Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program

Ah, but EZ Pass is not free... at least not in PA. There's a deposit for the unit (which is refundable if/when you cancel service) but there's *also* a $3 maintenance fee or whatever they want to call it. In other words, for me to go to Philly airport once a year when I fly out to california for solace using the turnpike costs me $3 now ($1.50 each way). If I wanted to use EZ Pass, it'll cost me $6 plus the initial one-time deposit.

Granted, it's much less cost than qbot, but it is not "free" which is why I do not have one. If I used the turnpike every day to commute than I would get it because the incremental cost would be negligible instead of 100%

---

rollergator said:
bt you have to stop to pay tolls once you cross state lines?
*** Edited 3/27/2007 1:32:19 AM UTC by rollergator***

---

Thats only because Florida is stubborn every other EZ Pass type system in the Eastern US is on the same system and compatable. Look for Indiana to come on line soon too (being debated) and may there be a day in the near future when Ohio actually chooses to jump into the 21st century.

---

RatherGoodBear said:
But then how often can you use the words "Ideally" and "Six Flags" in the same sentence?

---

I believe the legal limit is three. After that it becomes comedic farce.

---

And who says it's going to be a "she" fetching the food?

---

If I'm paying $200 a head to be escorted around, I better be looking at a...

...nah, I'd better stop. Let's just say in my little world, the escort is female. ;)

---

So, I guess it's just a matter of time until SF starts using their own version of EZ Pass so they can collect that $15 parking fee even faster.

---

My god, that's brilliant. Even better make that the parking pass. You pay for a unit that uses RFID to enter through an automated gate.

$250 per week x .29 = 72.5 / 4 = $18.13

Did I do that right? I can't even get into KW for $18. I'll gladly save up a few hundred for a park visit, so your formula doesn't pertain to me.

After I get my Bachelors of Science in 2 years I'll be rolling in the dough like those weirdos in NJ who make $100,000 a year. They can afford $100 to get into SF after paying for gas and not counting food and extras. I can't.

I can however afford HP, CP, or KW, which will only cost me about 50 or less before gas and extras.

My main point even before all of the math talk was that I don't need SF the same way some of you say they don't need cheapos like me. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

And tollbooths compare to amusement park ride lines? really? Once an EZpass user is through the tollbooth, they are gone, which means that the capacity of the tollbooth is better than it used to be because they are getting people through faster. Rides, on the other hand can't get better capacity no matter how many people you let cut.

People who don't know how ride capacity works (not us, I mean the non-enthusiast crowd) may assume that the Lo-Q system somehow improves capacity. Ride capacity is very complicated to someone who doesn't spend a lot of time at a park like we do.

The thing with the tollboths that people seem to me missing is that, at least in my experience, there exist separate lanes that are *dedicated* to EZPass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont believe that (state)Dot built additional lanes *just* for EZPass, but rather converted *existing* lanes from regular lanes to "EZPass only". That's why I made the analogy that it is like roping off rows on the coasters.

Hey, if I'm wrong and that the number of toll-taking booths remained the same after the EZPass introduction then you're right, the analogy is invalid. But I'm pretty sure that if there were originally 10 toll-taking booths, they switched it to 8 toll-taking booths and two easy pass lanes.

BTW, regarding SF EZPass parking: @ SFA, there is a dedicated, staffed lane specifically for parking pass holders. If you need to pay for parking, you cant use this lane as they refuse to collect money there. Thus, you *do* get to breeze through, skipping ahead of ppl who where there first, joy! ;)
lata, jeremy

---

dexter said:
$250 per week x .29 = 72.5 / 4 = $18.13

Did I do that right? I can't even get into KW for $18. I'll gladly save up a few hundred for a park visit, so your formula doesn't pertain to me.

---

No, it pertains to you more than ever and you made my point perfectly.

Would you go to SF on occasion if admission, parking, q-bot and sufficient food and games would cost you $18 for the day? I'm betting you'd give it the occasional go at that price. Even if the park sucked horribly, you'd be able to get a few rides in, check things out and blow some time.

That $18 for you is the equivalent investment as the median NJ family of four spending $500. That family dropping $500 is the same as you dropping $18 - it's not that big of a deal.

---

After I get my Bachelors of Science in 2 years I'll be rolling in the dough like those weirdos in NJ who make $100,000 a year.

---

Cool. Good for you! :)

Except that the median family in NJ aren't weirdos - they're pathetically average. The median is the middle number. You make a list of all the incomes of four-member families in NJ and find the family that sits in the middle. Half the state's four-member familes make more than that. Half make less. $90,261 for a family of four is the middle of the road in NJ.

That was my point about persepctive. It's not just the 'rich' or 'eltie' (as you put it) that can afford to go. For the average NJ family of four it's the same as you spending $18.13.

I maintain that SF is not out of line with their pricing, but rather your perceptions of 'rich' and 'elite' are out of line with the reality of things.

What's really interesting about San Diego's fastpass lanes is that the prices go up when demand goes up. So if traffic is light, you can jump into the carpool lanes for 50 cents (there's a hip hop pun in there somewhere...I just know it)...but when traffic gets heavy, I've seen prices as high as $4.75 (this is a 15 mile stretch of road). But I guess if that $4.75 saves you an hour, and if saving an hour of time is worth it to you, you'll jump in.

Sometimes I wonder if the toll folks purposely pay people to have fender benders on the "free" freeway so they can rake in the moolah. ;)

Anyway, me? I travel the opposite way. Sure, my mortgage is more than the folks going the other way, but even paying an extra $10/day wouldn't save me THAT much time compared to these people's entire commutes. Besides, it's all about back roads baby! Or for the Park analogy, it's all about taking turns giving each other shopping cart rides instead of going to Six Flags for the day. ;)

Edit: Man, I should reed what I rite sometimes. ;)

*** Edited 3/27/2007 4:47:10 PM UTC by janfrederick***

What's even more intersting about the SD fastpass lanes is that one of the first times the whole q-bot discussion on the fairness, cost and whatnot came up, someone (I believe it was JRS) suggested a 'stock market' style system.

The idea was that it's pay per ride, but as the demand for a ride rises so does the price. The idea is that the park controls lines and crowds and there's fairness in that everyone pays for each ride based on the actual demand for that ride.

It's a novel concept and sounds a lot like what they're doing with the highways in San Diego.

---

Lord Gonchar said:

That was my point about persepctive. It's not just the 'rich' or 'eltie' (as you put it) that can afford to go. For the average NJ family of four it's the same as you spending $18.13.

---

In other words, and this is what the whole thread boils down to so I'll set it off:

It's not that the price is too much, it's that the value is too low.

I am more than happy to pay $50, $60, $70 to get into an amusement park if I know I'm going to have a reasonably good time. I just know that probably won't happen at certain SF parks.

Pricing isn't key, fixing the parks is.

For many MANY people, an income of 90K+ seems almost absurdly high. Seems kinda out of the bounds of "normal" to me as well, LOL.

For the average people in CT/NJ, the fact that people actually *live* on 20K (or less in WAY too many cases) seems like a virtual impossibility.

It really is apples to oranges in some respects. Cost of living in the *industrial northeast* IS higher, that's not debatable. But I think at some point I'd like to see the correlation between what people EARN in different places and the cost of living...

Not only is the stock market system more "fair" if you want to call it that, it also helps control demand. If they left those lanes at 50 cents during a jam, they would soon get jammed. On the other side of things, when the freeway is wide open, you would have absolutely no business if the price was high. At 50 cents, some drivers might go for it just to avoid semis and all the merging vehicles.

90K IS absurdly high compared to what many jobs pay. But it isn't high enough if you want to buy an average home in my neighborhood. I think home ownership is becoming more of a luxury these days.

---

But I think at some point I'd like to see the correlation between what people EARN in different places and the cost of living...

---

Yeah, that'd be good stuff.

But in this case, SFGAdv is in that 'industrial northeast' area so it applies.

It actually works roughly the same no matter which SF park you pick. (30% to 40% range - give or take)

But yeah, cost of living is the one factor we never seem to consider enough when these pricing discussion pop up.

My family has moved around enough that I've seen how it can affect you firsthand. For instance, last year at this time we were in Pittsburgh and my wife had offers on the table from two companies.

One was for a job in Dayton and paid around $14,000 more than she was making in Pittsburgh. The other was in Northern NJ and paid roughly $10,000 more than the Dayton offer. Seems like a no brainer until you consider the cost of living.

The $24,000 more a year in NJ actually put us just a hair worse off than if we just stayed in Pittsburgh. The lower cost of living in Dayton made the jump in salary more actual buying power than the $14,000 figure alone.

Needless to say, I'm a resident of the Dayton area now. :)

http://www.cityrating.com/costofliving.asp

If I make $20,000 in Hartford, CT, where I live now, and then move back home to Lexington, KY, where I grew up, I'd only have to make $12,505 to keep up at the same rate.

If I make $90,000 in Monmouth, NJ (SFGAdv) and then move to Evansville, IN (Holidayworld) I need to make $69,000.

That puts the difference at about .76, and gen admission to Holiday World is $37.95, online admission to SFGAdv, is $45.99, plus let's throw in $3 per head for parking and $5 for drinks since neither are included at SF.

$37.95/53.95 is .70

In other words it's not that much different.

---

janfrederick said:
90K IS absurdly high compared to what many jobs pay.

---

Yeah, but it's household income. Two jobholders at $45,000 each and your there.

Maybe even add a working teen to the mix and it's really only two people working a $40,000 a year job.

I don't think that feels too unrealistic.

Just to be a jerk I'm going to do SFMM vs. CP.

If I make $90,000 in LA again, according to the site I linked to above, I need to make about $64,790 to live in Toledo. That puts Toledo at about .72 of the LA income.

SFMM's online price is $34.99, CP's is $41.95, divide that out you get nearly 1.2

I'm assuming that parking is a bit more at SFMM and food *might* be, I don't really know, so maybe that 1.2 figure would come down closer to .72.

But again, I don't really see where prices for SF are really sky rocketing.... *** Edited 3/27/2007 5:17:12 PM UTC by matt.*** *** Edited 3/27/2007 5:17:33 PM UTC by matt.***

You're making it harder than it needs to be by putting in a salary and doing the equations.

Just put in the ticket price and it'll spit out the corresponding number for the other location. :)

So, I finally got around to applying LG's "29% test" to my own situation.

It's very interesting. In an effort to be vague: there's a day-long experience that I'd been toying with, and finally have decided that, as soon as the kids are old enough to enjoy it, we'll do it. I'd rather not say what it is, but it is not cheap, and it is almost *excatly* at that 29% number.

Uncanny.

(And really, I suppose it means that I'm "cheap". The Gonch Hypothesis suggests that I'd drop that on a day without thinking much about it. I definitely *did* think about it, though...)

Well, we're still ironing out the wrinkles. ;)

I'm willing to bet it falls apart at the far ends of the scale. For instance if one was making only $100 per week, they'd probably be reluctant to spend $29 on amusement parks. Likewise, if someone was making $5000 a week - well, spending $1500 on anything is a decision that should probably be considered before jumping in.

Also, the fact that enthusiasts tend to take multiple trips during the season affects the calculations as well. We're spreading that same money over multiple trips and I choose to assume the average visitor stops by once per summer. There's a difference between spending that 29% in one place and trying to stretch it to 10 places.

And if anybody out there has a position opening in the next year or so that let's me utilize and exhibit these 'uncanny' skills, give me a call. I'll have both kids in school soon enough and I might as well get back out there and add to that 29% that we can toss at amusement park trips. :)

*** Edited 3/27/2007 6:30:05 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

I'd hire you and those skills in a second....but obviously I couldn't afford you...or even 29% of you....

To say nothing of the fact that I have no input in hiring...I really do need my own business, LOL.

Call Snyder...Fanboy. ;)