Quick Queue Unlimited at BGW

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:44 PM
LostKause's avatar

Well, I am coming from a "ways to improve it" standpoint at theis juncture of the argument. I say that it is best implemented when it is limited to just one ride per attraction per purchase. Either that or make it so expensive, that not many people will be willing to use it. This is the best way for it to not negatively affect other park goers.

All the other stuff is stating why I feel it is negatively affecting park goers.

As for "how to best use it", I selfishly say the best way to use it is to take advantage of it and use it as much as possible. On the other hand, considering the other patrons in the parks, I unselfishly say that it shouldn't be offered at all.


+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:03 PM

It seems as though the hinge point is how much do these types of systems affect people already waiting in line. If you are at a park where a system exists to allow people to get to the front of the line quicker than the person at the back of the line is currently then you will negatively impact those people already in line from a wait standpoint. However, it seems as though this is really only an issue on busy or really busy days where a lot of people are using those systems.

+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:21 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

But it's time to shift the perception - especially as these 'upgrades' become more common.

It's not about what these people are taking from you. They're taking nothing. It's a new line of thinking on price structure and admission plans.

You bought the right to wait in a stand-by line. They bought the right not to. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that...and it's really not.


+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:03 PM

I'll go farther.

They are taking something from non-purchasers that they wouldn't have if the option didn't exist. But, the marketplace has spoken. I can't think of a single park that has deployed a pay-to-cut scheme and later revoked it because people were turned off and stopped coming, causing the park to lose more money than pay-to-cut brought in. So, suck it up and deal with it, because it's not going away.

You have the following options:

1: Don't patronize parks that offer these schemes, and spend your fun dollars elsewhere.

2: Visit when these schemes don't matter: Go when overall crowds are low, and/or visit the most popular attractions early in the day or late at night, when lines are lower.

3: Pay more money and spend less time in line.

4: Pay less money and spend more time in line.

That's it. Those are your options. Pick one, and freaking move on already.


+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:05 PM
ridemcoaster's avatar

LostKause said:
Either that or make it so expensive, that not many people will be willing to use it. This is the best way for it to not negatively affect other park goers.

All the other stuff is stating why I feel it is negatively affecting park goers.

At $40 for Busch Unlim. and, what $15 or so for SF flash pass.. I would say the percentage of users of the pass vs non users is still not enough to affect the non users line experience.. We are all still getting in the line.. I see it as placement really. Are they in front of you or to the side of you.


I dunno.. If you had any bone to pick, I would think it would be Disney where its free for all (not that I see any issue there either). Not the ones where people leverage a few extra dollars for the "extra" perk they are paying for.

But I guess I have to ask. Is it really affecting park goers to be that much a problem that needs to be "fixed"? Or just you and a seemingly small subset of buzzers?

Last edited by ridemcoaster, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:06 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:09 PM
LostKause's avatar

I believe that practically doubling the price of admission of an amusement park ticket over the last 5 or so years is ridiculous. The idea that regular admission ($50 or $60) will allow a visitor to have a worse experience than before the system was implemented is not appealing to me. The idea that one would have to add $40 on top of that, per ticket mind you, in order to have a much better experience, at the expense of those who can't or will not buy it, is also not appealing to me.

It used to be pay one price, and get what everyone else gets. Now it's Pay the same price, and get cut in front of, or pay double, and be allowed to cut in front of everyone who doesn't pay. That, again, is not appealing to me.

The world would be a better place without pay-to-cut. I wish that it had never been invented. It's pretty sad, actually, to understand that when I go to a park, I have to be subjected to Blackmail.

If I'm going to use all that energy, and money, to visit a park, I'm not going to enjoy letting people cut in front of me all day, so I have to pay up. Then I am the bad guy, stricken with guilt, because I am cutting in front of everyone else, and that makes me feel even worse.

Just because it's been going on for a few years, and people are starting to accept it, doesn't mean that it is right. I mean, take Celine Dion for example. Just because she's been pretending to be a good singer for decades doesn't mean that she is still a good singer.

...And if they start pulling the same crap that SF pulls (closing attractions for no apparent reason and slowing down the lines), which would be very appealing to their bank account, my wallet will ignore their park too. They'll have to keep operations in tip top shape if they want to see this money grab scheme work.

It's, still, just not right.


+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:12 PM

Back to the topic at hand:

If I only had one day, and that one day was July 4th, even then I might just go with the $15 one-per-ride option, because I'm not sure I need to re-ride a bunch of stuff. In fact, I suspect that the $15 option is under-priced for July 4th---I won't be surprised to see these parks go the direction Universal has, and vary pricing by season. I'd probably buy it in a heartbeat. In fact, now that I think about it, I might order a set for our final day there this summer, so that we can have "one last fling".

But, I'm a see-everything, enjoy-the-whole-park, smell-the-roses, would-be-charmland-passholder kind of guy. If I were earlier in my enthusiast cycle, I might well just figure that $100 to power-ride Apollo all day on the 4th of July was a fair deal.


Edited, because LK snuck one in on me:

Just because it's been going on for a few years, and people are starting to accept it, doesn't mean that it is right.

"The market" doesn't have a sense of right or wrong. "The market" only cares about whether or not something brings more value to the customers as a group. And, if a company can monetize that value, they win.

This is nothing more than amusement parks figuring out a way to make a little extra money off of the fact that some people place a higher dollar value on their time than others. Wishing that would go away is like hoping the earth would stop spinning. Worse, actually, because the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the earth eventually will stop spinning, but it is unlikely that folks will suddenly all value their time equally.

Last edited by Brian Noble, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:22 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:24 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

LostKause said:
It used to be pay one price, and get what everyone else gets.


Actually, before that, it was pay as you go (pay-per-ride). Everyone got exactly what they paid for. I imagine a segment of people that think like you felt just as screwed by the advent of POP. Things changed.

And it's changing again. That's all. It's not right or wrong. It just is.

I believe that practically doubling the price of admission of an amusement park ticket over the last 5 or so years is ridiculous. The idea that regular admission ($50 or $60) will allow a visitor to have a worse experience than before the system was implemented is not appealing to me.

And that's really the problem, isn't it?

It's just that, "I think amusement parks are too expensive" isn't as romantic of an arguement.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:24 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:47 PM
ridemcoaster's avatar

Hmmm LK you are all over the map on your last one.. We went from "line cutting" to Celine Dion (that comparison doesnt work to me), to closing rides.

Will touch on first and last.. Celine has no bearing to me.

First on closing rides. I assume its BBW you are semi referring to(and I feel this way for any park before anyone thinks its personal). In that case it was economics for the park.. Spending large amounts of money almost daily on ride repairs that has attendance rivals DarkKastle doesnt make fiscal sense to a park. Who are we to dictate that we know better why or why not to close a ride? I like to assume all parks all have the same goal of entertaining while remaining profitable, otherwise the industry is a wash. If closing something maintains that equation... So be it.

Second.. Price changes.. Well all parks do it and economy drives it.. Again goes back to an equation of what market can bare vs what maintains profitability. I think doubling in 5 years is probably an exaggeration in most park cases, but if people are still coming through the turnstiles than you satisfied part one of the equation and allowed part two to occur.

Third. I have hardly ever, almost never used at SF nor at any Busch park the front of line passes and cant say my experience has been ruined by those who do. Maybe its as Gonch says.. A mental perspective change in whats really going on is needed.. I think we used the "first class seating in airplane" analogy before. Do you now slight the airlines because someone is at the front of the plane and able to get off first and have a bit more leg room than those a few rows back? Does it now ruin your experience because you didnt cough up a few more (hundreds of) dollars for that?

Again, in the end are we really waiting in line that much longer becasuse of this.. Are we really upset at the park for giving options, or are we upset because someone decided to leverage a few more dollars in their wallet to wait in a different line?

Last edited by ridemcoaster, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:50 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:45 PM
Carrie M.'s avatar

Brian Noble said:

"The market" doesn't have a sense of right or wrong. "The market" only cares about whether or not something brings more value to the customers as a group. And, if a company can monetize that value, they win.

This was an awesome way to explain it, Brian.


It doesn't make any sense to blame the business for their pricing in any situation where competition exists. The people who are willing to pay that price ultimately get to decide if it should stay that way or not. That's how it works.


There can never be a blackmail situation for non-essential expenses. Ever. You choose to pay it or you don't. And as long as there are enough people who are choosing to pay it, it only makes sense that the business continue to charge it.

And Ken, I don't think LK was talking about the removal of rides or about BGW at all. He was referring to his belief that parks who offer front of line access at a premium also manipulate the situation by choosing to not operate rides during the day at times so that lines will become longer at other attractions - thus making the FOL pass more enticing. It's just not a feasible assumption as parks lose in many ways every time a ride stops operating during park hours.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:24 PM
Jeff's avatar

I thought they tore down Deja Vu.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:32 PM
ridemcoaster's avatar

Ah. Thanks Carrie.. I read closing as closing, which is why it seemed he was all over map. Celine threw me off... Thanks for the correction..

Most my points still stand however with respect to rest though, and I agree with Jeff.. This thread does seems to come back quite often.. But hey.. When someone is passionate about a topic, I guess I can see it happening.

Course it was egged on this time.


+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:46 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

The fact that the market does not respond to morals or ethics doesn't mean the discussion isn't worth having, at least to me. There are a lot of ways companies can "monetize value" that are legal but not ethical.

That said, I can't see how this is ethically wrong except that it used to be one way which benefited those willing to wait and now it's a different way which benefits those willing to pay.


Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:44 PM
rollergator's avatar

The big flaw in market theory to me (i.e., the idea that the market will punish behaviors we find objectionable in some way and reward those behaviors we prer) - is that it fails to account for goods that belong to everyone and no one at all. Clear air, clean water, that kind of stuff.

Other than that, those who find value in things spend money on those things. Am I always going to argue/fight for "the little guy"? Yep...but I find value in that, it makes me feel better. Am I occasionally (very rarely, but it's happened) the one who's short on time and where I want to spend extra money to save time via a VQ device? Yep, I'm that guy too. Circumstances generally dictate that for these goods and services that are purely for pleasure....the market does a pretty decent job. Essential items like food and water have noticeably shallower demand curves.

If your local park IS closing rides to generate longer lines....someone else will be owning the park in a few years.... (BTW, have I recommended SuperFreakonomics yet?) ;)


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:29 PM

Kudos to BGW for not including it on LNM, due to safety issues, if that's really the case. SFGAdv line cut system, for example, has several safety issues in the way it is implemented, and it causes trains to be dispatched at a slower rate, causing more of a demand for line the line cut system in the first place..

It is good to hear that Busch Gardens is handling it differently than Great Adventure. It is only a problem on busier days but the current set up cannot handle the flashpass users. For the lines that merge at the station it isn't a problem but where flashpass users go up the exit and have a car reserved for them causes issues. In August 2008, I was in line for Scream Machine it was about 30 minutes (I won't be going back in August again), car 6 is reserved for flashpass and since that is only 4 riders per train, the flashpass line filled the entire exit ramp almost to the photo area. Because of that every few trains, they were letting flashpass users have the entire train to get the flashpass line to shorten making the regular line barely move at all. I have seen the same thing happen at Rolling Thunder and Skull Mountain as well, both rides also have a reserved car for flashpass.

Last edited by YoshiFan, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:30 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:01 PM

^^'gator, I'm totally with you. You can add some other things as well that are "semi-public goods"---for example, telephone service to rural areas, etc.

But, as you mention, amusement parks aren't that thing.


+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:56 PM
LostKause's avatar

Gator, who bought Six Flags? I heard recently that SFMM had many of their coasters closed at a time. I bet the lines were very long for the rides that were open, and I bet they rented a lot of Q-Bots too.


Celine Dion was in reply to Gonch. Goofy, I'll admit.

It doesn't "ruin" my park experience, but it does leave me really mixed up. I don't want to cut in front of anyone, but people are cutting in front of me, so I have to go ahead and pay a lot extra, so that I can cut too. I then feel bad for doing something that I feel is wrong. Why would a park do anything to make people feel like that?

After BGW gets a taste of how much money could be made, what incentive do they have to not close down a coaster for no good reason, or instate some kind of directions or design in order to make one or more rides have slower lines? The fact is, that a park who offers pay-to-cut, benefits from slowing lines and closing rides (citing "staffing problems" or "mechanical problems").

The whole thing creates a conflict of interest. Parks should be focused on things like getting the trains out of the station quickly, but instead, they'll be more concerned with how they can sell more line cuts. I've experienced it more than enough times at other parks, and it's not pretty.

It's a slippery slope.

I could respond to a lot more, but it's all about how we perceive the whole topic.

I got to state my opinion on the subject. that's good enough for me. :)

Last edited by LostKause, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:58 PM
+0
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:51 PM
rollergator's avatar

^Just recently, Dan Snyder. Six Flags has had lots of owners... high turnover of ownership is not unlike high turnover of employees in being highly predictive of "bad things" (TM)...


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Thursday, February 18, 2010 6:20 AM

The only coasters closed at SFMM was when they got repainted and/or went thru there yearly maintenance, which u know, happens at a year round park. SFMM certainly did not close the rides to sell a couple more q-bots(especially thru the quieter off season) When you start arguing otherwise, you are really gasping for valid arguments


+0
Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:30 AM
kpjb's avatar

LostKause said:
I heard recently that SFMM had many of their coasters closed at a time.

As mentioned, what else do you expect from a year-round park? Of course they have rides closed in the winter.

I don't want to cut in front of anyone, but people are cutting in front of me, so I have to go ahead and pay a lot extra, so that I can cut too. I then feel bad for doing something that I feel is wrong. Why would a park do anything to make people feel like that?

I hate that "victim culture" mentality. Like you have no free will or mind of your own to make adult decisions. The park is not "making you feel like that." If everyone was walking around stabbing people, I wouldn't stab people no matter how accepted it may be.


If you think it's wrong, but you do it anyhow because you see other people doing it, then you're part of the problem.


Hi

+0

Closed topic.

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...