Six Flags Announces Nation's Best Theme Park VIP Program

Okay, in terms of FP implementation (I make this post in every FP thread), I think the "roped off row" is the dumbest of the possibilities. It often leads to a decrease in overall capacity, not only because the rows often go out empty, but also because it ususally means FP guests are loading from the exit side of the station and require a separate load cycle to get onto the train. I'd be interested in seeing turnstile figures, but on Chiller, this implementation was GOD-AWFUL for capacity.

S:RoS SFNE, to me, has the perfect implementation (and station). The merge point is right before the station so FP guests have the option of waiting for premium rows or just getting on a regular row. Also, the merging is far enough away from the station, that it doesn't affect the total capacity of the ride (which is always my biggest beef with FP systems). The only disadvantage of this for SF is on lighter days when the line only reaches barely out of the station, the value for FPers is much less than with the "roped off row" impelementation.

"This whole thread seems like a big b****fest from people who are jealous because they either can't/don't-want-to participate and spend the money, but as a result it may negatively affect them (which from my experience at parks like Dorney and CP, you won't notice it much, if at all. I practically live at Dorney because I live so close, and I only noticed it twice the entire summer - and that's going on average about 3-4 times a week. 2 visits spanning 3 days and I didn't see it at all at CP)."

That's probably correct, at least to a certain extent.

However, at parks like Dorney and CP, they only have the VIP thing, not that AND flash pass/fast lane/whatever. Plus, they're not run as poorly as certain Six Flags parks.

One of my main problems with these systems is that it's at the expense of regular guests. If there was a way to do it without so much negative impact on the rest of the guests in the park, then it wouldn't be as big of a deal. I know the VIP things aren't a big deal, if you remove the following factors:

--Flash Pass
--poor operations

^^ Andy, I know that the Chiller's setup was bad for this--I definitely agree.

But, I don't think people getting to cut the line should have the priviledge of choosing their seats. Their "priviledge" is getting to skip the line, so they shouldn't have a choice where to sit. If they want their choice, then stand in the regular line with everyone else and wait your turn. To me, this is more of an equalizer and more of a fair and balanced system.

People say that this decreases capacity. While this can be true at times, it's all the luck of the draw. If it's a crowded day, chances are that there will be a reasonably steady flow of people for the reserved seats. And if it's not a crowded day, then why would anyone bother investing in Flash Pass? In the case of non-crowded days, they could open up the reserved row for people in the station, but with the disclaimer that the row is reserved for Flass Pass users first.

I know this system sounds more complicated, but I'm looking at it from the standpoint of being more fair to the regular guests, which are the majority.

I don't know what all this is about, but a lot of parks already offer the VIP thing. So whats the big deal?

Seems to me there are two discussions going on here which are not being separated (again, common to almost every VQueue thread on here):

1) Is it a good business decision? Seems to me that based on its popularity among parks it is. I don't really know how anyone can counter this argument...

Maybe you could argue that SF has a different implementation than Disney (which I'd agree) and so they're not comparable. But DW is doing the same implementation (more or less) that SF is. Seems like DW thinks that SF made a good business decision.

2) Is it fair? Seems to me that this question really doesn't matter. ;)

Seriously, though, what's the difference between VQing for a ride (by swiping a paid for bot) and VQing for a restaurant (by making a free phone call)? Is it because you have to pay for one and not the other? Is it all of a sudden not fair for people willing to pay more to get a better experience? Isn't the trip to the park in the first place already a separation of the "haves" and "have-nots?" What about paying for a fancy car that nobody else can afford? Is that unfair?

The ONLY argument for unfairness is if the non-VQers entering the park are deliberately mislead into believing that there aren't other guests with higher service levels and only discover these other guests will be cutting them AFTER they're in the park. Based on the number of ads for QBots, I can't imagine this is the case for anyone at the park.

Everyone has the option of buying the QBot, everyone makes the same choice about whether it's worth the money at the gate knowing that they will be separated into "haves" and "have-nots" and knowing that they will either be the "cutters" or the "cuttees." It's not like the park only lets rich people buy the QBots.

I hereby apologize to Gonch. ;) I remember a thread about a month ago in which Gonch was saying that a lot of people had a problem with the fairness of the system. I remember saying that I thought most people were arguing against it from the business perspective. I guess more people are concerned about "fairness" than I thought.

*** Edited 3/16/2007 8:58:24 PM UTC by ApolloAndy*** *** Edited 3/16/2007 9:16:33 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***

---

rablat5 said:
^^ Andy, I know that the Chiller's setup was bad for this--I definitely agree.

But, I don't think people getting to cut the line should have the priviledge of choosing their seats. Their "priviledge" is getting to skip the line, so they shouldn't have a choice where to sit. If they want their choice, then stand in the regular line with everyone else and wait your turn. To me, this is more of an equalizer and more of a fair and balanced system.

---

The park determines what their "privilege" is. I know I'd be pissed if I paid for a Q-bot at park I flew to and wasn't allowed to use it to wait for the front row. (Not to cut the line for the front row, but to cut the main line and wait for the front). If the qbot saves me 30 minutes, why shouldn't I be allowed to wait another 10 for the front rather than being forced to wait 0 for the middle? More importantly, why shouldn't the park be able to decide this?

---

People say that this decreases capacity. While this can be true at times, it's all the luck of the draw. If it's a crowded day, chances are that there will be a reasonably steady flow of people for the reserved seats. And if it's not a crowded day, then why would anyone bother investing in Flash Pass? In the case of non-crowded days, they could open up the reserved row for people in the station, but with the disclaimer that the row is reserved for Flass Pass users first.

---

My experience with Chiller (GAdv. was my home park for 3 years, so I have a lot of experience with it) was that this lead to a lot of bad things. First of all, there wasn't a steady flow of FPers. Sometimes there'd be a huge line of FPers and sometimes there wouldn't be any (yes, even on a crowded day). When there were a lot they'd all be pissed because they had to wait even having paid for the bot. When there weren't any, there'd be a mad dash from regular people trying to get into the empty FP rows (which sometimes occurred even when there were FPers somehow. I'm not sure how since the airgates weren't supposed to open until the FPers took their seats).

Regardless, this implementation seemed to piss everyone off (both FPers and regular people).

---

I know this system sounds more complicated, but I'm looking at it from the standpoint of being more fair to the regular guests, which are the majority.

---

See my post about the 2 topics. It seems like it's a good business decision to be unfair to the guests and it's probably not unfair anyway. They all had the chance to get a q-bot.

*** Edited 3/16/2007 9:54:04 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***

---

rablat5 said:

One of my main problems with these systems is that it's at the expense of regular guests. If there was a way to do it without so much negative impact on the rest of the guests in the park, then it wouldn't be as big of a deal.

---

I think it's only "at the expense" of regular guests because we remember when there wasn't an FP. A lot of the younger kids I take to the park (from church) don't remember parks without FP, so they don't even see what the expense is.

Look at it this way: Imagine the value of a day at the park used to be "2" before FP. Everyone paid their money (say, $50) and got 2 units of fun. Now the park offers two levels of service: 3 units of fun (qbot) for a premium ($80) or 1 unit of fun for the price that used to get you 2 units ($50). Sure it sucks for the consumer that used to get 2 units of fun for $50, but it's not "unfair." The park is now offering less for the same price and you still have the choice to go or not go. It's the same thing as a price hike. Would charging more for same park be unfair? If not, then why is charging the same for less park?

(Note, this is excluding the case mentioned in my "2 topics" post in which a guest assumes he/she is getting 2 units of fun and only after paying realizes he's/she's only getting 1. I don't think many people go to the park and don't realize people will be cutting them (see the beginning of this post)).

Most importantly, quoted from page 165 paragraph 3 of the Gonch textbook, why shouldn't the park suck up to the people willing to spend more money and neglect the people who aren't? Seems like it works pretty well for Disney (for instance, their multi-day tickets).

*** Edited 3/16/2007 9:55:29 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***

And just to cut people off at the pass (because I'm on a roll and procrastinating from doing anything productive and I know we're eventually going to get to this), fast pass IS cutting, even if it's virtual queing.

Sure, it holds your place in line while you go do something else which seems like it's not cutting at first. Except for the fact that you can then use your physical self and wait in another (or the same line). Thereby allowing you to wait for 2 rides at the same time.

(see the ARnR shirt)

---

ApolloAndy said:...DW is doing the same implementation (more or less) that SF is. Seems like DW thinks that SF made a good business decision.

---

I'm almost positive Disney INVENTED the virtual queue system and also holds the patent for it. So, they didn't take the idea from Six Flags. Like most things in the amusement industry, someone took an idea Disney came up with, tried to copy it, and ended up with a far inferior product.

This is something the anti ARN&R crowd and ARN&R share in common. I hate to say.

Chuck

Andy said (in multiple posts :) ):

---

Seems to me there are two discussions going on here which are not being separated (again, common to almost every VQueue thread on here):

1) Is it a good business decision? Seems to me that based on its popularity among parks it is. I don't really know how anyone can counter this argument...

2) Is it fair? Seems to me that this question really doesn't matter. ;)

---

YES!!! :)

---

I remember a thread about a month ago in which Gonch was saying that a lot of people had a problem with the fairness of the system. I remember saying that I thought most people were arguing against it from the business perspective. I guess more people are concerned about "fairness" than I thought.

---

Yup. Except when it happens at Dollywood. Then it's about business decisions and operations. Go figure.

---

I think it's only "at the expense" of regular guests because we remember when there wasn't an FP. A lot of the younger kids I take to the park (from church) don't remember parks without FP, so they don't even see what the expense is.

---

YES!!! (again)

Change is scary. Seems to be even scarier to enthusiasts. That's much of the problem everyone seems to have with Shapiro - he's changing the game. Big time.

All it takes is time (which no one is willing to give). Andy mentions seeing it already with kids he deals with, but take it further. Give it another 5 years. Then what? It's just the way it is. Another 10? It's old news - parks have been like this as long as the teens have been alive. 20 years? These kids are adults with children of their own and as long as they've been going to parks, this is how they've run - it'll just be how it is. No debate, no complaints. It is what it is.

It's about the big picture and long term changes.

Thanks Andy. I might not be insane after all. ;)

^^^Regardless, DW is doing what SF is doing. DW, given the business decision between having it and not having it, has decided to have it. *** Edited 3/16/2007 9:49:13 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***

---

halltd said:
I'm almost positive Disney INVENTED the virtual queue system and also holds the patent for it. So, they didn't take the idea from Six Flags. Like most things in the amusement industry, someone took an idea Disney came up with, tried to copy it, and ended up with a far inferior product.

---

Six flags didn't create, invent or rip-off anything. They simply bought (or licensed) a technology service. (like Dollywood did recently)

EDIT - fixed link :)

*** Edited 3/16/2007 9:40:37 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

Would any of you like to hear about the great time I had at SFGAdv last October?

We went on Columbus Day as usual, only last year it was one of the most crowded days of their whole season. We eventually queued for El Toro.

Now, the queue for El Toro is not very long, and the park was crowded. The queue was pretty much full, and they were running both 36-passenger trains. Had everything been running nicely, it should have only taken around an hour.

Tell me why it took two-and-a-half. Contributing factors being:

--ride breakdown, but not for an extremely long time
--large volume of Flash Pass users
--lack of employees in the station (only 3 total)
--more guests joining the queue in the station using a different entrance (not even sure what this is for, since the Flash Pass has a merge point before the station)

Now, the employees there were doing a good job, but there weren't enough of them.

This is their newest coaster, and they weren't staffing it like they should. Also, there was a fair amount of guests using the Flash Pass and that other entrance. It's no wonder it took so long!

This is why Six Flags shouldn't have their system. You want to talk about good business practices? Not cheating your patrons out of less wait times would be a good business decision.

What they needed to do was staff more folks at the ride and limit the number of Flash Pass reservations. I still don't know what that other entrance was being used for!

The problem with these systems is that there is pretty much no way that they can offer this service to some people without cheating non-users, which are the majority. Therefore, I think that, if it can't be implemented with little to no effect on everyone else, then it shouldn't be implemented at all. And Six Flags seem to be the worst offenders.

How is it cheating non-users? You know exactly what you're getting into (especially as an enthusiast) when you make the choice not to buy the bot.

You know what you're paying for and you still buy it. *** Edited 3/16/2007 9:51:44 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***

I remember that trip report. :)

Here's the rub. If the park was pissing people off with this:

1. Would they be seeing almost record crowds in October? (which they were)

2. Would so many people be using the damn system?

That's not an arguement for or against anything or commentary on the sorry state of operations at SF. All it is is pointing out that maybe, just maybe, people aren't nearly as angry at the system (or the state of the parks) as some of us around here think they are. I mean, the park was packed to the hilt and tons of people were using Q-bot according to your story.

Yeah, SF is sure going to get taught a lesson. ;)

*** Edited 3/16/2007 9:53:25 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

---

Lord Gonchar said:

All it takes is time (which no one is willing to give). Andy mentions seeing it already with kids he deals with, but take it further. Give it another 5 years. Then what? It's just the way it is. Another 10? It's old news - parks have been like this as long as the teens have been alive. 20 years? These kids are adults with children of their own and as long as they've been going to parks, this is how they've run - it'll just be how it is. No debate, no complaints. It is what it is.

It's about the big picture and long term changes.

---

I always wondered this about lines at the park in general. Where else would people be willing to accept a multiple hour line for anything?! Imagine waiting 2 hours for the checkout at the grocery store! And yet people are totally willing to wait 2 hours for a roller coaster. Why? "Because that's the way it's always been." It's just assumed as part of the experience. I bet there were people going ape when ride lines started crossing the 20 minute mark 50 years ago...

I'm not insinuating that tons of patrons are getting upset about this.

I'm just expressing how I feel :)

I waited two hours the other day at the bank. But, I currently live on an island in the Caribbean. Thing is, ALL the banks have two hour waits. So, that's why people wait. Since all theme parks seem to have the same waits, that's why people are willing to wait.

If the virtual queue system is designed and implemented properly, it keeps the regular queue manageable. This is why FastPass is so effective. Disney designs the rides, designs the queue, and designs/programs the FastPass for that ride. That's why it all works so beautifully. Six Flags buys some product from someone else (yes I knew they didn't create it) and it isn't effectively working - obviously.

I guess Flash Pass works just as well as anything else at Six Flags though. So, I guess we can't really expect anything else. ha ha ha!!

^^Good point. It's Chuck who's holding his breath for the mass exodus.

I know some of you guys hate the system, but really, it's not going to change. It's only going to get worse for you. (broken record syndrome)

I suppose I can even see repeatedly expressing displeasure. (See: me vs. Nitro :) )

But in the end, a handful of people who post to an enthusiast/industry site aren't representative of the greater trend and they're not going to change a thing. (Heck, you're a pretty vocal hater, rablat5 and you still visited the park.)

Small parks will stay small (or get big and face the same issues the big parks face) and big parks will continue to have to develop ways to increase revenues in the face of maximized attendance. Nothing stays the same.

*** Edited 3/16/2007 10:11:05 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***