Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program
Dude - you must not understand how the system works. If Disney wants the stand-by queue to average 20 minutes on a particular day, they give out a certain number of FastPasses per hour.
Apparently, you are the person who does not understand how it works. Here's the scoop.
First, each attraction has a "minimum" return time. At most attractions in Florida (where I'm more familiar with the details), it is 40 minutes from "now", where "now" is measured in five minute increments on most attractions. (There are some corner cases; for example, MK first thing in the morning has a longer return time, etc.) You can never pull a fastpass with a return time less than the minimum, so every five minutes, the return time advances by at least five minutes.
Second, each attraction has an estimated hourly capacity---determined by the number of vehicles expected to be in operation, combined with the dispatch times possible on the attraction. For example, on a slow day, they may not put all trains on Thunder, so capacity is slightly lower than it will be on a busy day when they'll run it full tilt. It's a bit more complicated than this, because the capacity changes over time.
Space in MK is a good example. When the rockets are either cold and slow, *or* have high variance in completing the circuit, dispatch intervals are "sandbagged" by the operator to prevent block zone intrusions from stopping the ride. As rockets heat up, speed up, and become more consistent, sandbagging is reduced to get to the minimum possible dispatch interval. Sandbagging is still used between a "light" rocket (those with four or fewer guests, IIRC) and a full one, but if the grouper is doing his/her job, then sandbagging should be rare when they get rolling.
Third, each attraction has a fraction of estimated hourly capacity devoted to fastpass. 60-80% is not uncommon. Gonch explains this in the post before mine.
Now, when people pull fewer fastpasses per hour than are allocated, the return time stays at 40 minutes away. However, as guests pull more fastpasses per hour than are allocated, the return time advances faster than five minutes per 5min interval, and the return time gets farther and farther away.
At merge, the CM doesn't follow a strict count; instead, their job is to make sure that the fastpass queue doesn't back up pre-merge---there is an 'acceptable' wait time for fastpass guests, but it varies by attraction. If, for example, a Brazilian tour group shows up with fastpasses en masse, they'll pretty much bring the standby queue to a halt while they enter. This is why Disney uses 5 minute intervals rather than CP's discrete hours; it makes for a nice smooth return flow in most cases.
The number of fastpasses distributed are not set with any expectation of standby time. They are allocated only based on ride capacity. The standby line is whatever it is based on crowd conditions, attraction popularity, and the usual ebbs and flows throughout the park.
This usually works pretty well, but when it doesn't work (because the capacity estimate is wrong, etc.) then it fails spectacularly. For example, if you read www.stupidguesttricks.com, you'll discover that Pan in MK sometimes has had it's fastpass template set up improperly, which makes for some pretty hideous queue conditions. *** Edited 3/25/2007 11:36:08 PM UTC by Brian Noble***
Fastpass = Effort and knowledge = FREE! with admission = more fairLo-Q = wealth and selfishness = $90 or more with admission = less fair
I don't see any difference between these two. I can spend my time and effort learning the nuances of a particular park, or I could spend my time and effort working a few overtime hours and making a few more bucks. Either way, I wait less time.
In some sense Lo-Q is a better deal than Fastpass. Why? Because with Lo-Q, I can decide whether to learn the nuances of the park, or just earn a bit more money. With fastpass, no amount of money gets me an advantage. And, if you make enough per hour, that makes fastpass a pretty rotten deal compared to Lo-Q.
On the other hand, Fastpass has an advantage in that it is scalable. With Lo-Q, there is a sharp discrete separation between the haves and the have-nots. With Fastpass, some people know nothing ("How much do those cost?"), some people know a little, and others know a lot.
If you have access to HBO, you've probably seen the Cathouse series; a psuedo-documentary about a legal brothel in Nevada. In one scene the proprietor is holding a seminar with his "ladies" about how to negotiate with the customer. He says something along the lines of:
The customer's job is to party with you for free. Your job is to take his car, his house, and his 401K. Somewhere in the middle, there's a happy buyer, and a happy seller.
Priceless.
And that right there is one point I think some of you do not understand. A few years ago people used to be able to pay the $5 parking fee and $40 admission and know that they are going to have an okay day at Six Flags. Now they need to somehow manage to come up with $105 (and starve for a day if SF starts a no eatery policy) to be able to have a decent time.
Add to that the $60 for gas to get there and back and maybe the $50 hotel stay because it's so far away.
It's just not worth it to me.
Disney isn't charging $105 to get in and cut lines and they seem to be doing just fine.
"The customer's job is to party with you for free. Your job is to take his car, his house, and his 401K. Somewhere in the middle, there's a happy buyer, and a happy seller."
But what about the people who are not happy that you took them for everything they have? Happy customers come back and spend money again. Not everyone is selfish. There is a word that sometimes pops up when speaking of price, and that word is "Reasonable".
A reasonable price doesn't cause one to feel ripped off. It doesn't make you feel that one is getting a great deal either. One feels that they are paying a price that benefits both parties.
It already costs too much.
Chuck
If Holiday World suddenly started charging $60 per visit, do you think that would stop most of us from going? I think not... ;)
Brian Noble said:
If you have access to HBO, you've probably seen the Cathouse series; a psuedo-documentary about a legal brothel in Nevada.
Mmmm. Isabella. :)
Sadly, she's gone all downhill since she jumped to porn. Sigh...
dexter said:
There is a word that sometimes pops up when speaking of price, and that word is "Reasonable".A reasonable price doesn't cause one to feel ripped off. It doesn't make you feel that one is getting a great deal either. One feels that they are paying a price that benefits both parties.
But 'reasonable' itself is a subjective term. One man's 'reasonable' is another's 'rip-off' is another's 'good deal' - it just works that way.
Just because it's 'unreasonable' to you, doesn't mean we all feel that way and vice versa - just because I'm cool with it doesn't mean everyone feels that either. All they need to be successful is enough people who are ok with it. (meaning they find the price close enough to 'reasonable' to make it a go)
They haven't even come close to crossing that line yet.
Quality and what's "worth it" is most certainly "subjective". i don't know how many times this needs to be said.
And yes "reasonable" is subjective, but in the context of...
"The customer's job is to party with you for free. Your job is to take his car, his house, and his 401K. Somewhere in the middle, there's a happy buyer, and a happy seller."
...I'm seeing that to mean that SF can rip off their valued guests because a portion of them will be happy to be riped off. I'm not happy to be ripped off and some of you seem to be.
I agree that quality and value are subjective too, but just think about what shape the parks were in 10 years ago. Compare that to now. Would you say that they are of better quality and value now or worse? What about comparing operations and cleanliness with other parks? Is it so subjective now?
Why did attendance drop again? Was it that prices were so high (not reasonable) that only the rich are starting to be able to afford visits to the chains parks? (probably not because everyone but me has a SF season pass.) Is it that ticked off "guests" have have realized that operations suck and complaints are met with indifference? (not that either because each year they keep telling us that they are improving operations EVEN BETTER than the last year, right?) I know, it's probably the weather again?
Subjective or not, we'll see if next years attendance goes down again. It doesn't matter to someone like me (who is less likely to afford SF) now that less people spend more money. They are sending potential customers to other parks, and when the elite high class gets fed up with normal SF operations, they'll go to one of the many parks that offer a much better "value" (HP, DP, CP, GL, KW, KI, ETC).
*** Edited 3/26/2007 6:16:49 AM UTC by dexter***
dexter said:
...that only the rich are starting to be able to afford visits to the chains parks...
...when the elite high class gets fed up...
Heh. I think what we have here is a lack of perspective. I'm also thinking our respective definitions of 'elite' and 'rich' aren't quite in the same place. So I decided to dig up some cold, hard numbers for you and I found this page on the US government census site that breaks down median incomes by state and family size.
So what, right? Well, stick with me for a moment or two. :)
Let's go with the Jersey park. (SFGAdv)
Online tickets are $46 each. Parking is $15. And we'll even assume you need the Q-bot to enjoy your day. For a family of four you're looking at around $300 at this point. (184 + 15 + 100 = $299) We'll say each family member spends $50 inside the park. That's a daily total of $499.
Still with me? $500 for that family of four to go do SFGAdv.
So what's the median household income in NJ for a family of four?
$90,261
Read it again. The median income for that family is more than $90,000. (that means 50% of the people make more and 50% make less - it's the middle)
That's $1735 a week.
The cost of that $500 day at SF is just 29% of their weekly income. To put in into perspective - take your own weekly income and multiple it by .29. What do you got? But since you're responsible for just your own costs and not a family of four, divide that number by 4. What do you got now?
I'm guessing a pretty reasonable price tag. More than likely one that you'd be okay with spending for a day at the park, right? Probably a number you could think about dropping with little regard? Maybe even a good value for a full day at the park?
That's the equivalent value for that NJ family of four.
Make sense?
It also makes me giggle when people say Lake Compounce is over priced. That $90,261 figure is $92,205 in CT.
Anyway, that's not rich. That's called middle-class. Even low middle-class, depending on where you live.
-CO
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
Note also that we're talking about the median and not the mean, I'm guessing the mean is much, much higher. It's less valid in this sort of conversation but still interesting. *** Edited 3/26/2007 12:52:58 PM UTC by matt.***
"The customer's job is to party with you for free. Your job is to take his car, his house, and his 401K. Somewhere in the middle, there's a happy buyer, and a happy seller."...I'm seeing that to mean that SF can rip off their valued guests because a portion of them will be happy to be riped off. I'm not happy to be ripped off and some of you seem to be.
No, you're not quite getting the meaning of that quote. By definition, someone who feels ripped off is not a happy buyer. The idea behind negotiation is to find a price where *each* person---the buyer and the seller---both feel like they got a good deal. At this point, the buyer feels like they got their money's worth, and the seller made enough money to justify providing the item or service.
You seem to want to insist that because you find it rapacious, that everyone else must too. Evidently, some people find it an acceptable value, because some people still go.
They are sending potential customers to other parks
Maybe, but probably not. They are probably sending potential customers to a Mets game. Or on a day-long fishing trip. Or a concert. Or any one of hundreds of other summertime leisure activities. The vast majority of people in a theme park are not there because they really like theme parks. They are there because they want a summertime day of fun with their families or friends.
But, none of us debate your underlying point: higher overall prices definitely mean that some people will no longer find the parks a good value. We all accept this. The question is: do the higher prices drive off so many people that profits go down in the end, or not?
The evidence from last year suggests that the answer is no: per-cap rose more than attendance dropped, so in the end, Six Flags comes out slightly ahead. What's more, some of that attendance drop has to be attributable to continued lousy operations and management. Improve those at the current price point, and Six Flags comes out even farther ahead.
For what it's worth, I have no SF parks in my travel plans for the upcoming year, but Dollywood, Holiday World, WDW, and several Cedar Fair parks are. But, my individual decisions are unimportant. What's important is what the market as a whole does.
I think you're over simplifying what things cost.
Anyway, I think Gonch has said this before....even though it seems like they are pricing a lot of families out of a day at the park, it ramains to be seen how this model holds up. Sure, last year's numbers seem to point to success, but we'll have to see if those richies (middle class) folks return.
Me? I am taking the family to Legoland this Friday. I was VERY surprised to see a $57 adult admission. But, they must realize that people like me COULD take their family to Disneyland...but that drive...and those lines....with a toddler? Forget it. Besides, AAA has a $15 discount. And that makes up for the $10 parking and then some.
But still, I'd rather get a $12 discount and not have to wait in line to pay for parking. I'd be more likely to buy a box of legos for me....er Jr. on the way out. Ahh...who am I kidding??? We're talking goofy parents like me who get all nostalgic for their childhood toys and go nuts on the way out. They SOOOO have my number. I still don't understand why the toy company sold off the parks.
halltd said:
$90k for a family of FOUR is not that much.
Exactly, my point
I would also argue 29% of your salary is a LOT to spend on a theme park. Keep in mind what real estate prices are in NJ, so their mortgages are going to be outrageous. Plus, the cost of living is insane in NJ - I know because I used to live there. If you're talking two parents and two kids, you also have school and food and cars to pay for. So, its not like one person making $90k and going to a theme park for the day. Don't forget all the tolls you have to pay just to GET to GAdv. Oh yeah, you also forgot to take taxes out of their weekly salary.
None of that matters for comparitive purposes. The numbers simply say that the median family of four in NJ would spend 29% of their weekly gross salary for a day at the park.
I think you're over simplifying what things cost.
Ummm, ok. You can try to make it more complicated than that, but there's no reason to.
CoastaPlaya said:
Anyway, that's not rich. That's called middle-class. Even low middle-class, depending on where you live.
Yeah, exactly what I was trying to get across to Dex.
janfrederick said:
^ Yah, and what is really interesting is that 4 person family median income seems to be an anomaly. Take a look at the 5 person family median income...or the 3 person median...or any of the other states' 4 person midains. Weird. I'm going to get three more kids and move to Jersey. Riiiiiiight. ;)
I don't understand this.
You must be logged in to post
