Six Flags declares second quarter profit

So I still wonder what's the exact hold up on SFNO adding a waterpark, even if it is only Skull Island size. Afterall, it is geographically well suited for some water action. Are the SFI suits just giving it a 5 year run to decide if they want to hang on to the park before investing in it majorly?

Just my hunch...but I would guess that they have more than a few underperforming parks out of the 18 in the chain. I would think that GL was not the last of the parks they may want to unload. Why invest in any park that you may be discarding in the near future?

This may be the answer you do not want to hear...

Actually Jeffrey that might be the answer a lot of Nawlin's folk would like to hear lol. There has been a lot of frustration from the locals with SFNO, although I've heard things are being better operated there this year.

---

So when are you changing your name to WataPlaya?

---

How 'bout never? See, I just 'play' the coasters, but the waterparks and I have a true commitment.

-'Playa

LMAO!

So in some twisted pro-slide kind of way, Six Flags was right all along. Bad weather = no one visiting your waterpark, good weather = you can't pull people out of them. ;)

Hell, even sorry ass Atari had sense enough to put the emphasis on more water park friendly coaster games...

Wyandot Lake is the epitome of why these waterparks are so successful. Wyandot Lake hasn't had a meaningful capital expansion in YEARS. Someone once told me that park is, per capita, the most profitable park that Six Flags owns. Of course it is. People come to visit even though it hasn't changed for the better in a decade, because for $50 you can buy a season pass and spend your summer there, getting ordered out of the wave pool every 30 minutes or floating endlessly around Canoochee Creek. (Wyandot Lake has a GREAT wave pool, but their operating procedures are not very customer-friendly...).

The other great thing about a waterpark is that if you attach a waterpark to an already overpopulated amusement park (ever been to Six Flags Great America?) you can dramatically increase the park's capacity, make all the lines shorter, and make everybody happier, thus increasing length of stay, all for a comparatively small investment. It makes great sense. Now that the industry has figured out that waterparks cannot be operated in the same manner as amusement parks (that is, you can't treat them as a collection of rides that people wait in line for, ride, then move on to the next one: building a waterpark without a wave pool and lounging area indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how people use waterparks) we're getting some really nice water parks with some neat attractions.

The bad thing about a waterpark is that it lives and dies by the weather, and in a seasonal environment, the waterpark season is a whole lot shorter than the amusement park season. THIS summer has been great for waterparks around here, but the last two summers have been horrible, with *high* temperatures in the 70's through July and August. A traditional park is not only just fine, it can do GREAT on beautiful, cool summer days. But without hot, humid weather, nobody wants to go in the water.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

i dont know about any other SF(six flags) because ive only ever been to 1 but sfmm the park is relly run down like none of the photos are workin exept for 3 and on batman you have to exit through the entrance, the dont really have anywhere to eat(so they should add a Mc donalds or KFC)Also they have a rubish ride consistancy like when i went superman broke down 3times X,goliath and scream all broke down twice and flashback has turn SBNO.i think they should stop spending money on building rides and sort out the park.