The future of parks. Your opinion counts!

Recently I was in the company of several theme park officials who brought up a very interesting subject.  We were having dinner when the topic of the future of guest experiences arose.  Obviously this is of great concern to parks and they are looking to improve overall guest experience, as always.
 Most notably, the topic of a Fast Pass or Fast Lane or Virtual Queue system was discussed.  Quite honestly, I think this is a route to which many parks are looking.  At last year’s IAAPA, the hot topic was indeed these systems and implementing them at parks.

 I wanted to discuss this subject here within the confines of this forum to get some opinions.  I was asked and indeed shared my concerns and feelings on the topic with those park persons I mentioned.  But it is a highly debatable subject.  This will be a good forum to compare (perhaps) opposing viewpoints.

 First I think it is important that we consider things from a normal guest experience.  What I mean is, we have to think outside the enthusiast box.  Put yourself in the average shoes of Mr. or Mrs. John Q. Public.  This is crucial because enthusiasts make up a very small percentage of those who annually attend parks.  And quite honestly, most of us have biased viewpoints.

 I will begin the topic by sharing what I expressed in that aforementioned conversation: 

-           First, I personally can see the benefits of a Fast Pass or Fast Lane system.  I think the general idea is a good, and fair one.  However I think the parks that currently use these systems have vast room for improvement.  The procedure is often a basis for conflict at the parks due to being executed properly. Most notably, there is the problem of cost.  Is it fair to ask Mr. or Mrs. John Q. Public to shell out more money for rides even though they have paid a steep admission cost?  Should these systems be implemented as a free, first come first serve basis?  Or, is it unfair to offer a system by which guests can guarantee rides on highly anticipated rides?

 Quite honestly, I think that charging for these systems is a direct reflection of our society.  Basically, money talks.  It is unfortunate to all who cannot afford to pay for the guarantee.   But I personally have been lucky enough to afford it and have used Fast Lane with good results.

 -            Secondly, there is an issue of time.  In today’s world, time is of the essence.  Many scholars state that a major flaw in today’s world is that people do not take the time to enjoy life.  Hustle and bustle is the name of the game.  Our lives are very busy, even at amusement parks.  This busy mentality leads to an impatience with lines or waits at those parks.  Time is probably the most valuable thing a person has.  Park officials are aware of this and understand that in order to keep guests happy, then they must make good use of their time.  By offering virtual queuing systems, guests could time their day as to make the best use of each minute.

 However the problem with a virtual queuing system is disorganization or down time.  If a person logs on via virtual queue, and is told to be back at the ride in an hour or so, that may produce a lag in time of which the guest may not be able to fill.  If lines are long enough, or waits disrupt the time period in which a guest must return to a VQ ride, then their time is wasted.  If a VQ system exists, then you do run a potential of crowding midways with people basically just “hanging around.” Is that fair, economical or allowable?  What’s the difference if the guests wait the hour in the midway or in the queue?

 -           Third, a park must consider the capacity issue at hand.  Some parks reserve seats on their rides specifically for pass riders.  Others just let the pass guests go to the heads of lines.  Obviously the latter is most practical as it allows a park to maintain increased capacity due to filled seats.  Pass systems by which guests enter the exits into special seats can often lead to vacant seats, dropping capacity.  Yet on the flip side, letting pass guests in at the front of lines is food for confrontations and arguments.

 Capacity should also be viewed on an overall park level.  Should a park drop their total potential in-park capacity in order to guarantee customer satisfaction?  If a park is built to hold 50,000 should the park max out at 40,000?  Sounds good in theory.  Rides would not have discouraging waits and a greater ratio of individual guest rides per visit may exist.  However, by limiting the admissions, you also limit those guests wishing to visit.  A person is not going to wait at the admissions gate for one of the capacity guests to leave before they can enter.  Also, is a park really smart in turning away revenue?

 -           Fourth, and finally, should parks invest in smaller less groundbreaking attractions in order to increase the amount of rides they offer?  Should large projects be sacrificed for numerous smaller projects to allot for a larger, broader ride selection?  In theory it could be nice, but I highly doubt a park could capitalize on small attractions when today’s public demands bigger and better and more bang for your bucks.

 Would we have future MForces, or Nitros or Golitaths or Son of Beasts if this feeling prevails?  Or would we be more apt to find parks with dozens of small flat rides rather than bigger more thrill satisfying ones?

 Do the answers exist?  I think so.  The problem as I see it, is discovering what guests really want.  Only the public and time can determine that.  For years now, Disney has been the leader in park development. 

 Personally I think Walt Disney and his imagineers (original and now) have been hitting the mark.  From the start they realized that guests needed more to see and do, to make better use of their time.  They realized that large amounts of guests would attend their parks looking to be entertained.  Their solution was to incorporate the entire ride experience into their wait.  It’s an age-old trick that surprisingly, is not used as much as it should.  It is called distraction.  They distract guests from the fact that they are waiting 1 or 2 hours by incorporating more to see and do while they wait.  Also they have developed longer experiences rather than 2 minute rides.  Guests come off much more satisfied and their wait(s) is/are justified.

 Now some smaller scale parks have attempted this.  Parks such as PKI, Busch even Six Flags have attempted at entertaining guests via TV Monitors or heavy themeing but on a much smaller scale.  For the most part, it has failed due to the inability to sink millions of dollars into that aspect of attractions. 

 I personally recognize a complete change in direction for the amusement business.  I perceive the future to be filled with much more interactive and fulfilling guest experiences.  Hershey is not adding a coaster; they are adding an interactive coaster.  PKI is not adding a thrill ride; they are adding a heavily themed interactive ride designed to entertain guests while they wait.  The second golden age of the roller coaster is at an end IMO and it will be a long time before we see the mega coaster installs and attractions we saw in 2000. 

 So where is this business headed?  And what should there focus be?  Should capitol expenditures be kept at a minimum in order to lower park capacities?  Should parks continue to focus on large thrills or numerous smaller ones?

 I am anxious to hear others feelings.  This is a very hot topic and parks want to know.  Please try and answer from a non-enthusiast point of view.  Remember that revenue is crucial to all parks.  Also remember that many parks may be reading this and are curious as to our feelings.  Take your time in answering and long responses are very welcome.

 So I the question:  What path should the industry take?

 Shaggy

i think the fast pass is a good idea, but it should not have an additional cost. it should be by reservation only by large families of at least 4 people with children,and only when the park lines are at least an hour long.
Almost a thesis rather than a question, but a lot of good questions in it.  I'll try to concentrate on Fast Pass.

First, fast pass used correctly can be a benefit by reducing wait times for the GP.  This has several benefits.  1) The GP spends less time cooking in lines.  They should be happier.  2) The GP has more time to shop and eat which increases the parks profits.  3) The GP will spend less time in line for high demand rides.  This will result in more demand shifting to lower demand rides.  This increases the park's total ride capacity.  Again the GP should be happier, but only if the park keeps secondary rides manned and operating.

I am opposed to any system that charges extra or otherwise uses a criteria such as which hotel you stay in to create 2 classes of park guests.  This can only result in a lot of unhappy guests who won't be coming back.

Likewise, the fast pass system cannot be allowed to grow to the point that the normal queues take forever.

slithernoggin's avatar
*Persons buying admission to a park are opting to spend money for a benefit reserved for those willing to spend the money; if a person doesn't want to spend $40 to get into a park, then they cannot enjoy the coasters or the shows, or what have you. The upcharged fast pass offerings strike me as the same sort of thing: something each guest(s) needs to look at, weigh the relative merits to each side, and act accordingly as they see fit.

*Parks should seek a mix of investments. A mix of large, attention-grabbing ride installations, smaller ride packages, facilities improvements, accommodations upgrades/expansions, and more, I think contribute to the long-term profitability of a park. Lighthouse Point isn't very 'glamorous,' but by providing additional resort space, Cedar Point has the opportunity to capture a larger portion of many visitor's dollars.

*I'm not sure that the Cedar Points or the Six Flags of the world have been unable to sink money into heavily themed queues; it maybe more a matter of priorities, or perhaps even of expectations. One expects more of a Disney park (or a Universal park) than of others. I may be wrong, but I think that the Disney parks started utilizing pre-show entertainments and themed environments to help manage crowds; guests in a pre-show theatre are being held in one place as they wait for the ride, and can be moved more easily to another location than if they were exciting a queue single file. Parks like Cedar Point, with shorter-cycling rides, really didn't need to provide pre-show entertainment.

*You don't want to turn guests away: they'll be disappointed, or even angry, and may not return. But you don't want to ask them for a chunk of money and not have anything for them to do. Parks need to assess their particular situation carefully to find the most viable balance.

Sure, the fast past system is great, but I would rather stand in line and have memorable conversations with my family and friends then pay to just hop on a ride.  Standing in line is in its own a ride itself.  I would rather parks spend more time and money on improving and developing their park.  Here is a soulution.....build more rides in a park, but keep the attendance the same, that way, people will be spread out more through the park, therefore decreasing line times.
Fast pass and VQ do not work for the GP. VQ has many pit falls. Fast pass allows only a few the right to "go to the head of the class". Parks need to work on capacity. Smaller parks more rides and smaller less groundbreaking attractions, bigger parks bigger rides. Smaller parks draw from around their location. Most people do not travel hundreds of miles to visit just another SF park. I know I do not, if it is in the area I will pop in. I will not travel all that way for clone parks. Lager parks draw from a much larger area. It is all in capacity Ex, Cp next year will add a "ground breaker", it will reduce the wait times throughout the park. This also was the case with the opening of MF. So they need to drop the FP and VQ ideas once and for all.

When Disney unveiled their fast pass system, it was a perfect tool. Guests basically reserved a spot in line, then went elsewhere (eating,shopping, other attractions). This kept guests happy, because they didnt have to stand around for hours waiting for a 3 minute ride. It also left the guests with little else to do other than eat,shop, etc. This gets more money into the parks profits while not coming off as money-hungry. The concept of paying for a pass to get to the front of the line, or even giving a limited number of free passes to do the same could only infuriate those who dont have them. If the majority of the park guests DO NOT have this pass, then the majority is offended and angry, because rather than waiting 25 trains, they now must wait 40 trains. Line cutting is cause for removal (unless you pay the park to line cut). This is a ridiculous notion. A glaring problem is that parks will rarely run a ride at its fullest capacity unless it is a new popular ride. This is understandable if the trains are not being filled, but many times I have been waiting quite long because 1 train was running when 2 should have, or 2 have been running when 3 should have. A few empty seats on a train are not reasons to cram queue lines. I would prefer to sit in the train and wait for others to board than stand in a slow moving queue line because there are not enough trains running.You can never make everyone happy, but the goal is to make the majority happy. By increasing ride capacity, this would help greatly.

It does help to have some form of entertainment abound while you are in line. hen the queue is PART of the RIDE EXPERIENCE,  it makes being in line less tedious. The only problem is that you are usually in an area long enough to view the entire thing several times over.

I liked when SFMM played WB cartoons on the monitors in the queue lines. Now, most monitors dont work and the ones that do play the same 4 music videos over and over.
-----------------
My other car is a Giovanola!

*** This post was edited by LoadedG on 11/6/2001. ***

As far as distracting customers, I have heard quite a few people say that something as simple as music in the queue, or a large video screen showing coasters from around the chain's other parks would be a great distraction. It doesn't always need to be multi-million dollar interactive experiences, although that is sensational if they can pull it off.
I do think parks need to scale down a bit and offer a more varied selection of rides and attractions. Millennium Force is great, so is X. But then spend a few years giving the park more varied things for the "family" to do. Paramount has realized this and I think it will revolutionize their parks.
-----------------
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary. -The Talmud

*** This post was edited by DWeaver on 11/6/2001. ***

CPLady's avatar
I liked what Cedar Point did when MF opened. They instituted a "ticket to ride" ONLY for the MF. Once the queue line was filled, guests could go through a separate queue line to get a ticket to ride. Tickets were for one hour blocks and handed out in order. The blocks of time were from 11 am until 3 or 4 pm, and only guests with a ticket were allowed in the queue, and only during their allotted hour. Because only a certain amount of tickets were given for each hour, the lines moved quickly. The queue opened up to the GP again at 4 pm.

Unlike fast pass, there was no addtional charge, and prevents the problem of those who did not pay for a special ride ticket getting angry because others who did pay got to "cut to the front".

This makes sense only for the first season of a new thrill ride. Otherwise, I think parks, such as Cedar Point, should add more larger capacity, thrilling flat rides to help spread the crowds out.


-------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dea

*** This post was edited by CPLady on 11/6/2001. ***

Excellent topic Shaggy...good to see you here at cb, that "other site" we visit just doesn't get this kind of traffic.  I will respond later, when I have some time...duty calls - gotta help the technologically-impaired...
-----------------
rollergator - intent on improving the "guest experience" - coming soon to a park near you
I don't like the idea of paying for the right to skip to the front of the line, like SFWoA implemented this year.  A lot of people complained about TTR at CP when MF opened but it was more fair, just needed better implementation. 

I think parks need to have a balance of rides and shows and such.  CP is pretty good with this.  They have a lot of flat rides (although they could use some new blood) and have good shows.  They also have DJs on the rides that consistently have long lines.  Flat rides seem to be the one thing that some parks lack (PKI and SFWoA) which in turn create lines that are incredibly long.  The more rides in the park, the more the crowd is spread.

Another thing  I think would help is shade and/or theming and, if outdoors, open queue areas.  Whether it be with shade trees, tents, indoor line, etc.  CP attempts this with tarp/tent like coverings but has an unusual pattern for it.  Half the line is covered or they'll cover a section, leave a section open and cover the next.  Raptor's line is unbearable in the heat of the afternoon with very little shade and air circulation almost nonexistent.  If people are hot and uncomfortable, they are going to know how long they stood in line.  It's a known fact that temperatures have been on the rise and it's only going to get warmer.  Now granted IOA is in Florida, but 90% of their lines are indoors with theming to take your mind off the wait.

Rides need to be run at FULL capacity.  SFWoA is a prime example of not doing this.  If a ride is designed to run 3 trains on, then by God, run 3 trains on it (unless, there is  a mechanical problem of course).

Last, hire good quality employees and a lot of them.  A lot of SFWoA problems this year for not running rides at full capacity was because they were understaffed.  Also, if you have a friendly staff, that hustles their butts, the more satisfied your customers will be.    

-----------------
Christ how do you kids do it

I don't think that a fast pass system is any more appealing in general for the GP than it is for enthusiasists. The reason people don't like the fast pass system is that it makes the majority of people wait longer for a chosen few. Read Machiavelli to see how to make this work, but the result will be that people will be unhappy. This makes people angry. Bringing people on from the exit doesn't solve the problem, the guests are not blind. No one is happy when they wait for hours in line and know their wait is longer so some people don't have to wait at all. I also agree with what someone posted earlier, if a park wants to use a fast pass system they better run all their rides at full capacity. It would be unethical to purposefully back up lines thinking that it would sell more fast passes. Overall, I think while fast pass may be a profitable idea it is going to make more of your guests unhappy than those it makes happy. As for limiting the number of guests in the park; I don't think that is necessary. People have a sense of when the park is going to be crowded, if it is a problem to them they can plan their visit accordingly. I usually try to hit parks during non-peak days or hours, however when I do decide to go when it is busy I accept the fact.
slithernoggin's avatar
I think a viable fast pass system would be a good thing. People don't like to wait in lines,and people waiting in lines are unable to spend large sums of money in arcades, gift shops and restaurants. But what would be a viable system? I'd say it would have to be free, first of all; equitable, in that some people don't want to have to 'plan' their day at a park and would rather just hop on rides as the mood strikes; efficient, so that people who show up in a designated time window ride in that time window. Among other things.

I think that a system, promoted and explained properly (lots of signage, especially at front of park, ads on brochures, flyers, etc, mention of such a system in commercials etc) could be very effective for a park. I suspect that people being 'surprised' by such systems makes them less palatable.

janfrederick's avatar
I don't think being an enthusiast separates my experience at a park from a non-enthusiast. I'm experiencing and enjoying the same attractions...so I don't think our opions are biased. We just think about these things more.

The main problem that I have with fast pass or similar system is that your overall wait in line over the course of the day does not change. You make up for cutting by watching folks cut in front of you (which is very annoying). I'd rather see more attention to ride operation and increased capacity.

As far as virtual queues, the last thing I want is to be constantly checking my watch at a park. Forget the regiment stuff, I get enough of that at work. Besides, I'm not going to spend more money becuase I'm sitting around waiting for my time to be up. Perhaps it'd be OK if there were more lawns and areas to hang out and play a little frisbee while waiting...but the idea of setting up "appointments" doesn't appeal to me.

I say "Keep It Simple Stupid". These systems are not good solutions for improving guest experience. Too much work. They don't really save on waiting time.

-----------------
Yeeee Haaawwww!

Jeff's avatar
Let's for a minute forget about the pros and cons of all existing systems and think for a minute about what we would really like to have. The ideal would be that queue systems would keep us from ever waiting in line for anything.

So far, we know that isn't possible because rides break down, they close for weather and in any given day, a ride has a fixed capacity. But if we could, what would the benefit in that be? We'd go around and do everything in an hour, and then what? We couldn't re-ride, because others have to get their turns anyway.

So in a more realistic ideal, we have to accept that we will wait somewhere, whether that's in a queue or not. Not being in the line means we can do other things, like shop, eat or perhaps ride less popular rides (assuming they have empty seats).

At this point, we can look at other systems and see where they've failed. Pay-for-placement systems seem to irritate people who already plopped down their 40 bucks. The free systems can't be used by everybody. Ticket distribution often results in other lines. The closest thing to "working" that I've heard about (but haven't seen) is Disney's system, but others will have to defend that one.

That whole mess makes me wonder how much we need any virtual queue system at all. As someone mentioned above, running at capacity would certainly be a good start. I was horrified to find out at SFWoA that the ride ops have no say in the number of trains they're running. It's up to the mechanics, who don't want to be bother with replacing wheels or maintaining the ride, meaning that guest experience suffers. Compare this to other parks, where if the ride ops decide they need more trains to handle capacity, they add trains. Running the rides at full capacity would go a long way in solving wait time problems at most of the parks I've been to.

The next issue is expectation. I expect to wait for a popular ride, and frankly I don't mind it that much. Even then, the longest wait I had this year, honestly, was a tie for one hour between Medusa at SFGAdv and Alpengeist at BGW. Both parks were (mostly) banging through guests on a very busy weekend. I can deal with that, and I suspect most people, enthusiast or otherwise, can too. Is it an answer looking for a problem? If you sell an electronic system to make it work I think it might be.

Again, I place the emphasis on parks running their parks more efficiently. It makes more sense to me to get that worked out before spending money on these systems.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

I think Fastpass should a free service and that it should only be for use after the ride line has gotten over 40mins and it should be given out at the entrance of the ride.its a good idea that can be used.Also i think that parks should invest in more wooden coaster then steel for a few seasons,i say this from a regulaer point of veiw becuase they can atract more people including an older addiance since personaly my parents like parks a good veriety of wooden coaster then steel becuase i supose it makes them feel like teenagers again and they arent afraid they they are going to get sick,also in a overall point of veiw they are more entertaining and just get better as they age.And that the second golden age of coasters shouldent disapear but there should be a break on where parks can fix themselves up and waste 12million on somthing a little more usefull then a new steel coaster maybe some new high budget shows for th parts of the family who are scared to ride coasters or falt rides or who just need a rest.Also better themeing on ride queue lines mainly in the coaster feild becuase if there is a good theme set then it makes the line seem shorten then it is,and if not ride theme then at least some shade rather then roasting in the sun i have seen alot of people getting sick in ride lines becuase there was no shade inlines and it was so hot.oh yea alot of water rides should be cleaner and not be covered in mildew.and i say this to a sertan park but i wont say any names they need to repave there parking lot and lower parking admission and get better traffic control. *cough**GreatAdventure* there shoould be lower prices on food! i have been to parks on where a cheeseburger cost $8 and for frenchfies it was $6 *cough**hersheypark* i think that is not fair to average family since the average family go's to an Amusment park with there rent or morgage money just becuase there kids wanted to have a good time and they do , but there homes are on hold due to that.I say that becuase growing up i had to beg my parents to take me to parks and they would have to waste the money for the electric bill or water bill to take meand we werent and still arent a poor family we just dident have money to go to nice things like an amusment park,where you can spend over $300 for a family of 5.So overall the Average amusment park has started to lack what the whole idea of a park and what it stands for,Such things to go over theme are; A cheap sorce for family amusment,Fun,Good Entertainment valaue and everyone would like get there moneys worth,also more thrill rides to be added but they dont have to be so big or fast for a few years, if the indsutrie keeps going in the same direction who knows where it will be in 10years! not that it is a bad thing becuase i wouldent mind seeing where its going but why rush it?And as for the fastlane sytems they dont really work out and like i siad should only be used if the ride is so popular it has huge lines,but other wise i dont think it bothers anyone to wait in a queue as long as it had plenty of park gaurds wacthing it andmaking sure no-one is cuting anyone in line or doing anything they shouldent be doing and there is plenty of shade and ways to get a decent priced bevarage.

*** This post was edited by MrMightyMouse on 11/6/2001. ***


Jeff said:

Running the rides at full capacity would go a long way in solving wait time problems at most of the parks I've been to....Again, I place the emphasis on parks running their parks more efficiently. It makes more sense to me to get that worked out before spending money on these systems.


These "systems" all fail due to one major constraint...ride capacity.  The maximum number of rides with the minimum wait times depends on running queues in the MOST efficient manner possible.  Now really, who thinks it's more efficient to have people walking up the ride exit, (which prevents people from EXITING the ride) to hand a pass/ticket/Q-bot/whatever to an already stressed-out ride op who's tired of explaining all these multiple queues.  IF there were separate entrances AND additional staff to handle the policing and set-up necessitated by these "systems", then MAYBE they wouldn't be the complete and total pain they are now.  It's just NOT realistic...Sure, a few folks MAY get one or two extra rides at day's end, but at what cost?  I think the parks will realize (hopefully sooner rather than later) that we go to parks to have fun and shared experiences, as EQUALS...even if some of those experiences happen while waiting in lines! 

-----------------
rollergator - intent on improving the "guest experience" - coming soon to a park near you



The answer is capacity – run the correct number of trains and hire and train staff that can keep them running at the correct rate. If parks ran all their rides at the capacity stated by the manufacturer, the lines would be half as long, move twice as fast, and there would be no need for fastpasses.

That being said, fastpasses can work well for everyone at a park if:

A: the system is well thought out and

B: the people are willing to stay at the park all day

Take Disney for example. Disney is a park which is ALWAYS crowded (last month aside…) so it was a prime candidate for a fastpass system. Disney’s system works well, and it is available to everyone for free (although this may change…). They took the time to figure out how to make the system work well and spent the money to make it work… as opposed to Six Flags who tossed 5 or 6 different systems into different parks to see which one would fly.

The catch is: on a busy day at Disney you can get a fastpass at noon with a return time of 5:00. At a park like Disney, this isn’t really a problem because people tend to stay all day to see shows, parades, etc. At a Six Flags, however, you may want to pop in for a few hours, ride a few rides, and leave. If there is a fastpass system and all the "big" rides have three hour "virtual" lines, you can’t do this.

I agree keep it simple. I know I don;t wanna have to plan my day around what time fast pass says my time to go is. people cry and cry about people holding places in line for someone this is not all that different. you also have to add in general stupidity in the GP. A lot of people will get the fast pass and go to the place at the time and be like "hey I thought I didn; thave to wait if I got here on time!" jeff brings upa great point the ride break down. or sme idiot loses his wallet or what ever on the ride as well. I ay do away with them. I mean they copudl work out a que system thart you get a ticket when you show up at the front and people in your party cal leav ebut you gotaa enter the station house in the order you got into line so if you aren;t back before your group gets into the station you're out of luck, that would be nice on looooong days you would still have to wait but you would have a small window to be about your way. I like that ide abecause it acomodates eating and going to the bathroom. I got some flack at HP a few years ago ;cause I took my cousin to the bathroom 20 feet from the que 2 people in a party of 8 here! meedless to say the people complaining rode looong before we did since we went on to the front seat que. but overall I would like to see BGW get a kiddie coaster something like 50 feet high with some quik not so scary thrills for the kids in the same vein as beastie or skooby doo at pkd. I think the window for fast fast systems should be small the same ttime to go from the starting point of the line to enterin the station turn stile. that way you got no one runng through getting hte fast pass for 3 ride and hitting them all in fast sucession or getting huge advances over thsoe not waiting anfd forces peopel to work in a sense for thier "reduced" wait. I mean it would help if I coudl go get the ticket get something to eat. that way there isn;t any suprises when two trains form boarding some one who got in 4 rides while you waited for one hops right in front of you for the front row on apollo. the same people are infront or behind you as when you arived at the que  just they might nto have been there the whole time. I would consider that a more balanced system and would only be impllemnted for busy days then the lines exceede 40 minutes for the least popular seat on a ride.and of course it is running all trains of course!
-----------------
All at once the ghosts come back reeling you in now.
The Fastpass system is the only one I have thought was fair, and was effiecent. These are the ones used at the Disney parks. Fastlane is horrible, and is really a violation of the Bill of Rights discriminating aganst guests who did not pay extra money! It needs at least to say that in fine print! But belive me FASTPASS Disney style is the way to go!

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2022, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...