Whatever happened to a new SFWoA coaster?

Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:31 PM
Wasn't there talk about putting in a new 200ft coaster at SFWoA this year? They were going to wait until this year when all the Top Thrill Dragster talk died down. Are there plans for 2005? 2006?

I didn't go to SFWoA at all last year 'cause I've gotten so sick of the same rides.

+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:46 PM
I really don't think they waited "till all the TTD talk died down." I personally don't believe a park is going to "hold off building a coaster because that park up north gots a real good one" :)

It has to do with $$$. The park simply doesn't have the money to put in a coaster right now. I'd be happy if they didn't get a coaster for several more years, and took that money and invested in Customer Relations and things around the park.

+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:57 PM
^ Rather, the park doesn't get the money they need. Corporate keeps them from spending on things to improve the park, and it's pissing them off.
+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:36 PM
Haux, That is so much BS about corporate not giving SFWOA enough money to operate and keep the park up. Unless you work in the offices at SFWOA then you don't know anything. A lot of the problems stem from the decreasing attendance. This is from the poor operations and customer service led by the poor management at SFWOA. Corporate gives SFWOA plenty of money to keep operating. Why wouldn't they since they invested a lot of money in the park? Everyone uses the scape goat that its Corporate fault that SFWOA is not up to par when its the actual in park people who are to blame.
+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:24 PM
I think we'll probably see it happen next year. I don't blame them from holding off on the project until they get they're act together a little more. Besides, it might be better to promote a new rollercoaster on a year Cedar Point isn't doing the same thing.

Wood - anything else is an imitation

+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:27 PM
Improved operations and customer service were addressed at ACE No Coaster Con. The park knows what needs to be done.

mOOSH

+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:29 PM
Ok. I worked there for two years. Corporate doesn't give us enough money. You happy now?

New coaster is coming... when it can be financially justified.

The current height limit is 235 ft. on the life side, despite what they told you at CoasterCon.

*** Edited 1/22/2004 11:31:13 PM UTC by Zero-G***

+0
Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:48 PM

Mojo said:
Haux, That is so much BS about corporate not giving SFWOA enough money to operate and keep the park up. Unless you work in the offices at SFWOA then you don't know anything. A lot of the problems stem from the decreasing attendance. This is from the poor operations and customer service led by the poor management at SFWOA. Corporate gives SFWOA plenty of money to keep operating.

Nobody said anything about SF Corporate not giving SFWoA enough money to operate properly. What was said was that SF Corporate didn't give SFWoA the money for a new coaster, and that's 100% correct. It was being planned for 2003, but after the customer service and attendance issues faced in 2002 (as well as a decrease in chain-wide spending on new attractions for 2003), the coaster was put on hold. Clearly, it's still on hold. Why? Exactly what haux said: Corporate isn't giving them the money for it. I'm pretty sure they want to internal issues fixed before adding a new major attraction.

Certainly SFWoA gets enough money to operate. If haux meant they don't, then he/she is wrong. But it is SF Corporate holding back the coaster.

-Nate *** Edited 1/23/2004 2:52:13 AM UTC by coasterdude318***

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 8:07 AM
If you knew the competitor park to the east was building and marketing a 400+ foot coaster would you have been really excited to open your 200+ foot coaster the same season? I wouldn't.

SFWoA's problems are varied and many. There is enough blame to go around with the park management AND corporate.

And working 2 years at a park hardly qualifies you as an expert.

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 8:53 AM
Either way,

The parked brought in a TON of people with some new rides without any customer service. And we all have seen what happens when you do that.

So why not build your customer service up, maintain everytthing, work on landscape, enhance what you have, etc. THEN build the coaster, people come and have a good time. I believe that's what we are looking at now. So on the bright side, if SF is having money problems (or just not enough.) This is a good time for SFWoA to take care of and fix all the small things. Then when they get their stuff in order, build some rides and keep working on their goals.

But yes, the coaster is coming...when we will all wait and see.

This year it looks like they are making steps towards the new "Lost World" the park has talked about when it first became SF.

"The Future of Roller Coasters"
-RollerCoasterGod
http://OhioThemeParks.com

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 9:27 AM
Exactly RollerCoasterGod

Right now the park is completely retracking about 500' of the Dipper on the far end. Wolf Kabobs hasn't been touched yet, but should be soon. As far as I'm concerned, I'm really glad the park is working on fixing and maintaining what they already have including the whole guest services issue. Only time will tell though how well it all holds together for them.

I would't be surprised to see track and supports start to rear their head in the Wild Life lot next Fall. I'm sure the coaster will happen in the near future as long as they stay focused on improving the whole *guest experience*.

Wood - anything else is an imitation

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 10:16 AM
I still wanna see the boat ride thru what they were saying was some kind of tropical forest area of the park that was promised when they bought Sea World...

...I'd love to see a few more animal attractions, as well... somethign along the lines of maybe a few wolves, llamas, and other wild-life exotic/endangered mammals. It'd help break up what there is to do at Worlds of Adventure so you can truly distinguish the Wildlife side from the Wildrides side...

...you want a guest experience? The park is great as is... but it needs a little more variety in terms of thing to see & do on the wildlife side, besides the indoor stuff.

...once that's done, and the customer service is improved (which I never thought was all that bad), then they'll be ready for their signature attraction.

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 11:23 AM
You mean the 'Big Ditch' Dawgbyte. That ride was kind of lame compared to the 'original' Western Cruise at Cedar Point. The boats weren't on a track because they had to cross part of the lake to get to the beginning of the canal where all the scenes were located.

The boats were steered manually by the ride ops from the back of the boats using a long narrow wooden handle that connected directly to the rudder. The funny thing was, that to turn the boats into the canal from the lake, you had to put ALL of your weight on that handle hanging on and leaning way out over the water. (It was a very hard left into the canal.) What would sometimes happen is the handle would break off during this manuever causing the operator would fall into the lake.

Trust me...I can't tell you how many times we laughed about this at employee parties. You'd be treading water with the end of the handle in your hand, watching the boat run aground and yelling for everyone to 'please move to the back of the boat'!! A lot of the time people didn't even know that you had fallen' in. Ahhh the good 'ol days.

By the way...I never worked the 'Ditch' but my best friend and roomate at the time did.

Wood - anything else is an imitation *** Edited 1/23/2004 4:27:50 PM UTC by Thrillerman***

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 11:24 AM
I'm kinda glad they did not build a coaster yet..I did not like the layout that was proposed.It would have torn up the lifeside.IMHO building the coaster across the lake as was proposed would have really ruined the peaceful part of the park...
I hope SFWOA would rip out the Mission Bermuda
triangle simulator and recycle it for the coaster que. I hope we will see the coaster in 2005.
+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 11:38 AM
Tell you guys one thing about corporate giving us money. Last preseason the rides budget(for employee pay) was about 1.7mil. By opening day they cut us back to 1.2mil roughly. We had to fire a lot of ride ops that we could have used to run more rides at capcity or even open more rides. So yes a lot of problems our park faces is due to lack of money to deal with them. Staffing being the biggest.
+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 11:39 AM
I think the coaster would be good in that area too Dennis. I also think they should tear out Mission Bermuda, but I think that instead of using that as part of the que for the coaster I would like a new motion simulator to go in there. Something more along the lines like PKI's simulators. I saw their Spongbob movie/ride and it was awsome. Those chairs and the way that you actually felt like you were moving with the screen were very cool. I think SFWoA could use one like that.
+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 11:41 AM

wahoo skipper said:
And working 2 years at a park hardly qualifies you as an expert.

I don't disagree, but how long would you need to work there to understand how the company works?

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 1:34 PM
I have some beef with SFWoA for this roller coaster issue. 1st of all why did they build 5 coasters in 2 years knowing that they didn't have enough money to do that and then not build anything again for at least 4 years? I would have been happy if they would have spread those 5 over 5 or 6 years instead of making small improvements and spenging a ton of money on buying SW. Did they really need to do that? I mean couldn't they have waited until SW shut down the park and bought the land for less and put some sweet rides on there. Another thing was the zoning rights on whatever side it was. When SF got those rights, why didn't they start work on their hyper? Come on six flags nothing is stopping you, build the coaster already. If they didn't have the money then why did they fight for the zoning to build a hyper? I think they have the money and the will to build a hyper but they just dont know what to do with it. They could make a whole new "world" to go with this new coaster or they could just midlessly stick it somewhere. or maybe they are trying to make a better park out of what they have before expanding to fast again. I actually believe that it is a good idea to think about what will happen to SFWoA after the hyper than to but it in and screw it up and ruin all their hard work on customer service in the past few years.
+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 1:52 PM
Wow - that ran together.

#1 - They put in 4 at one time because they didn't anticipate the park tanking due to a lack of customer service. They figured that by adding coasters, they'd simply add to their attendance and Geauga's numbers would do nothing but go up. No one ever plans to lose money.

#2 - They bought SW when they did cause it was a really good idea in theory (not execution). It makes the park a unqiue attraction for this part of the country as a combo zoo/amusement park. SFMW and BGT have that covered elsewhere, but Ohio was the only market without one until they bought SW. The problem with it was that they combined the gates. If they would have left them separate, the nosedive in attendance (and revenue) would have just stuck to the rides side.

#3 - They fought for the clearance so they knew what they had to work with and didn't end up like Six Flags Mexico - buy a hyper and just have it sit in pieces somewhere because you didn't clear it with the local authorities first. Plus, by going through normal channels, they're improving relations with the town of Aurora, which although they probably knew about it, is still a little peeved at the increase in traffic through their town.

How come only about half the people on this site can understand that the real world doesn't work like RCT? ;)

+0
Friday, January 23, 2004 1:59 PM

bigkirby said:I don't disagree, but how long would you need to work there to understand how the company works?

Well I guess that depends on whether or not the person is a seasonal or a full time employee, and...to some extent...what their position was in the company.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...