Six Flags cash flow positive for year on rise in revenue, per cap and attendance
Posted
Six Flags, Inc. announced today its operating results for the year and quarter ended December 31, 2008.
Commenting on the Company's performance, Mark Shapiro, President and Chief Executive Officer of Six Flags, Inc., said: "The three-year turnaround for Six Flags required a great deal of patience. I am proud and grateful that the efforts and commitment of our workforce -- some 30,000 strong -- resulted in our best year ever, putting our operations back on solid footing. The remaining challenge is the inherited balance sheet and we are in comprehensive dialogue with our lenders to remedy that issue."
For the year ended December 31, 2008, total revenues increased $50.5 million, or 5%, to $1.02 billion from $970.8 million in the prior year. Attendance for the year was 25.3 million, an increase of 0.4 million, or 2%, compared to 24.9 million in the prior year. The attendance increase was driven by increased paid admissions, partially offset by planned reductions of approximately 0.5 million in complimentary and free promotional attendance.
Total revenue per capita for the year increased $1.31, or 3%, to $40.30 from $38.99 in the prior year, reflecting increased per capita guest spending as well as growth in sponsorship, licensing and other fees. Increased per capita guest spending of $0.53, or 1%, to $37.97 from $37.44 in the prior year was driven by increased rentals, food and beverages, parking, admissions and retail revenues. Sponsorship, licensing and other fees increased $20.4 million, or 53%, to $59.0 million.
Operating costs and expenses, including cost of sales, depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation and loss on disposal of assets, decreased $55.4 million, or 6%, to $877.3 million for 2008, compared to $932.7 million in 2007. Key planned reductions were achieved in marketing, loss on disposal of assets, third party services, repairs and maintenance, travel-related expenses, supplies and seasonal labor.
Income from continuing operations before income taxes was $19.4 million, an improvement of $252.4 million over the prior year pre-tax loss of $233.0 million. The improved results reflect a net gain on debt extinguishment of $107.7 million compared to a $13.2 million loss on debt extinguishment for 2007, increased revenues of $50.5 million, reduced operating costs and expenses of $55.4 million, a $5.5 million reduction in net other expense, and reduced net interest expense of $21.5 million. The lower net other expense reflects the 2008 loss related to an interest rate hedge that no longer qualified for hedge accounting treatment, compared to the prior year's cost of settling a class-action labor lawsuit in California and costs associated with implementation of an early retirement plan. The reduced net interest expense resulted from lower long-term debt and interest rates in 2008.
Adjusted EBITDA for 2008 was $275.3 million, an $85.7 million improvement over the prior-year's Adjusted EBITDA of $189.6 million, reflecting increased revenues and reduced cash operating costs and expenses.
The Company's Preferred Income Redeemable Shares ("PIERS") are required to be redeemed for cash on August 15, 2009 for $287.5 million plus accrued and unpaid dividends, which totaled $15.6 million at December 31, 2008. The Company does not expect to have sufficient cash to redeem the PIERS at their redemption date. The PIERS redemption is just one component of the comprehensive restructuring of the balance sheet that the Company is pursuing. Accordingly, the Company's 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K will include the disclosure of risk factors associated with the Company's liquidity, pending PIERS maturity and the restructuring effort.
Read the entire press release on PR Newswire.
(Friendly jokey voice) LOL. My comments are easily misunderstood.
I was simply perdicting what you would say, Gonch, from past experience. Are you now saying that you don't believe that if someone can afford to get into a park, they "choose" to afford or not to afford flashpass? That's what makes it "fair", isn't it?
When I have more time tonight, I will look up Gonch's posts in previous threads about affording the amusement park experience. He didn't tell LK that though, he told Dexter that, and it was many times, many years ago.
(Don't go secretly editing you past posts, Gonch. You know you want to. At least leave the date so we can see when you changed it if you go back.)
And this is relevant to the conversation, because SF is supposedly doing well in part because of Lo-Q.
AND...I didn't start the conversation about Lo-Q.
Carrie, I think that I am LK. I've been here for ages as Dexter and as LK. I joined WAY before a lot of others here have, and I am just speaking from my experiences here. People who say certain words here, such as "trick" or "charm", are automatically written off as crazy. Some people here use unfair persuation techniques. I don't do it and I don't let it effect me the way it is intended, and everyone should be happy about that.
(Remember, friendly, jokey voice) How much have YOU contributed to the conversation, Menefee?
I am happy that SF is supposedly getting back on track, but I am not happy about what it costs the costomer, both in money and in the park experience.
My entire point on this entire topic, spaning the entirety of this website, is to express my belief that Lo-Q is scamming all of us.
-Travis
www.youtube.com/TSVisits
What are unfair persuasion techniques, LostKause/Dexter? Can you provide some examples from your experience at CoasterBuzz?
"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin
*rubbing hands together*
It's all coming together nicely...
Dance puppets, dance! Mmwwhhaaaaahahaha!
"Unfair persuasion techniques' *must* refer to that absolutely dashing hat LG has in his pic. That thing makes me just want to fall directly into line! ;)
On topic: Here's hoping that SFI is able to re-structure their PIERS agreement. It defintely looks like they have the company on the right track. Though, there is 800# gorilla that is the current economy. It didnt totally tank in the eyes of the public till after the main season was over last year. Who knows what the effect will be on the May-Aug. '09 revenue stream.
lata, jeremy
--who remembers a quote from Jeff several years ago (paraphrased) 'If we were shutting people down we disagreed with, would 2Hostyl still be here?'
LostKause said:
I was simply perdicting what you would say, Gonch, from past experience. Are you now saying that you don't believe that if someone can afford to get into a park, they "choose" to afford or not to afford flashpass? That's what makes it "fair", isn't it?
If this is really what you think I've said in the past, then no wonder it pisses you off.
(Don't go secretly editing you past posts, Gonch. You know you want to. At least leave the date so we can see when you changed it if you go back.)
Again, I think you grossly misjudge me.
People who say certain words here, such as "trick" or "charm", are automatically written off as crazy. Some people here use unfair persuation techniques.
*jaw hits the floor*
In all honesty that's easily one of the scariest things I've ever seen written on these forums. I just double checked to make sure the doors are locked.
I dunno. The above three quotes paint one hell of a picture. I'm not sure whether I should laugh, feel hurt or delete my account and move my family.
*User solemnly raises hand* - I admit to using unfair persuasion techniques. But I call it debate. :)
Carrie M. said:
What are unfair persuasion techniques, LostKause/Dexter? Can you provide some examples from your experience at CoasterBuzz?
Logic and debate is one thing. However when Gonch started using waterboarding, that crossed a line.
What's this? A flash pass argument on Coasterbuzz? I don't think I've ever read one of those . . .
Insanity: n. like, repeating the same stupid thing over and over again, and like a knucklehead expecting a different result each time.
;)
My author website: mgrantroberts.com
Hey, I personally tend to follow Gonch and do what the hat tells me to... but that's my choice, dammit, and don't you forget it! ;)
"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin
(and now, a brief respite from the conversation at hand)
I wanna be controlled by Gonch! ;)
(now, back to the discussion at hand)
It's just CoasterBuzz, Gonch. No need to be scared. I don't see how my post was in any way threatening.
"...Charm..."-(flame)-"...Trick..."-(flame)... Doesn't that happen all the time?
I've been searching the hundreds-of-thousands of Lo-Q threads and can't find the specific point where you said what I was looking for. I'll look again later because I really want you to write that letter. ;)
But, hasn't your stance always been that Six Flags doesn't want people with less money to visit them? Hasn't it always been your stance that you have a choice to buy Q-bot or not, and that's what makes if more fair than free line jumps as seen at the Disney parks.
(Those of you who haven't, should read "Get Anyone To Do Anything" by David J. Leiberman.)
Sorry that I offended so many people. Going through all of those old threads made me realize that I am not as nice as I used to be.
-Travis
www.youtube.com/TSVisits
LostKause said:
I've been searching the hundreds-of-thousands of Lo-Q threads and can't find the specific point where you said what I was looking for. I'll look again later because I really want you to write that letter. ;)
And you're not going to because I can guarantee I never said you (or anyone) chooses not to afford it. Chooses not to buy it, sure. But never chooses not to afford it. That implies some sort of laziness - like you could do better but don't. I like to think I'm very careful in choosing my words on the topic of park prices/customer spending for that very reason...it's touchy ground.
By spending the ticket price and nothing more, you're choosing to purchase a lesser experience. Pay for a bot and you purchase a better experience. Purchase a gold bot and you're buying an ever better experience. Buy a VIP package and get an even better experience.
I don't see the problem. We all have budgets. We all find value in different places. We all make our choices. If the choice is that one can't afford to buy up into a better experience ( :) ) then that's their own thing...it's not unfair, it's not a conspiracy. It's simply out of your price range. Just like a mansion in the mountains of Aspen or a 50-foot yacht or a gold plated jock strap are out of my price range.
But, hasn't your stance always been that Six Flags doesn't want people with less money to visit them? Hasn't it always been your stance that you have a choice to buy Q-bot or not, and that's what makes if more fair than free line jumps as seen at the Disney parks.
1. No
My stance has been Six Flags is doing fine even if they're alienating the more frugal customer base and this latest report seems to back that logic. That the loss of a certain portion of the 'lower end' is fine if they attract or create customers on the other end of the spectrum. That is to say they shifted their pricing structure.
I'll always insist I'd rather have 10 customers that spend $100 than 100 customers that spend $10.
2. Yes (kinda)
My take has been that something offered to all to participate in seems inherently more fair than something offered on a lottery basis.
In reality (and I think I've conceded this in the past), they're probably both equally fair. In both cases all can participate but the difference is what gets you in the door. In one case it's money, in the other it's good (or lucky) timing.
I'd still rather drop $100 to not wait in line for major attractions all day than fight that crowd at Toy Story Mania for one FOL access opportunity. And anybody who got there more than two hours after opening were shut out...I've never been told I couldn't get a Q-bot.
Personal preference, I guess.
Just curious. Since you've never been told you couldn't get a Q-bot, what is the latest time of day you have tried to get one? With paper flash passes I have had a few visits when I have walked passed the building at 1:00pm and it was closed.
My mother (1946-2009) once asked me why I go to Magic Mountain so much. I said I feel the most alive when I'm on a roller coaster.
2010 total visits: SFMM-9, KBF-2
2010 total ride laps: 437
I think one time at SFOG we initally didn't get one, but once crowds filled in we changed our minds. Early afternoon-ish.
Last year we got one at SFGAdv a little after noon according to the EXIF info on my photos.
So that's my latest experience range - early afternoon.
I'm not the type to do an 'evening only' stop at a big park like a SF park, so the process sort of self-regulates itself to earlier in the day. Not sure how much value there'd be in showing up late in the day and scoring one unless you were an enthusiast type with limited time. Ditto on someone who is a passholder like yourself. If you can visit the park at will, why bother paying to shorten the wait?
Enthusiasts always seem to be the exception, not the rule. :)
Thanks, I agree. I don't do short visits at SFMM. I always stay from opening to closing. I do short visits to KBF sometimes since it is only 10 mins. away and when not crowded you can do the whole park in 2-3 hours if you choose. The extra cost isn't worth it when I can go whenever I want to and have been on the rides as many times as I have. If I ever become able to travel to a park I've never been to before I would make an exception.
My mother (1946-2009) once asked me why I go to Magic Mountain so much. I said I feel the most alive when I'm on a roller coaster.
2010 total visits: SFMM-9, KBF-2
2010 total ride laps: 437
I'll say it, if I were a park operator, I just assume have the people there who spend the most money. Six Flags under the old regime made an art form of devaluing their gate and attracting people who never spent any thing. It was like a babysitting service.
But I still have a moral issue with paid queue placement when they suck at operations in the first place. :)
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Lord Gonchar said:
I don't see the problem. We all have budgets. We all find value in different places. We all make our choices. If the choice is that one can't afford to buy up into a better experience ( :) ) then that's their own thing...it's not unfair, it's not a conspiracy. It's simply out of your price range. Just like a mansion in the mountains of Aspen or a 50-foot yacht or a gold plated jock strap are out of my price range.
I've heard of people's fingers turning green when they wear gold rings. Wonder what could happen with a gold plated jock strap. So what is your price range, Gonch? The sterling silver or the pewter? ;)
Read your past opinions of both questions, both in the same exact post.
Lord Gonchar said:
Anyone consider that they may be trying to control their customer base with this kind of pricing?To me it seems that the gate price change just screamed it.
If you're the kind of person that balks at $250 to get your family in and park your car, then you're not the type of person who would pay forpics with tweety. The opposite holds true as well.
SF has traditionally been more like the Wal-Mart of amusement parks - cheap to frequent and one everywhere. I think these guys are trying to turn it into more of a specialty botique or upscale store.
Ever see the episode of Simpsons where the shopping plaza sign has a tag line that reads, "Our prices discriminate because we can't."
That's the idea. It's not meant to be for everyone. It's meant to be for people who don't have a problem dropping the cash. Threaten to visit another park? Good, they don't want you at theirs...
...
I've expressed my views on how the random lottery of free fastpasses is inherently more unfair to guests than the available-to-all-at-all-times pay systems are, so there's no need to rehash here...
It can be found at:
http://coasterbuzz.com/Forums/Thread/44136.aspx
"...Good, they don't want you at theirs..."
"...free fastpasses is inherently more unfair to guests than the available-to-all-at-all-times pay systems are..."
Believe it or not, I am getting tired of the Lo-Q discussion as well. Good for all those who want to see the majority have a lousy time at an amusement park.
...And sometimes you insinuate that the person with an opposing view is insane, totally rendering their opinion as crazy talk. Who are most readers going to gravitate towards? The famous moderator who hosts the weekly (and sometimes one sided) podcast,or the crazy guy? Weather you see it or not, my opinions are usuallyvery well thought out, and I'm nowhere near being insane.
...and it was very difficult to word that without sounding mean. I'm really being quite nice, because I am really a very nice guy. It's my passion that annoys people.
Edit- added an "s" to the end of a word.
-Travis
www.youtube.com/TSVisits
Looks like the same thing with different wording to me, LK.
"That's the idea. It's not meant to be for everyone. It's meant to be for people who don't have a problem dropping the cash. Threaten to visit another park? Good, they don't want you at theirs." - from 3 years ago (almost to the day - creepy)
and
"My stance has been Six Flags is doing fine even if they're alienating the more frugal customer base and this latest report seems to back that logic. That the loss of a certain portion of the 'lower end' is fine if they attract or create customers on the other end of the spectrum. That is to say they shifted their pricing structure." - from last night
They pretty much say exactly the same thing:
It's gonna cost you to visit our parks.
I'll ignore the fact that they comments were pulled out of context (a thread questioning the sudden and recent pricing changes) and that I proceed those comments by questioning the motives and followed them with:
"At least that's my theory at this point."
Interpret it however you'd like but the point remains that it seems to me SF is ok with increasing the number of customers at the 'higher end' of the spectrum at the expense or those at the 'lower end' of things.
Even more interesting is a comment I made just an hour after the one you quoted:
"I still fail to see the mystery in all of this. The pricing of a day at SF has changed. What good does the complaining do? Take your money elsewhere to a place where the cost-to-value ratio is in your range and take silent satisfaction when SF crashes and burns. But if they don't, learn to accept that it's not a viable form of entertainment for you any longer."
And yet...here we are...three years later...still going around in circles...even though I summed it up (correctly, mind you) way back in the first moments of this topic's life on these forums... ;)
You must be logged in to post
