------------------
Formerly NoLimitChic
That is the kicker. The parks charge a pretty penny and raise our level of expectations. Then, they hire whoever they can get and cannot get those employees to present an acceptable level of service.
Again, Disney has as much trouble as all of the other parks. There needs to be a shift in the philosophy of the industry. They are willing to spend $20 million on a ride but are not willing to raise wages $1 an hour which might mean an extra $3 million a year in salaries.
...and even though the employees you can get for an extra dollar an hour may not be Jessica Alba or Beyonce Knowles, as long as they're polite, pleasant, courteous and helpful, they could be as ugly as me for all I care...;)
Bottom line for me....this IS the hospitality industry, not the *rides* industry.....if you think you can skimp on the cost of employees and still thrive in this industry, eventually you'll find out differently...
PM, you were right in saying that it's the job of the maintenance crew to keep the rides running. But their undertaking is huge at SFNO. The park has more flat than most in the chain.
In closing, I am going to say this. This is my opinion and should be taken as such:The little theme park made a case for itself to become SFI's newest megapark. It may not happen in 2004, but look forward to some great things out SFNO in the near future!
Backseat Lee said:
The little theme park made a case for itself to become SFI's newest megapark. It may not happen in 2004, but look forward to some great things out SFNO in the near future!
Uhm... I'm pretty sure it doesn't have the population density to become a "megapark". It will probably never be on the scale of SFOT, SFGAdv, SFGAm and SFMM.
Yeah, it did better than it did before, but as horrible as Alfa treated the park, as someone already stated, it had no choice but to go up once Six Flags took over.
------------------
Panther Modern
SixFlagsHouston.Com
An Astroworld Tribute Site
Cameraman said:
I don't think he mean't "megapark" in that sense. Just that it's much bigger and better than Jazzland and in a sense that you could call all Six Flags parks "megaparks" due to what kind of work, money, and time goes into them. In comparison, I've heard SFNO's transformation will be comparable to SFNE's.
Now that I can believe. I wouldn't hold my breath for that hyper right away tho.
------------------
Panther Modern
SixFlagsHouston.Com
An Astroworld Tribute Site
------------------
Nashville needs a theme park!
For the first six months of 2003, revenues from consolidated operations were $381.6 million, compared to $397.1 million for the comparable period of 2002, representing a 3.9% decrease, driven by a 3.9% decrease in attendance at the consolidated parks. Total revenues per capita were flat to the prior year. Excluding the New Orleans park, which was not owned in the 2002 period, revenue decreased by $26.4 million (6.7%) in the 2003 period, as a result of an attendance decline at the consolidated parks of 7.2%, offset by a 0.6% increase in revenues per capita.
Do the math and Six Flags revenue this year including SFNO is over $15 million less than last year ($397.1 - $381.6). Without New Orleans it would have been $26 million. Therefore, New Orleans was responsible for bringing in about $11 million in revenue ($26.4 - $15.5).
However, Six Flags spent over $20 million on that property this year. So the park actually lost Six Flags a lot of money, over $9 million unless things really turn around for Fright Fest. Way to go! Six Flags would have been better off financially if they hadn't rebranded Jazzland for 2003.
*** This post was edited by Pancake 8/27/2003 2:35:16 AM ***
You must be logged in to post