Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program

Why not just "Pay Upon exit" instead? You pay upon how your exierence was at the park. If this was implamented SF would be broke inside of a week. CP on the other hand, would be so flush with cash they could gold-plate TTD & MF and STILL have enough for Kinzel's paycheck.

Do you think a thief cares if it is private property or not? Sure the $5 would help. If I were a thief, I would not want to have to pay or have to deal with anyone if I wanted to make a clean getaway. Without a parking fee and attendent, they could drive in and out as they please. Plus, they know that you are going to be in the park all day, so the chances of being cought are slim to none.

I am not saying that the parking lot is going to be flooded with thief's just looking to get your car stereo, but it happens and its just one of many reasons I think the parks need to charge something to park your car.

If the parks include the parking price in the ticket price, you are still paying for parking but the price of a ticket raises and the parking lots are left wide open for anyone to come or go as they please.

In six flags case, the price of a ticket would raise $15. Like I said, most people don't even think about parking untill they arive at the park. I think they would be more unlikley to come if the ticket prices jumped $15 in a year, even if they advertised free parking.

Like I said, charge for park admission at the tool booth. Let the peds pay up front.

Thats a great idea. But could you imagine the lines of cars waiting to get in?

"Do you think a thief cares if it is private property or not?"

The point is that the only thing that changes is that you don't pay for parking at a toll both at the front of the parking lot. You can still have security in the lot, and actually, you could take the people collecting money and put them on staff with security to make sure the lots are even safer. I'll set it off so you and everyone else can see it well -

Charging money for parking does not make your parking lot less accessible.

Even at parks that do have high parking fees, it is just as easy for any thief to enter your property, and in the cases of many major parks, you can walk into a parking lot just as easily as you can drive into a parking lot.

By this logic I should have paid a buck to park at Target this morning, or to enter onto any private property.

It just seems like the raise in crime in your parkings lots would be so completely minimal (if there were any at all) they would be nothing compared to the benefits that have already been outlined here.

"In six flags case, the price of a ticket would raise $15. Like I said, most people don't even think about parking untill they arive at the park. I think they would be more unlikley to come if the ticket prices jumped $15 in a year, even if they advertised free parking."

This is wrong and perfectly illustrates that you have zero grasp of the concept here. The ticket price would raise $15 per person only every single person entering the park had their own car. What some of us are advocating for is the cost of parking your car spread out among *every ticket sold.*

So if you have an average of 3 people per car (that figure is low but I'm being generous) at a park that charges $10 for parking, your admission would go up a little more than $3.

The truth of the matter is though, with group sales and people being hauled in on buses and minivans full of kids most parks average much more than 3 people per vehicle. If you average 6 people per vehicle at $10 a pop that's only like $1.67 a person more.

My guess (and it's a rough one admittedly) is that the average SF park could raise admission by less than $5 (probably way, way less) and easily recoup what they lose by not charging for parking.

If anyone wants to do some harder math go for it. *** Edited 3/20/2007 8:52:00 PM UTC by matt.***

And then in a few years they would decide to drop the "free" parking and start charging again.

I just see parking charges as more of an easy added-profit area rather then a realistic way to cover costs.

---

millrace said:
And then in a few years they would decide to drop the "free" parking and start charging again.

---

That's why you have to have faith in Park X's leadership and if they screw up something they made better, you stop going. :)

In other words, we're all probably better off if Six Flags doesn't go the "free parking" route? ;)

---

millrace said:
In other words, we're all probably better off if Six Flags doesn't go the "free parking" route? ;)

---

In other words, SF would probably be better off, but they're going to charge where their maximum profit is right now and in the next few years, not where their maximum profit is going to be longterm.

Or in OTHER words, if I say "Ditch the parking fee and raise admission for everyone $2" they'd say "Oh snap, we can raise admission $2 and get away with it? Let's go for it!" and then promptly forget about what I said about the parking fee.

Nope, nope, nope... still not convinced to ever set foot inside a Six Flags park again...

So how 'bout them there VIPS?

Can't speak for the others, but I'm not trying to convince anyone to go to SF - their operations suck butt. :)

Do you think people are more likely to buy food if they're getting the drinks for free? For instance, if someone wanted to "take advantage" of the free soda option a park offered. Don't you think they would be more willing to buy some food to go with the drink? I mean overall. Yes I realize this wouldn't apply to EVERYONE. But, I do know that almost the entire price of a soda in any theme park is pure profit. So, if they eliminated that, do you think their food profit would go up?

I almost always eat within HW. Never feel gouged and enjoy it.

Holiday World claims it has - significantly!

I can't argue with that, but I've never gotten the logic that if things cost less, I spend more. It just doesn't apply to me.

I mean, if we want to eat, we buy food for four. If that's $12 a head then we drop $48. If it's $8 a head we drop $32. We don't buy more because it's cheaper - we tend to buy what we want/need regardless. So, speaking for myself - lower priced parks get less money from me.

However, a lot of people around here claim they spend more when prices are lower.

If a meal is gonna cost me 15 bucks in a amusement park. Chances are I'll wait till close and get something decent for 7.

If it's 7 inside the park then I eat there.

Chuck, who remembers my first trip to Kennywood. We actually walked to the Ponderosa and ate lunch. I've since found it far cheaper and enjoyable inside the park.

I don't buy more if prices are less, but I buy less if prices are more.

Does that make sense?

In other words I have walked right into a park knowing I was going to absolutely avoid spending a dime over what I had to to get on some certain coasters or whatever. It's rare because I do consider myself a "park enthusiast" first and foremost and if I don't like a park I usually just don't go.

It all comes back to value.

The vast majority of SF parks I wouldn't spend much at all.

75% of parks I eat the same, average amount. Maybe one big meal and snacks here and there.

EPCOT and Knoebels, I frickin' chow down, but that's only 2 parks.

I think it's similar for a lot of people. *** Edited 3/20/2007 10:56:36 PM UTC by matt.***

I usually don't buy soda in the park. I prefer water, and tap water is fine with me.

But feeling like I am charged a fair amount vs an obscene amount does influence how much I spend. If they're going to charge me $12 for a hot dog, then forget it. I'll plan ahead and stash food in the car.

A few parks do not charge more than what a comparable meal would cost outside the park so I have no problem eating there.

My length of stay, number of visits and reasons for going back are not *WHAT THEY HAVE*. It's all dependent on *HOW MUCH ENJOYMENT* I get from my visit.

Usually about 3pm when it cost me $10 to get two large sodas is when I START ENJOYING MYSELF LESS.

Make my day ENJOYABLE from start to finish and I'll stay from start to finish and end up spending more (Probably) and actually NEVER GET A BAD FEELING about the place.

Sure Operations and such have a effect on MY ENJOYMENT factor. Still I've gone and had great times in cheap parks with little to do. JUST BECAUSE I NEVER FELT TAKEN! That I WAS WELCOME AND WANTED THERE and NOT JUST A REVENUE STREAM.

Chuck

I definitely eat more when prices are lower. Specifically, when prices are at SF level I eat zero (pack lunch in the car) and when they're Knoebel's level I'll often grab a piece of pizza or a dessert.

What I meant to say was if someone was thirsty and wanted a soda, they'd go up to a counter and order a "free" drink. Since this person is already there, I'm thinking they're more likely to buy something that costs money - like a pretzel, cotton candy, slice of pizza, ice cream, etc... The free drink got them to the counter, and the smell, temptation, look or whatever of the other food enticed them to BUY food that they normally wouldn't have. I'm not sure I'm saying that right, but it seems to make sense to me.