Pay-to-cut: Not Fun For Everyone
I also believe allowing another guest to get in front of you for any reason, other than those who are truly disabled and unable to function as most that wait in line, is wrong
So, then, let me ask you this: What about someone with ADD or Adult ADD or ADHD? Would that be someone 'unable to function as most that wait in line'? If you don't agree, I'd say you don't have any close friends with any of the three. It isn't always that someone is just 'impatient'. Why are they impatient? Is it due to some other factor? I'm sorry, but I don't go to parks to stand in line and meet people, I go for rides and hanging with my friends. I could care less if someone else is there.
I enjoy much more (read: have a much better experience) the days that I go and ride and ride and ride and don't spend much time in line. What if I'm surrounded by people I don't like? How is that set up as social?
I still believe it boils down to people are upset because they don't think they should have to pay more for a better experience. You say I say thats life, and that I'm just settling, and maybe you're right. Why not settle when I'm happy with something, instead of whining because I want more and can't afford/justify the cost?
Edit:
Everyone has their limit and everyone has their price. I can see in a few years that as the costs of these systems keep going nowhere but up, that more and more of the people who are saying today in this thread what a great system it is will be pissing and moaning about how horrible the parks are treating them.
I still won't be complaining, I don't usually use the systems now. Not because I don't agree with them, I'm also one of the people that can't justify paying the cash, and the only time I've done the free thing was at DCA...where it was totally not needed at a dead park...at all. I remember in the mid-ninetys when a ticket for an adult to Carowinds was around $20. Then it went to $30. Currently, at the gate it is just over $40. The cost has doubled (more actually) in 10 years. Will I complain in another 10 years when I have to pay $90? Doubtful. I still like to go, and it will still be worth it to me as long as I enjoy going to the park. *** Edited 5/31/2005 4:41:34 AM UTC by TeknoScorpion***
RideMan said:
Now let's say we allow 10% of the ride's capacity to be virtual queue people. That means each hour we can take 1,440 people from the main queue and 160 people from the virtual queue. What that means is that we just made the line longer! Now after the first hour, instead of 800 people (half-hour wait) waiting in the queue, there are now 960 people waiting in the queue, which would be a 36-minute wait. Except that with the reduced capacity from the main queue, instead of a 36-minute wait, it is now a 40-minute wait.The reason this happened is that by adding the virtual queue system, we added no capacity to the ride, but we made it possible for more people to get in line, because there are now effectively two queue entrances.
Uh-oh. Does Gonch have the proverbial balls to challenge the great mind of Mr. Althoff - even after briefly exchanging pleasantries at Kennywood on Sunday?
Yes he does. ;)
The problem I see there is that you're assuming those 160 people would not have gotten in line in the first place. I'd think the opposite assumption makes more sense - all 160 of those people probably would have gotten in line without a virtual queue available. Obviously these are folks who wanted to ride.
Just seems to me that a better description of the 'first come, first serve' free systems is imagining 1600 people wanting to ride but 1440 are told to line up at 8pm sharp, while the other 160 are told to come back sometime between 8pm and 9pm and they will be ushered to the front of the line to ride.
You haven't added to the line (those virtual queue folks would most likely have ridden either way), you just changed the distribution of guests into the line. All 1600 will still ride the ride in one hour's time. The difference is the random influx of FastPass guests. Some of them will show up at 8pm and will be treated as if they were among the first to line up and some will show up just before 9pm and be treated as if they were among the last to line up (as most of the 1600 people in line will already have ridden completely unaffected by the virtual queue user) and everyone will fall somewhere inbetween.
It's incredibly fair in some situations and incredibly unfair in others. It's the main downfall of the freebie systems. Random distribution of privledges with the variable of when they'll actually show up to ride. It's so random that it makes little sense.
However, the pay systems (which are really in question here) fix this by determining the wait at the time of privledge redemption.
The equivalent description in comparison to the above for pay systems would be more like:
1600 people want to ride. The entire line is told to return to line up at 8pm, but if they choose they can pay a small fee and at 8pm rather than show up at the 'normal' line, to show up at an alternat location and they'll be given an generally exact time to ride. (no window of opportunity) Any amount of people between 0 and 1600 could choose to pay. Regardless of how many do, we'll still all get to ride in that hour.
So I'm one who decides to pay (the actual number who choose to is irrelevant). I show up at 8pm to receive my assigned time, at that point people are making their way to the regular line and 530 people have made their it in so far. The system knows that 530 people are in line, assigns me #531, does a little math and realizes it will take 19.87 minutes for the line to reach #531 and I'm told to come back at 8:20 at which point I will be led to the front of the line at that point and I'll fall in to take my ride between riders #530 & #532 - just as if I was standing there the whole time. The difference is that while everyone who chose not to pay is standing in a long, hot, stinky line - I'm sitting on a bench along the midway enjoying a cool drink.
In the end not a single person waited longer than needed and the ride still moved 1600pph.
Of course that's simplified, in real world applications the line estimate may be off a little and you're actually given a small window of time to arrive at the ride, but the basic concept is as described above - more like the system assigning me #500 (a little off) then figuring an 18 minute wait and in turn assigning a window of 8:15 to 8:20 (the window), but that still put me at anywhere between being rider #400 and #535 - pretty damn close. Of course it could be off in the other direction and estimate me at being #562(off by the same amount), figure a 21 minute wait and assign a window of 8:20 to 8:25 which would land me anywhere between guest #559 and #666 - again, pretty damn close.
In all cases no one involved including myself waited +/- 5 minutes in the one hour line than if I had just lined up with everyone else.
To sum it up, I don't think the availability of a virtual queue causes more people to attempt to ride, it mixes up the distribution of riders into the line with varying levels of accuracy and fairness and by now I think I've made it quite obvious where I stand on which I feel are truly more fair and accurate. :)
freakylick said:
You can dress it up anyway that you want it.."Placeholding" is still line-cutting. Every park says that if you leave the line FOR ANY REASON, you may not return to your spot in the line. It is line-cutting any way that you slice it.
Just as you can use whichever keyword suits your arguement. :)
I'm not sure waiting 45 minutes to ride while sitting on a bench along the midway as Q-bot waits in line for me, is any different than standing there in that line for 45 minutes.
It's not the same as my wife standing in line then as she reaches the station, me and the kids running up to join here. That's adding three people to the line. and clearly line-cutting.
What it is the same as is as if my wife stood in line and just as she reached the station, I ran up and met her but I got on and she didn't. She was merely a place holder for me. The wait didn't increase one bit for anyone in that line. But rather than have my wife wait in a line while I enjoy a cool drink along the midway, Q-bot does it and we both enjoy cool drinks along the midway.
Any way you slice it, no one leaves the line and no additional people enter the line at any time - Q-bot has your back.
In fact, most people are forgetting a certain similar system that almost every park uses and has used for years that does the exact thing we've spent 3 pages debating - Baby Swap.
Stop and think about it. :)
.
*** Edited 5/31/2005 5:53:39 AM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Lord Gonchar said:
Dude, as much as you choose to ignore the facts, it doesn't change things. Those people were not cutting in line. They were there before you, activated their Q-bot and walked away with a wait time equivalent to as if they had stood in that line.
However, you got to go elsewhere, eat lunch, check on the kids, take a dip in the wave pool, ride Mr. Six, take a spin on the top spin while he stood in line for two hours and only got one ride on one coaster. That's what rc-madness is saying.
I don't have a problem with the Q-Bot version of Fastlane but the tickets might be a different story. Just like I don't have a problem Hot Lanes on my local interestate. It's a matter of choice, you can either pay to take advantage of the system or pay by standing in line. Either way your paying additional expense and as long as SF is having financial problems, FastLane isn't going to change. *** Edited 5/31/2005 12:10:54 PM UTC by coasterguts***
A day at the park is what you make it!
UNLESS YOU GET THE GOLD QBOT AT SIX FLAGS PARKS, REGULAR QBOTS ARE NOT CUTTING THE LINE.
Example the line for KK is 3 hours long and you have a qbot. THe qbot will tell you to come back in 3 hours.
You are waiting just like everybody else, just not in line .
The gold qbot is different . that cuts 75 percent of the wait time off but there is a downside. its about 100 dollars for every two people. I think if you are willing to pay 100 dollars for two people to cut the line you deserve to.
I've changed my tune a little from last year. Wanting to get to Great Adventure again this year and seeing that we are going on vacation and probably will be visiting Six Flags New England, I decided to pay a visit to SF America and get a season pass. After one visit to SFA and one to SFGrAdv, it is paid for already.
So... Seeing that my admission is basically free (aside from parking), I will buy the fast pass (or what ever they call it) when we visit SFNE... and probably on any return trip to SFGrAdv as well.
The simple reason... at SFNE I will need to maximize my time since that is not a park that we will get back to any time in the near future. For SFGrAdv... it's just to avoid the hassel.
I don't know what I think about the system. Was it fun waiting in line for Nitro for 40 minutes and Batman The Ride for 20 minutes to step up to the air gates only to see people step up to the exit and jump on first? No. However, it was my own fault. I had the money in my wallet, I was just too cheap to pay the extra. In the grand scheme of things, since I already had the season pass and admission was taken care of, buying the express pass would have still not cost me as much as regular admission to the park... but I was being cheap.
Also, had the sign out front not said "Kingda Ka Closed Today", I would have bought the pass. But, since this ride was closed, I knew I would be gettign back there this season again, so I will take the pass option next time.
As stated, with SFNE... a park that is NOT a day trip park... I will buy a Express Lane pass to maximize my time there.
Now... is it fair? I don't know. Perhaps not. Perhaps so. All I know is... it is there, I know it is there, and if I CHOSE not to use it, then it is my problem. Granted, I am speaking from the point of view of a single guest (or two guests if my wife would also be visiting the park with me) and not a family of 4 or 5.
Now... getting to the individual parks. Not sure of the details of the system in use at SFA (Is there's a book of "tickets" to use the system?) but they did have there "express pass" seats reserved... and were sending out the trains with these seats empty if no one used these seats. They also made someone who stepped into these seats vacate the seat because they were not a fast pass person, even though there were no fast pass people waiting. And, even though they were running two trains on each coaster (or trying to... breakdowns kept Superman to only one train... when it was running) there ops were the slowest possibly on the planet, and certainly the most inefficient. All of this proved for a very aggrivating experience.
SFGrAdv was different. I did blast them last season for their operations, but I will admit that they had things pretty much on the ball this year. Train pulls in and people get out. Express Lane people (if any) board. Rest of the passengers board. Restraints are checked, train dispatched... and all relatively quickly. On Nitro and Batman The Ride I did not notice any designated Express Lane seats (there may have been... I just didn't notice), but on Robin the Chiller I did see that the center car (4 total seats) was chained off for Express Lane. However, when there were no people sitting in these seats, the ops were calling to the adjacient gates for people to fill in. They were quick about it too. If no one stepped up right away, the restraints were locked and the train dispatched.... and that makes sense. It sometimes actually takes longer to fill EVERY SINGLE SEAT IN THE TRAIN than it does to simply dispatch with a few empties.
All this to say... the Fast Pass at SFA was a lot more annoying than that at SFGrAdv because SFA's efficiency was terrible while the ops at SFGrAdv were doing all they could to get the trains dispatched as quickly as possible.
And yes, I still don't think the "free" systems are necessarily any better. When I was growing up, we all waited in the same line. I must be old fashioned, because it still seems the right way to do things.
At least in this thread the lines have been referred to as the "regular line" and the "Fast Pass / Q-bot (or whatever) line"
In a past thread debating the fairness / lack of fairness of various systems, the lines were referred to as the "Fast Pass Line" and the "Stand By Line". In other words... in that debate, the "Regular Line" (the 2 hr line) was the "Stand By Line"... while the "Fast Pass Line" was sort of being considered the "Regular line."
I am not sure there is a real answer to this.
Do I like having to make a choice of paying extra to get the "Fast Pass" or waiting in lines that are an hour or two long? No.
However, when a park is open for 10 hours on the day I visit, I look at my choice this way. Do I want to get on 5 rides in those 5 hours? Or 10 or 15 or more?
COASTINGTHRU said:
My kids don't watch 40 people let in the line for SROS while our line is paused and say "mommy, we are lucky." They just learn that people with more money get more out of the park than we do.
But what most people don't realize is that those are the kids that grow up being thankful for the things they have and the time their family spent with them, instead of the kids that had a Q-Bot given to them as well as a kajillion bucks to spend at the park while mommy and daddy don't spend any time with them ;).
Gonchar challenges me, saying:
The problem I see there is that you're assuming those 160 people would not have gotten in line in the first place. I'd think the opposite assumption makes more sense - all 160 of those people probably would have gotten in line without a virtual queue available. Obviously these are folks who wanted to ride.
That is true. But my point is this: That 2,400 figure I came up with is an approximation of a brick-wall limit: that's the number of people who can physically fit comfortably through the single-wide queue entrance in an hour. The reason the virtual queue makes the wait longer is that it provides an additional path for people to enter the queue, meaning that instead of squeezing 2,400 people through the turnstile and into the queue, it is now possible to squeeze 2,400 people through the turnstile and into the queue AND an additional 160 people through an additional, virtual entrance. That's how you end up with 2,560 people in line even though only 2,400 will fit through the entrance.
Now if you want to solve that problem, then the way to do it is to have everyone come through the single-turnstile ride entrance, then split the line. Go one way to wait for the ride, go the other way for the virtual queue. Then the 160 virtual queue count against the queue entrance "speed limit" and the virtual queue should then not affect the total waiting time.
In practice nobody has done that yet, and I suspect it is because either (A) the queue speed limit has not been widely considered, or (B) because the queue only operates at maximum capacity for a small part of each day (though obviously for long enough for a long line to form).
Incidentally, it's pretty clear that Cedar Fair at least partially considers this in their operations, as they close the ride queue when the ride is not operating. That prevents a long line from forming when the ride is not operating, and it causes a line to form more slowly once the ride re-opens. Also, I suspect they ran into the 2,400 PPH limit with Gemini, and they fixed it by giving that ride a double entrance and two queues.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
...my kids and other families just see that rich people get rewarded and we wait.
1. You can be far from 'rich' and still pay for a Q-bot.
2. If anyone sees it as a 'reward for being rich' then I feel sorry for those people. This is that negative stigma attached to folks who have gotten lucky or worked hard to get to a certain place in life and there's no reason they should feel guilty for that. These people aren't being rewarded for being in the financial situation they're in, they're able to take advantage of a enhanced level of service because they were able to get to the place they are. If my kids were in the same situation and made a comment like that, I'd use it as a chance to explain why hard work and dedication to life in general pays off.
I just don't like what it teaches my children and others.
But what does it teach them? That people are out there who've done well for themselves (under whatever circumstances) and are able to enjoy extra perks of life because of it? Wow, that's a real horrible message to pass on to children - "Do well in life and reap the rewards" - Oh, the humanity! (another situation where the :rolleyes: smiley would be nice)
This isn't directed right at COASTINGTHRU as much as this whole mindset in general - it kills me (and brings out the republican in me :) )
I'm very proud that my wife and I have worked hard and made the right moves in life to be able to provide these kinds of things for us and our kids and the fact that people see this as a bad thing is ridiculous. More power to you if you are fine with where you're at in life, but don't get angry with the 'rewards' other people are able to reap in return for what they've accomplished with their lives.
No one should ever have to feel guilty about doing well in life...ever.
RideMan said:
Now if you want to solve that problem, then the way to do it is to have everyone come through the single-turnstile ride entrance, then split the line. Go one way to wait for the ride, go the other way for the virtual queue. Then the 160 virtual queue count against the queue entrance "speed limit" and the virtual queue should then not affect the total waiting time.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that wouldn't solve the problem as the lines would still need to converge upon a single point before boarding the train. The only way this would solve it is if the virtual que was given a seperate row or car in the train. While this would still add to the wait by a row or train dedicated to the vitural row and not the standard rows, it wouldn't increase the wait (or perceived wait) as much as the current systems do.
I just want to add that I have worked really hard to get to the point I am at too. I'm not saying who worked harder, don't get me wrong. But as a single mom, I have less disposable income than some others. I don't see that paying extra to not stand in line should be a reward for extra disposable income. Again, what the kids see is through the eyes of kids. I can justify anything I want to, but I am an adult. I see it differently.
I may be a bit jaded too because SFNE is my home park. They truly handle the QBOT (or whatever name it goes by there) terribly. The only ride with a specified row is Thunderbolt. lol I have watched SROS and Batman let 20-40 people into line at once. I understand the concept of "virtual place holder." But if the queue was filled with 100 more people or more, I may not chose to wait in line. I can't judge how many "virtual people" are waiting in line with me to decide how the line looks. SFNE has lots of flats that never build a line and I would happily scamper off to ride them :) *** Edited 5/31/2005 3:41:11 PM UTC by COASTINGTHRU***
RideMan said:That is true. But my point is this: That 2,400 figure I came up with is an approximation of a brick-wall limit: that's the number of people who can physically fit comfortably through the single-wide queue entrance in an hour. The reason the virtual queue makes the wait longer is that it provides an additional path for people to enter the queue, meaning that instead of squeezing 2,400 people through the turnstile and into the queue, it is now possible to squeeze 2,400 people through the turnstile and into the queue AND an additional 160 people through an additional, virtual entrance. That's how you end up with 2,560 people in line even though only 2,400 will fit through the entrance.
Ok, I think I'm following you correctly. What you're saying is it make the physical lines longer, correct?
But what it doesn't do is make the wait longer for any individual in that line.
I'm taking that side solely based on what I said in my previous post on the subject - those 160 'extra' people would be in line regardless. It's as if they upped the 'speed limit' on the queue. Now the brick wall limit is 2560.
I'm struggling to find a clear way of conveying what's in my head. Please stick with me. :)
In that line, rider #2560 is waiting no longer than he would have if the virtual queue people filtered in at the old 2400 'speed limit' - he'd have just been waiting along the midway in one of those ugly kind of lines to get into the queue area.
It could be argued that #2560 wouldn't have waited for that line if he saw it overflowing onto the midway with folks trying to enter the queue and having that judgement handicapped by the prescence of virtual people in line, but his perceived wait of 90 minutes has only become 96 minutes due to the invisible folks in line. We're still dangerously close to that +/- 5 minutes of the 'normal' wait thing.
Is that making sense?
Of course, all of this assumes a queue filling at maximum capacity. Anything less than that and the virtual queue isn't affecting the line length at all. You could be putting people into the queue at a rate as high as 2240 (93% of the physical limit) and still maxing that 10% virtual allowance and the line never gets longer than is physically possible otherwise.
As odd as it sounds, I have to think a longer line does not necessarily equate to a longer wait for any given individual in that line.
I guess what I'm saying is that rider #2560 is rider #2560 no matter what.
As long as guests are being funneled into the queue at a rate equal to or greater than the ride's capacity, your wait is what it is regardless of how the other riders in the queue are entering. On a ride moving 1600pph, rider #2560 for the day will have to wait 96 minutes for his ride. It doesn't matter if he enters the queue at opening, uses a virtual queue and waits on a bench, or arrives at the park an hour and a half late and finds a mostly empty queue with a 6 minute wait. In any circumstance with the ride running at full capacity, the 2560th rider gets on 96 minutes after opening.
Lord Gonchar said:
I'm not sure waiting 45 minutes to ride while sitting on a bench along the midway as Q-bot waits in line for me, is any different than standing there in that line for 45 minutes.
If it's no different, then wait in the line like everyone else. ;-)
Lord Gonchar said:It's not the same as my wife standing in line then as she reaches the station, me and the kids running up to join here. That's adding three people to the line. and clearly line-cutting.
That is clearly line cutting..I agree with you there.
Lord Gonchar said:What it is the same as is as if my wife stood in line and just as she reached the station, I ran up and met her but I got on and she didn't. She was merely a place holder for me. The wait didn't increase one bit for anyone in that line. But rather than have my wife wait in a line while I enjoy a cool drink along the midway, Q-bot does it and we both enjoy cool drinks along the midway.
So as long as you got in line at some "point" (regardless of whether or not you stayed in the line)and then got on when that "point" got to the front...then it's just placeholding and that's okay.
Next time you go to the park, get to the line with your friend...Then leave your cell phone with your friend in line while you go have a blast on a few other rides (and for the sake of this argument, let's assume that there is a park employee managing the line and he see's you enter and leave the line). Then come back and just as your friend gets to the front, hop back in line with your friend and say that your cell phone held your spot and the employee at entrance saw you. Do you think that you will be allowed to ride??? (Now assume of course that the ride op isn't some apathetic employee that doesn't care about the rules.)
If I slice it that way...No one "leaves the line" (by your definition) and no additional people enter the line at any time...Your cell phone had your back!.
Lord Gonchar said:In fact, most people are forgetting a certain similar system that almost every park uses and has used for years that does the exact thing we've spent 3 pages debating - Baby Swap.
I will plead ignorance on this one because I don't fully know how the baby swap program works. I always assumed that both parents waited in line with child and they each rode just on different trains. The only times that I have seen it used, this is how it was done. Are the parents allowed to have just one parent wait in line???
It's funny that most who are for these systems are saying that it's about money for these parks and that's what they are they for..to make money. Are you sure that they make money with these systems??? It's easy to quantify how much money it earns...but it's not quite as easy to quantify how much it costs them. I will use myself as an example. I basically live equidistant to HP and SFA. I go to HP more and spend more money when I am at HP. Why?? A variety of reasons. But programs like q-bots are a factor. I can't even begin to quantify how much less I spend at SFA than HP due to q-bot..but rest assured, I do spend less and q-bot is a factor.
COASTINGTHRU said:
I just want to add that I have worked really hard to get to the point I am at too. I'm not saying who worked harder, don't get me wrong. But as a single mom, I have less disposable income than some others. I don't see that paying extra to not stand in line should be a reward for extra disposable income.
Exactly!
And Gonch..I don't think anyone is asking you to feel guilty for taking advantage of something that the park offers..at least I hope no one is asking you to feel guilty. We just don't feel that what the park is doing is appropriate. Sure they make money off of it and they are in business to make money...but that doesn't make it right. Yes I do realize that there are many things in life (and business) that aren't right...but that doesn't mean that I have to accept it.
I wonder if it's any coincidence that most of the parks that most enthusiasts have a high regard for do not offer "pay-to-cut" programs. *** Edited 5/31/2005 4:04:52 PM UTC by freakylick***
Then tell me, please, how it is 'wrong'? I'm still waiting on an explination of how these systems are Morally, Ethically, Legally wrong, but no one seems to get past the "I can't afford it, so that is why it is wrong" argument.
freakylick said:
If I slice it that way...No one "leaves the line" (by your definition) and no additional people enter the line at any time...Your cell phone had your back!.
However his point was that person A would stand in line for person B and that person B would ride while person A did not ride so that to the rest of the line, there was no difference in the number of people in line (virtual + regular) and the number of peopl riding. Your example adds 1 to this number.
onceler said:However his point was that person A would stand in line for person B and that person B would ride while person A did not ride so that to the rest of the line, there was no difference in the number of people in line (virtual + regular) and the number of peopl riding. Your example adds 1 to this number.
No in my example, the cell phone was a "virtual" placeholder. The same number of people that got in line as those that rode.
Tekno..It has been explained. You just saw it as a bunch of whining. *** Edited 5/31/2005 4:18:11 PM UTC by freakylick***
You must be logged in to post
