us feel it is wrong.

And again, how is that morally wrong? Thats just a fact of life. AVMatt is in Scandinavia right now, riding roller coaster. I'm at home. I should be mad at him because he could afford to go and I couldn't? Why is that a moral issue? Did those haves steal from the have nots? No. They didn't stop me from riding. They just (may) have made the wait longer (in some cases). You didn't pay to ride at a specific time, they did.

Charging extra so that you don't get the shaft is wrong. Making me pay extra so no one cuts in front of me is wrong.

How are you getting the shaft, because you waited maybe a total of 2:30 minutes longer? If that? You're not getting the shaft, you weren't promised anything that was taken away from you. You were given basic access to the park. Why is that a moral delima, and why is it wrong? Did you get to ride in the end? Did that couple of minutes keep you from standing in another hour line to ride? Doubtful.

I would say that an established rule is being broken; the rule of not being rude and cutting in front of the person in front of you.

No rules are being broken. None. It may not actually say it on the signs at the entrance to the rides, but when it says you will be ejected to cut because cutting isn't allowed, it should really say "You aren't allowed to cut in line once you enter the standby unless you pay a premium first".

People get to pay to be allowed to cut. That sounds morally wrong, friend.

How is that morally wrong? Who is being wronged? Amusement parks are a luxury. And with any luxury, you can pay for a better version of said luxury. That's not morally wrong, its been the way of things for as long as any of us have been alive, and it isn't even unfair.

A lot of the time, that $40 is either going to pay for my food for the day, or a line-cut pass. I can't afford both. When that happens, I do not have the same opportunity as some people do.

]

How you figure? You have $40. You have the same option to buy a cut the line access gadget/paper/tour/etc.

You CHOOSE to eat. You have the exact same opportunity as the people that chose to cut. Yes, some people may have more money, but not every one that pays for front of the line access does, they're just making a different choice. Maybe they brought food from home and eat in the parking lot so they can spend their $40 on cut the line. Or maybe they're spending that $40 to play games in the park. Or buy suvineres. If you have the money to go to a park and eat and park, then you can choose not to eat there and pay to cut.

If you can't afford to make that decision, seriously, if the decision comes down to "I can only afford to get into the park and eat before I'm broke", then you probably shouldn't be going to a theme park.

I am not saying "poor me" here either, because a lot of families who visit a theme park are on a strict budget.

And I doubt very seriously those people are going home saying "Man, I'm so mad that I couldn't pay to cut when someone else could!" More than likely they just remember the fun. Remember that? Thats why I go to theme parks. I tend to remember the fun and not complain because I can't afford to pay to cut. And for the record, I've never once paid to cut.

Visiting a park is already really expensive.

And if you're on such a tight budget that going to a park and purchasing pay to cut is going to break the bank, you shouldn't be going to a theme park.

A family of four can spend $150 on admission tickets, another $100 on food, and whatever gas and their hotel is going to cost them. Adding another few hundred dollars for line cut passes may not be in the budget for some of these families.

SO it isn't in the budget? Okay. A trip to Japan was never in my parent's budget. Heck, we never even went to Disney World. I turned out (mostly) okay...

I just don't get the moral delima that comes up here. Some people can afford to do stuff that other people can't. Some people would rather cut the line than eat. In any case, I haven't been to a theme park since pay to cut really started where I saw people in line or leaving that day going "Man, that park sucks! They really shouldn't sell those perks!"

Tekwardo said:
Of all of the coaster geeks I've encountered, I never thought I'd see anyone say Gonch is sugar coating anything, lol.

+1

Lost Kause said:
The way I read that is that you are splitting people in to two groups; those who paid to be allowed to cut in front of those who didn't pay. Your version sugarcoats the whole idea of line cutting for a fee, in my opinion.

The problem is that you're stuck on the idea that rides are first-come-first-served and that the only way to 'pay' for a ride is with time served.

The game is changing before our very eyes. Once it was pay-per-ride. Then it was pay-one-price. Now it's pay-to-play. The more you pay, the more you get. I honestly don't understand how that can be construed as anything but the fairest system possible. You get what you pay for.

If you buy admission to the park, you're buying the right to stand around and wait for seats to open on a first-come basis. Classic pay-one-price scheme. The difference is that it's not the only way to gain access to the rides anymore.

Tekwardo said:
Why do we never talk about baby swap, which to me, is just as 'evil', especially at Universal Studios. Everyone waits in line, one person waits with the kids while the rest ride, then one different person waits behind while the rest of the group with the addition of the non-rider get to ride again without waiting. Heck, last time I was there with a group, there were 5 adults and 2 kids, and we got plenty of back to back rides on everything.

Honestly, because it's free. The thing that somehow makes this 'wrong' is the money. I don't get it myself, but that seems to be the sticking point.

Funny people don't get upset about upcharge rides either. Hell, that's a ride you don't even have access to unless you pay additional fees. It's not even a matter of waiting to fill seats that haven't been pre-purchased like with VQ. It's flat-out restricting those who choose to pay just for admission. But no one ever complains about those people getting rides that they can't even get on.

Maybe if all the rides that use VQ became accessible to only those paying an upcharge fee, then somehow it'd be ok? ;)

The best way to avoid the drama if you're against it? Avoid busy days. I've found that VQ isnt necessary a vast majority of the time. If you visit on a day where you need to use it to avoid hour-long waits, you visited on the wrong day. Granted, it's unavoidable at times - we all have a schedule - and on those days, it sure is nice to have it as an option to make the day more bearable.

kpjb said:
So if they raised the gate price of Dollywood to $75 and gave everyone a "free" flashpass, then what? Is it no longer discriminatory?

Isn't that essentially what Disney has done? :)

Discovery Cove does it better. Or at least I've been told. I'm morally opposed to theme parks I can't afford ;-).

maXairMike said:
In reality, it has very real negative effects on operations and efficiency. Again, this is from real-world, operational experience. I've seen the historical numbers, I've seen the historical wait times. Real, overall guest service is negatively effected, and it does not always (in fact, I would say almost never) have the intended consequence of boosting in-park spending.

So because you have seen it done wrong, no one does it right? Sounds like a straw man to me. I think I mentioned somewhere how well it works at Universal Orlando, and that's a paid program (or perk if you stay on property). It varies by attraction, but I've not seen it be detrimental there.

The odds of me getting into Discovery Cove are vanishingly small unless they actually add an attraction that interests me...it's not always about the cost!

My issue with virtual queueing is strictly operational and theoretical, and in some ways borne out by what I have seen happen in parks.

There are a lot of variables that determine how long you need to wait to ride a ride. But we can distill the basics down to a highly generalized case.

People arrive at the ride entrance at a particular rate. Let's call that "e". e varies throughout the day, but it represents the rate at which people can enter the queue for the ride. By "queue", I mean the total mess of people who are waiting to ride, no matter where they are.

The ride takes people from the queue and has its way with them at a particular rate. Let's call that "c". Any time "e" exceeds "c", there will be a surplus of people waiting in line. Let's call that "w".

In a traditional everybody waits in one line configuration, "e" is physically limited to approximately 2,400 PPH per turnstile. In 1978, this presented a bit of a problem at Cedar Point, because the Gemini coaster is quite capable of achieving a "c" of 3,400 PPH, meaning that a thousand seats per hour would potentially go out empty just because riders couldn't get to the platform fast enough. Islands of Adventure had the same problem with Dueling Dragons because while its queue was wide enough for two people to walk side by side, it was also more than a mile long, which tended to slow people down and spread them out. Disney's it's a small world can actually move close to 4,000 PPH, so it has two entrances and those entrances are extra wide.

Most rides, though, don't move that many people. Magnum XL-200, for instance, only carries about 1,600 PPH, which is still pretty respectable, but we've seen 75-minute waits for that ride. How does that happen? Easy: any time "e" is greater than "c", you generate a wait, and the longer you continue to have people enter the queue faster than the ride can take them away, the longer that wait will become. In the case of Magnum, then, the worst case scenario looks like this...

At opening: e=0, c=0, and w=0
After 1 hour: e=2,400, c=1,600, and w=800, which means the last person in line waits 30 minutes.
After 2 hours: e=4,800, c=3,200, 1,600 which means the last person waits an hour.

Now if you introduce a virtual queue, your operational capacity (c) does not change. But your rate of queue entry *does*. If we assume a Disney-style system, the transaction that puts you into the virtual queue takes longer than merely stepping into the queue (obviously). But the use of many machines increases the distribution capacity until for Space Mountain I figured the FastPass distribution capacity to be about 1,200 PPH. Let's call that "v". Meanwhile, the rate at which people can stand in the normal line is "l" and that remains maximized at 2,400 PPH. So with the virtual queue, our wait queue is now l + v, which is 2,400 + 1,200 = 3,600 PPH worst case. Using the Magnum numbers again...

At opening: v=0, l=0, e=l+v=0, c=0, w=0
After 1 hour: v=1,200, e=2,400, e=3,600, c=1,600, w=2,000 which is not quite a 90-minute wait. The system effectively increases the rate at which people can get into line, thus increasing the wait time for everybody. The good news is that the VQ people can do their waiting *somewhere else*.

Now as I have pointed out elsewhere and in this thread, this is all worst-case-scenario stuff. It's Cedar Point on a HallowWeekends Saturday*. In reality, once you get through the first hour of the day, the arrival rate slows down dramatically, often to a point where e<c, which is when the ride gets to "catch up" a bit. This is why the lines rarely get longer than some arbitrary length before people simply won't wait for the ride. This is where the real operational benefit of a virtual queue comes in: using historical data, the park can predict the slow times for a ride, and assign a lot of VQ passes during those times, for more efficient use of the rides. In this case, the VQ can actually discourage people from getting in line at the peak time of the day, encouraging them to come back when it is less busy. That can actually reduce the waiting time for everyone at the peak time of the day, while making the lines longer during that secret no-crowd window when you were hoping to get a quick ride.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

* Although on such a Saturday, Magnum's capacity would more likely be 533 PPH, with one train having been pulled due to anticipated reduced demand during the shoulder season...

Hmmm.

RideMan said:
At opening: e=0, c=0, and w=0
After 1 hour: e=2,400, c=1,600, and w=800, which means the last person in line waits 30 minutes.
After 2 hours: e=4,800, c=3,200, 1,600 which means the last person waits an hour.

I'm with you all the way to here. :)

Now if you introduce a virtual queue, your operational capacity (c) does not change. But your rate of queue entry *does*. If we assume a Disney-style system, the transaction that puts you into the virtual queue takes longer than merely stepping into the queue (obviously). But the use of many machines increases the distribution capacity until for Space Mountain I figured the FastPass distribution capacity to be about 1,200 PPH. Let's call that "v". Meanwhile, the rate at which people can stand in the normal line is "l" and that remains maximized at 2,400 PPH. So with the virtual queue, our wait queue is now l + v, which is 2,400 + 1,200 = 3,600 PPH worst case.

Well, you mixed Disney and CP numbers there. Do you really expect 50% guest implimentation of a system at CP? I'd suspect it'd be closer to what SF does and I seem to remember it being 8 or 10% (give or take). That changes the numbers to 2,400 + 240 = 2,640.

(and that still assumes a 1-to-1 wait for VQ, we know that there's often a perk invlved that reduces wait and clouds the numbers further)

Using the Magnum numbers again...

At opening: v=0, l=0, e=l+v=0, c=0, w=0
After 1 hour: v=1,200, e=2,400, e=3,600, c=1,600, w=2,000 which is not quite a 90-minute wait. The system effectively increases the rate at which people can get into line, thus increasing the wait time for everybody. The good news is that the VQ people can do their waiting *somewhere else*.

Using what I feel are the more realistic 10% numbers it's more like:

At opening: v=0, l=0, e=l+v=0, c=0, w=0
After 1 hour: v=240, e=2,400, e=2,640, c=1,600, w=840 which is a 31.5-minute wait.

And that's still using the generalization that the 10% spreads evenly.

In reality, once you get through the first hour of the day, the arrival rate slows down dramatically, often to a point where e<c, which is when the ride gets to "catch up" a bit. This is why the lines rarely get longer than some arbitrary length before people simply won't wait for the ride.

Combined with what you said very near the beginning:

"In a traditional everybody waits in one line configuration, "e" is physically limited to approximately 2,400 PPH per turnstile."

It seems the physical aspect of the queue determines to a great deal that arbitrary length. Or at the very least a quantifiable physical capacity.

The solution? Reduce the physical capacity of the queue by the percentage of distribution of VQ passes. (In this case 10%) Which now gives you a new set of numbers:

At opening: v=0, l=0, e=l+v=0, c=0, w=0
After 1 hour: v=240, e=2,160, e=2,400, c=1,600, w=800 which is the original 30-minute wait.

I suppose there's a few different approaches, but the key is to keep the overall rate of entry (considering all points of entry) limited to whatever number seems reasonable. (2400 in your example)

Or in layman's terms, for every person you let in the back door, let one less in the front door. :)