Which 6 SF parks are getting new rides.
Volcano:TBC said
No, I believe you're wrong in this case. They removed the Crazy Quilt. They added Superman: Ride of Steel, Twister, Slingshot, and Shipwreck Falls. Aside from aging water slides, what else did they remove?
You just loooove to rip me apart, don't you? No matter what I say, you'll find a counteract to it, regardless of what I say, right?
...Just to name two others that were removed:
Nightmare at Phantom Cave. Yes, it wasn't that great... but it was still a ride, and I still enjoy it at The Great Escape, despite lowering the capacity to 2 riders per car instead of 4 at SFDL.
...the Cascade Canyon waterslides were removed from the park to make way for Shipwreck Falls (they could have picked a better spot since they didn't even use the hill to their advantage, and instead just ripped right into it.
...Riptide Falls & the many other slides that were behind the 'Cuda Falls. These were present in 1998, but removed in 1999 when Six Flags branded the park. This was the start of turning our fairly decent waterpark into nothing more than crap now... all to make room for Slingshot, a $20.00 up-charge attraction not worth its price & could have been located in a MUCH better spot somewhere in the center of the park!
Yes, sir... I'd say that's quite a bit of removal
And V:TBC: I said I'd be happier if Premiere (I'll spell it the way I want!) never aquired Six Flags & just stuck to its small number of parks it currently had. The more parks you have, the less attention they recieve.
Oh, & BTW: Attendance HAS been affected and will continue to decline. If you took a good look at the attendance figures from 1999, 2000, and the years passing, you can see a continuing decline:
Under Six Flags Ownership
2003 - 1,460,000 - decrease 4% - 41st
2002 - 1,525,000 - decrease 7% - 43rd
2001 - 1,640,000 - 41st
2000 - 39th (not sure on exact numbers)
1999 - 1,700,000
Yes, sir... there is a continuing trend of declining attendance due to lack of new attractions... and this will have an effect on the campers as they realize that there this park keeps having the same old, same old while there are cheaper & better places to go camping all over New York State.
*** Edited 1/29/2004 12:13:26 PM UTC by DawgByte II***
TTDragster14 said:
I mean what did you have at SFDL or SFA before Six Flags came in? I have been to both parks anmd the only coasters at either park that I even considered to be put in my top 20 were the rides Six Flags had recently installed into your parks.
Actually, Premiere owns Six Flags America, a.k.a Adventure World in the 90's and Wild World in the 80's. Before Premiere bought Six Flags, Premiere owned Adventure World and added Mind Eraser, Roar and fixed/Saved Wild One. So SFA's transformation had already begun and it's been a successful one, if you take into consideration the park almost became a bunch of houses/apartments/condos/townhomes.
coasterdude318 said:
Face the truth - SFA will never be on the level of the big four. It's no big secret why SFGAdv, SFGAm, SFMM, and SFoT are the "big four" in the chain because they're the parks near the largest populations! -Nate
coasterdude, I agree with much of what you said, however, I disagree with the above quote. There is no reason why SFA can't be as big as the big four. Washington, D.C. is ranked 7th largest in the country and continuing to grow. The problem is the park isn't as established as the big four. Look at BGW and PKD. Both do 2 mil+ visitors a year and knocking on the door of two of the four you mentioned (including SFGam). However, neither one of those parks are near a great big population center like LA, NY, Chicago or Dallas. SFA isn't known outside Washington, D.C.. In fact, I can mention the words Six Flags or amusement park in Landover to my coworkers and friends and no one knows one exists. If I wear a Six Flags America t-shirt outside my hometown, I constantly get asked where is Six Flags America, when I respond with Washington, D.C. the response is I didn't know there was one there. In fact, it is rumoured the publicity surrounding Two Face getting stuck might have saved the park from a attendance catastrophe last season. Park's attendanc was down 8% at the point of the problems with Two Face, if you look at the numbers SFA's attendance was down for the whole year only 8% and that was mostly due to weather in the first couple of months.
SFA is barely a five year old park. Give them twenty years (like the other parks) and they will be as big or bigger than the four mentioned above. SFA has a big benefit in it's proximty to Washington, D.C. and being able to draw tourists dollars. Other benefits include the future expansion of Metro to Largo which should draw more people (especially tourists) to the park and the park has 384 acres they can develop.
The biggest key for the park is getting the word out that they exist.
DawgByte II said:Yes, sir... I'd say that's quite a bit of removal
hmm.... like the illinois park's ride removal record since 2000?
- haybaler
- cajun cliffhanger
- sky whirl
- power dive
- acme rocket ride
- elmer fudd's freeway
- red baron
- tot's livery
- shockwave
- ameri-go-round
the park ran six fewer rides last year than it did in 1999. *** Edited 1/29/2004 5:03:49 PM UTC by flogbert***
They [SFMM] could do what most parks with wooden coaster do when it comes to maintenance: replace old wooden track bed with new wooden track bed.
mOOSH
Besides, real wood coasters are SO yesterday...
bill, wondering if SFMM will claim "the most steel coasters" once they're finished with Colossuck...
How did Six Flags/Premier/Tierco save Wild One?
Adam
DawgByte II said:And V:TBC: I said I'd be happier if Premiere (I'll spell it the way I want!) never aquired Six Flags & just stuck to its small number of parks it currently had. The more parks you have, the less attention they recieve.
Premier Parks didn't exaclty have a small amount of parks immediately before they bought SF. They had already been out on a buying frenzy around the rest of the world. Premier Parks had more parks than SF did. When they acquired SF, they only gained about 8 parks (and their respective waterparks). They already had like 25.
I'am pretty sure that SFEG deserves a new coaster but two years back to back?!
Come on, how can anyone here think or say that this park hasn't been neglected? I love S:ROS I mean who wouldn't but how long is that ride going to hold up as the biggest attraction? One day i'am hoping to hear an announcement that we will be getting another coaster but the word here in Rochester and Buffalo is that SFDL sucks because S:ROS is the only thing that they have to offer in terms of big time thrills.
So to set the record straight this is our homepark and only we can tell everyone here through first hand that the situation sucks, and i'am tired of having to drive to SFWOA and Cedar Point just to ride some big coasters and stay at a park for longer than a half a day just to ride one coaster like i do when I'am at SFDL.
Suggestion: talk up the park and get as many people to go as possible. The more money people spend at the park the more likely the park will get a new ride.
mOOSH
The smaller parks need more investments than the larger ones to help gain recognition & grow attendance & if SFI continues to "overlook" these markets they stand to lose more money than they will make....they just don't get it that by investing in the smaller parks as well as the big ones that they could double their profits because at this point they seem to be losing money,not gaining it.
What hurt SFI in 01 was the over spending for their 40th anniversary on a majority of rides that didn't work as promised(the Deja vu triplets,flying dutchman clones & X)coupled with the downturn in the economy which was made worse by 9/11 & not really the addition of alot of the parks(although that played a small role in it) & since then it has had a rebound effect.
They've been losing money year after year since then because they've been forced to cut back on spending...it's probably gonna continue like this to the point where no one gets anything at all...I mean look at the numbers since 02 on cap ex spending: 2002 $140 million,2003:$135 million,2004:$75 million(now reduced to $34 million) which simply isn't enough to support a chain that big.
Like DawgbyteII said in a way I'd be a bit happier with the park as Adventure world prior to the re-branding as SFA,back then we got new rides every season from 93 through 98 because at the time premier was devoted to trying to improve the park...now we get hardly anything at all & when they first announced the re-branding they promised us that they'd be adding new & better attractions & services(on a regular basis) that so far have failed to materialize,sure things were looking good at first but now they're not & people have begun to lose interest in the park as a result & that's why attendance is beginning to suffer.
LONNOL said:
"Actually, Premiere owns Six Flags America, a.k.a Adventure World in the 90's and Wild World in the 80's. Before Premiere bought Six Flags, Premiere owned Adventure World and added Mind Eraser, Roar and fixed/Saved Wild One."How did Six Flags/Premier/Tierco save Wild One?
Adam
Before Premier purchased Wild World, Wild One was not operating. The original owners of the park when it was Wild World didn't have the money to fix the ride because they were heavily involved in the late 80's S&L Scandals. I don't have all the information in front of me. But when Tierco eventually steped in to purchase the park, Wild World almost was sold to developers. I have the newspapers article and other information about what happened at home. If you search the Washington Post for Wild World you will find the articles.
BATWING FAN SFA said:
Like DawgbyteII said in a way I'd be a bit happier with the park as Adventure world prior to the re-branding as SFA,back then we got new rides every season from 93 through 98 because at the time premier was devoted to trying to improve the park...now we get hardly anything at all & when they first announced the re-branding they promised us that they'd be adding new & better attractions & services(on a regular basis) that so far have failed to materialize,sure things were looking good at first but now they're not & people have begun to lose interest in the park as a result & that's why attendance is beginning to suffer.
AARGGH BatwingFan....The park needed all of that attention. They needed the kind of investment they got for 12 years. Look at how much the park has matured in 12 years under Premier's ownership. Look at what has happened since the park was branded a SF park and the improvements they continue to make today. For two out of those 12 years the park has not added a single ride. From what I understand the park needed to take 2002 off because the park was just plain bad in 2001. In 2003 they added a pretty nice ride in PBR.
You have been spoiled by 12 years of additions to the park.
coasterguts said:
There is no reason why SFA can't be as big as the big four. Washington, D.C. is ranked 7th largest in the country and continuing to grow.
You're wrong. According to the US Census Bureau, Washington DC ranks 19th in population. The total population of the District of Columbia is 572,000. That's a fifth the size of Chicago.
The problem is the park isn't as established as the big four. Look at BGW and PKD. Both do 2 mil+ visitors a year and knocking on the door of two of the four you mentioned (including SFGam).
Because there isn't a population base to sustain a park that size. BGW does well because it's in a huge tourist destination. PKD has been around a lot longer, sure, and it's more established than SFA. But it's also still about a million people short of the big four Six Flags parks.
SFA isn't known outside Washington, D.C.
Do you think SFGAm is known outside of its market? Six Flags are regional parks. ALL of them are.
SFA is barely a five year old park.
To be fair, the park is more than 20 years old.
Give them twenty years (like the other parks) and they will be as big or bigger than the four mentioned above.
No, it won't be. I guarantee it. Because it's not in one of the four largest US markets. It really is that simple.
Batwing fan SFA said:At the rate things are going SFA probably won't even be around in 20 years time.
That's a good way to start out your post if you want people to take you seriously!
The smaller parks need more investments than the larger ones to help gain recognition & grow attendance & if SFI continues to "overlook" these markets they stand to lose more money than they will make.
This is where you're wrong. It's the parks with severe competition that need frequent investments. Then it comes down to new attractions for your parks that can actually earn that money back for you. Small parks don't need big investments, especially if they're doing well for the company. SFA was down 8% this year, yes, but the park has also seen a huge attendance increase since Premier bought it. I'd say it's doing fairly well.
...they just don't get it that by investing in the smaller parks as well as the big ones that they could double their profits because at this point they seem to be losing money,not gaining it.
No, see, they tried that. Remember when SFWoA got four coasters in one year? Remember when most of the small SF parks got a coaster every year (or every other year)? I'm sure you remember when SFA got six in four years. That is what got Six Flags in trouble. They were spending tons of money on new rides and not getting that money back. Why? Because you can't turn a small park into a larger one overnight. You can't expect a half million attendance increase in a year. Why? Because there isn't a population base near small parks to support that increase. How quickly you forget that what you're describing was Premier's failed former business strategy.
Like DawgbyteII said in a way I'd be a bit happier with the park as Adventure world prior to the re-branding as SFA,back then we got new rides every season from 93 through 98 because at the time premier was devoted to trying to improve the park...now we get hardly anything at all
That's for two reasons:
1) That investing (a coaster every year) hurt the company big time. They're in severe debt for a reason.
2) SFA reached its limit. Okay, so attendance can certainly increase some, but it's not going to get a whole lot bigger. It's not going to hit 3 million. It won't even hit 2.5 anytimem soon. SF invested into the park until they reached the attendance they desired for the park (which is directly related to the size of the market).
But it's obvious you'll never get it. Not as long as you think like an enthusiast and not a businesman, anyway.
-Nate
With the exodus of jobs, and more people to follow, there really is no reason for them to invest in huge rides.
Anything they get at this time would be a gift for performing well in one of the worst regional economies in the country.
When I mention the investments that Premiere parks made from 93 to 98 such as Python,Roar & Mind eraser I'm not refeering to those as SFI investments so therefore they don't exactly count...those rides were planned & built at a time when Premier parks had no interest in Six flags at all,it was just by luck that they bought the chain from Time warner after it was sold(most likely due to the lawsuits filed on behalf of the Texas & Georgia parks that made TW want to dump the chain in the first place)& Premiere was their "pigeon" when it came time to look for a potential buyer.
Since 99 the only major rides added to SFA along with the SF name were JJ,Two face & great chase along with one or two flats for their debut year,following that we got S:ROS & Chaos in 2000,then in 01 Batwing was added(in place of a proposed B&M stand up coaster only because PKD refused to install the flyer at the last minute because of the problems related to the design)along with sky coaster.
After 01 came SFI's money problems & that's when things went downhill for a majority of the new parks they just re-branded...due to budget cutbacks on cap ex most proposed ride additions for these parks have been on hold or cancelled alltogether.
Sure we got PBR last year(it was one of the rides approved by the county in 99 anyway)& we are supposed to recieve at least three or four more rides which are on that list to complete their agreement with the county to try & improve the park over a 5 to 7 year period...that period is almost expired as of now.
Attendance can increase with a new ride being added...however it will drop sharply if no new rides are added on a regular basis,remeber what happened at SFGRADV when no new ride was added in 02? attendance dropped dramatically & the same will happen at SFA or any other park in the chain if the park doesn't offer new rides to draw interest in the local population's desire to return to the park each year.
Common sense always has stated (Especially made public in amusment park specials on Travel Channel & Discovery) that a park, to stay fresh & competitive, has to... as a rule of thumb, add something new & big every couple of years to keep the people coming back. This doesn't necessarily mean a coaster, but definately means some sort of big ride/attraction.
I haven't seen that really happen at SFDL. Again, Shipwreck was a major disappointment & Worlds of Adventure along with New England added that ride in along with a number of others the same year they were branded. SFDL added that ride & tried to promote the crap out of it... didn't help!
As a businessman, I'd try investing in a major attraction to SFDL, because as seen by the '99 attendance vs. figures from '98, there was a major spike of about 300,000 people. If I were to get the attendance up to that amount again... if not more... then I'd be more than happy to invest another 10 or 15 million on some major new rides.
Those 300,000 people will bring in revenue from parking, park food, up-charge attractions, and overall admission... and that should also carry over for another year (NOT 6 years).
You just loooove to rip me apart, don't you? No matter what I say, you'll find a counteract to it, regardless of what I say, right?
I don't even know who you are. You're just a screen name to me. I contradict things you say when you're blatantly incorrect, or when I feel you're whining makes coaster-enthusiasts on a whole look bad. I would do that to anyone I disagree with, though. You kinda became a target for me when you called me an asinine retard.
...Just to name two others that were removed:
Nightmare at Phantom Cave. ...the Cascade Canyon waterslides were removed from the park to make way for Shipwreck Falls ...Riptide Falls & the many other slides that were behind the 'Cuda Falls.
But you're argument is they've ripped out more then they've added, and that's just blatantly incorrect.
Removals- Crazy Quilt, Nightmare, Cascade Canyon, and Riptide Falls.
Additions- Superman, Twister, Slingshot, Shipwreck Falls, Batman Stunt Show, in addition to substantial investment in aesthetic and facility improvements.
These were present in 1998, but removed in 1999 when Six Flags branded the park. This was the start of turning our fairly decent waterpark into nothing more than crap now... all to make room for Slingshot, a $20.00 up-charge attraction not worth its price & could have been located in a MUCH better spot somewhere in the center of the park!
Why do you think they would remove older attractions the year they decide to brand the park? It's simple-- the older attractions, such as the waterslides and the Nightmare, were probably considered too-low capacity for a year when they were anticipating a large surge of attendance. Could you imagine how long the line for Nightmare would be in 1999? Makes sense to me.
And if they ever decide to expand the water park, you'll start whining because they're not giving you a new coaster.
And V:TBC: I said I'd be happier if Premiere [sic] (I'll spell it the way I want!) never aquired [sic]Six Flags & just stuck to its small number of parks it currently had. The more parks you have, the less attention they recieve [sic].
Why would you purposely spell the company's name incorrect? It makes you look ignorant and uninformed. It's spelled "Premier." There never was an "e" on the end.
Oh, & BTW: Attendance HAS been affected and will continue to decline. If you took a good look at the attendance figures from 1999, 2000, and the years passing, you can see a continuing decline:Under Six Flags Ownership
2003 - 1,460,000 - decrease 4% - 41st
2002 - 1,525,000 - decrease 7% - 43rd
2001 - 1,640,000 - 41st
2000 - 39th (not sure on exact numbers)
1999 - 1,700,000
Your numbers confirm exactly what I said. Attendance will naturally fluctuate from year-to-year due to a variety of circumstances. They're always close to the 1.5m range, as they always have been and probably always will be. I mean, they added Shipwreck Falls in 2002 but still saw a 7% decrease in attendance from 2001. And like I said, a new ride will certainly help bring attendance back over the 1.5m mark, but it won't ever drop drastically below that mark because they have good resources on site (campground, hotel, amphitheater) to keep people coming back.
Yes, sir... there is a continuing trend of declining attendance due to lack of new attractions... and this will have an effect on the campers as they realize that there this park keeps having the same old, same old while there are cheaper & better places to go camping all over New York State.
Sure, there's cheaper places to go camping all over New York State. But how many of them have a theme park attached to them? How many of them have a theme park and water park attached to them? How many of them have a theme park, water park, and concert amphitheater (with quality, popular shows) attached to them?
-Blast *** Edited 1/29/2004 7:56:32 PM UTC by VolcanoTBC***
BATWING FAN SFA said:remeber what happened at SFGRADV when no new ride was added in 02? attendance dropped dramatically & the same will happen at SFA or any other park in the chain if the park doesn't offer new rides to draw interest in the local population's desire to return to the park each year.
I beg to differ, attendance dropped even more drastically this year for Great Adventure even with the addition of Superman. Sure rides bring people, but there is more to the equation. I'll repeat the tired (but true) rhetoric that SF has an operations problem. Plus there is that weather issue that I'm still a little gray on. No offense, but I find it ridiculous that you are complaining about what SFA has recieved. It is common knowledge that it has one of the better collections in the chain.
Fate is the path of least resistance.
coasterdude318 said:
You're wrong. According to the US Census Bureau, Washington DC ranks 19th in population. The total population of the District of Columbia is 572,000. That's a fifth the size of Chicago.
Nate, it's clear that you really dont have a good grasp of the size of the DC metro area. Anyone that is familar with the region knows that the VAST majority of people here dont actually live *IN* The District. Sure we may work, play, and shop there, but in the end most of us stay in Maryland or Virginia (that lack od DC voting rights *might* have something to do with it...).
Anyway, that same 2000 census lists the Washington/Baltimore metro area at #4 with 7,608,070 people, just behind #3 Chicago/Gary/Kenosha @ 9,157,540. Sure, one could argue that throwing in Milwaukee/Racine with its 1,689,572 puts the SFGAm "drawing pool" well ahead of SFA, but it does *nothing* to explain why SFoT is a "big four" park when the Dallas/Ft. Worth area only ponies up 5,221,801 peeps; more than two million LESS than DC/B-more.
Now, one could argue that the amusement park market is more diluted here than in Chi or Dallas due to the proximity of PKD, BGW, and Hershey, but since that wasnt your argument, I'd have to say that *in this narrow instance* BWFSFA has a point. SFA very much does have a (potential) market to justify being treated like the "big four" parks.
lata, jeremy
edit: typos *** Edited 1/29/2004 9:22:30 PM UTC by 2Hostyl***
zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux
You must be logged in to post
