Six Flags America (SFA) Discussion Thread

[DiveMachine]

sorry to change the subject, but I have a question about S:ROS.

 

Are the restraints more accommodating for larger guests than a ride like say, El Toro?

[Skycoastin Steve]

^If you've ridden an Intamin with seatbelts like MF or TTD, it's similar to those. It also has bars on the sides of the lap bars that enclose your legs. In short, no, it's not comfortable or accommodating to larger guests. I'm 6'5" and skinny and it's not very comfortable for me.

[DiveMachine]

^If you've ridden an Intamin with seatbelts like MF or TTD, it's similar to those. It also has bars on the sides of the lap bars that enclose your legs. In short, no, it's not comfortable or accommodating to larger guests. I'm 6'5" and skinny and it's not very comfortable for me.

thanks looks like I'll need to do a little work before my trip to SFA

[DECoasterNerd]

I went to SFA last year once and again this year once. Last year when I was there, Skull Mountain was running. This year, they appeared to be trying to get it going, but were ultimately unsuccessful.

 

I know everyone loves to trash SFA, but I think those that do haven't been there in the 2010/2011 season. The staff there is so friendly and so enthusiastic it shocks me as I grew up going to SFGAdv where the staff couldn't give two sh*ts about anything. They high-five you on the way into the park, and on many rides as well. Definitely helps contribute to the "all around park experience" which for the most part, CF and SF parks have completely lost (although CP ride operators are great!). They have the rides, but not the overall experience.

 

HOWEVER, I did think Skull Mountain was a lot of fun when I rode it once last year (1st and only time). I'm surprise they have so much trouble there with it, but then again, SFA's continuing problem is that their ride maintenance department is one guy with a hammer.

 

It's ashame to see it go. Being only 1.5 hours away, I'll probably have to make an emergency trip to ride it once more before it's gone for good!

[Invented]

I went to SFA last year once and again this year once. Last year when I was there, Skull Mountain was running. This year, they appeared to be trying to get it going, but were ultimately unsuccessful.

 

I know everyone loves to trash SFA, but I think those that do haven't been there in the 2010/2011 season. The staff there is so friendly and so enthusiastic it shocks me as I grew up going to SFGAdv where the staff couldn't give two sh*ts about anything. They high-five you on the way into the park, and on many rides as well. Definitely helps contribute to the "all around park experience" which for the most part, CF and SF parks have completely lost (although CP ride operators are great!). They have the rides, but not the overall experience.

 

HOWEVER, I did think Skull Mountain was a lot of fun when I rode it once last year (1st and only time). I'm surprise they have so much trouble there with it, but then again, SFA's continuing problem is that their ride maintenance department is one guy with a hammer.

 

It's ashame to see it go. Being only 1.5 hours away, I'll probably have to make an emergency trip to ride it once more before it's gone for good!

 

We went in April and the staff was amazing. So many high fives and people asking how our day way.

[printersdevil78]

I know everyone loves to trash SFA, but I think those that do haven't been there in the 2010/2011 season. The staff there is so friendly and so enthusiastic it shocks me as I grew up going to SFGAdv where the staff couldn't give two sh*ts about anything. They high-five you on the way into the park, and on many rides as well. Definitely helps contribute to the "all around park experience" which for the most part, CF and SF parks have completely lost (although CP ride operators are great!).

 

Agreed. Despite living only a couple hours away, I didn't visit SFA until 2008 due to its negative reputation. And it lived up to its reputation 100 percent--the park felt like a ghetto where someone had torn down a few tenament buildings and put up some roller coasters. The next year I took my now-wife, who grew up literally down the street from SFA, and we were both amazed at how much the place had changed for the better. By 2010, the park's speakers were blaring Taylor Swift rather than FloRida, and we were getting the high-fives you mentioned, along with tremendous ride operations and some of the friendliest staff I've encountered anywhere, Disney parks included.

 

The two comments I keep hearing from the coaster community are: "SFA is a ghetto park" and "They haven't added a new coaster in a decade, so I haven't bothered going back since then." Together, they kind of make sense; in 2001 (and even as of 2008), SFA was a ghetto park. But you know, parks can change, and this one has. At SFA Preview Day this year, they spoke a little about how the Six Flags chain brought in a new management team for the park in 2009 with a mandate to clean it up and make it a place families would again want to visit. Based on the crowds and demographics (a huge number of young families) I saw on opening weekend this year, I'd say they've been wildly successful.

 

Some on here have said that Whistlestop Park, nee Thomas Town, doesn't count for anything. Except it does. You don't retool your entire management team, invest $3 million to build a whole new land and start announcing new rides for a park you don't think is going to be around for awhile. And that's not even including the behind-the-scenes infrastructure stuff no one gets to see. Apparently, the park has undergone a large data and electrical wiring upgrade since 2008. It's a major investment... but it's not a roller coaster, so who cares?

 

/rant

[CoAsTeRDaN]

I am always sad to see something go. My personal feeling is you don't have to remove something to build something, just build it in a different spot. Its not like SFA is really landlocked.

The ride was interesting, but once they stopped it from turning around and going backwards, it lost its appeal.

Its been exactly one decade since SFA added a coaster, as a matter of fact, they have taken one OUT since then... They really need to add something, but I am with the few on here that thinks whatever it is, won't be a "big deal" anyway. That park the last few years has been a ghost town. A month ago on a Saturday my wife and I went and they were running ONE train on the major rides like Superman and we were getting stay on rerides. What does that tell you?

I used to HATE this park, but I have to admit the management there has really tried the last few years. The employees are much better and more friendly than ever before. The last 3 or 4 visits we have had there, I can actually say we had fun.

 

Danny Biggerstaff

CoAsTeRDaN

[cfc]

It's like the old joke about the zen master:

 

"Master, they're going to remove Skull Island! That's terrible!"

"We'll see."

"Master they've announced that they're going to build something new there! That's great!"

"We'll see."

 

And so on . . .

 

I think this may be more of a "what do you want to pay for?" question for the park: maintaining an old water ride that has serious issues, or putting up something newer and more reliable?

 

I've had enjoyable and not-so-enjoyable visits at SFA (haven't been there in two years).

 

We'll see.

[robbalvey]

The ride was interesting, but once they stopped it from turning around and going backwards, it lost its appeal.

Wow, I actually had no idea they did this. Was this at the same time the ride changed names?

[coasterfreak101]

^I believe so. It's been a good three or four years since it went backwards. The first and second turntables don't even exist anymore - the car just makes a sharp turn inside the little tower and at the end of the tunnel. The one at the top of the drop still does, just to get you from the lift to the drop. But it gets rid of two extra ride ops and a decent bit of their mechanical problems, so I get why they did it. It just sucks!

[QueerRudie]

It's like the old joke about the zen master:

 

"Master, they're going to remove Skull Island! That's terrible!"

"We'll see."

"Master they've announced that they're going to build something new there! That's great!"

"We'll see."

 

And so on . . .

 

I think this may be more of a "what do you want to pay for?" question for the park: maintaining an old water ride that has serious issues, or putting up something newer and more reliable?

 

I've had enjoyable and not-so-enjoyable visits at SFA (haven't been there in two years).

 

We'll see.

 

BEST. RESPONSE. EVER.

 

I'm not a fan of SFA; haven't been a fan of them in quite a while- and while I've had issues with the park in the past, I can say seeing positive signs of changes are a good thing: Zoomazon falls, for example, being renovated and upgraded- the addition of a Thom...er... kiddyland area, etc.

 

But like Chuck said: We'll see.

 

I honestly think the park is still in desperate need of major upgrades of attractions: Yes, it's an OK mix of rides- coaster wise, to go from seven to six and not offer an immediate replacement is a bit of a sin, I think. (The same thing could be said for CGA for that matter!) While they were putting in all those infrastructure upgrades (Which, if the 'excuse-o-meter' is correct, have been going on now for nearly six years now) they neglected the park as a whole, adding very few attractions, and not really doing anything to attract newer parks.

 

Now, let's look at the parks around SFA, since 2001 (The year SFA added their last coaster)

Hersheypark has added three coasters (Including ProjectX/2012's ride,) a whole new waterpark, and numerous other improvements along the way.

Busch Gardens Williamsburg: Removed a car attraction and replaced it with Griffon, lost a coaster (BBW) but is replacing it with a new one, Verbolten, for 2012

Kings Dominion: Renovated the park, upgraded facilities, added Ricochet, Hypersonic (Since removed), Dominator, The Italian Backlot, and I-305, upgraded the waterpark...

 

If anything, the park is now feeling the heat- as to go another year without a new attraction of note would be insane to be polite- and downright brainless. When you have blockbuster additions all around you, and you fail to keep up, you're asking for trouble all around- and asking for problems in the future.

 

I could understand a year or mabye two for infrastructure upgrades. But six is ridiculous, and to say 'well, we're not able to add anything until it's fixed' is bogus. If anything: It's a weak excuse.

 

The downslide has stopped, the park is looking a bit better- but the ship still needs to be driven back to shore.

[coasterfreak101]

^That's what I think could really start to happen now. Over the last three years, they've been improving infrastructure, getting things open and running, and building back the reputation they used to have before the Six Flags rebranding. So now they've done that, and it seems to me like they've done a fantastic job. They've got the families coming, the teens coming, everything open, clean sidewalks, fantastic employees, etc. Now could be the best time for them to add something(s) new and actually see a return on their investment. Maybe, for once, investing in SFA will turn out to be a good business decision. But we'll have to wait and see.

[SFA Regular]

I am always sad to see something go. My personal feeling is you don't have to remove something to build something, just build it in a different spot. Its not like SFA is really landlocked.

The ride was interesting, but once they stopped it from turning around and going backwards, it lost its appeal.

Its been exactly one decade since SFA added a coaster, as a matter of fact, they have taken one OUT since then... They really need to add something, but I am with the few on here that thinks whatever it is, won't be a "big deal" anyway. That park the last few years has been a ghost town. A month ago on a Saturday my wife and I went and they were running ONE train on the major rides like Superman and we were getting stay on rerides. What does that tell you?

I used to HATE this park, but I have to admit the management there has really tried the last few years. The employees are much better and more friendly than ever before. The last 3 or 4 visits we have had there, I can actually say we had fun.

 

Danny Biggerstaff

CoAsTeRDaN

 

I have to agree a lot with this post. They should definitely be adding, rather than removing. My guess is that they have had so many problems with the Skull Mountain is the past, that they just want to remove it. And it's not just losing a ride, it's losing a water ride. Other than the attractions located in Hurricane Harbor, the park will only have Ship Wreck Falls as a water ride. Even though Skull Mountain had it's problems, the park could still market that it had two water rides in the dry side of the park.

 

As for what they are adding, I'm predicting they will add a variety of small attractions in there. Skull Mountain's course sit's a good amount of space. They could add on more to the family experience.

[CoasterNERD502]

^ Other than Hurrican Harbor, SFA has 4 water rides; Penguin's Blizzard River, Renegade Rapids, Shipwreck Falls, and Skull Mountain. Losing 1 water ride isn't that big of a deal if you look at it that way.

 

What makes this a big deal is that SFA is removing a ride. SFA had PLENTY of room to expand. I don't understand why they would want to remove a ride in order to build one. Maybe they plan on connecting a path from Skull Island to Gotham or Whistlestop Park. If they do not use this as a new passageway, then I have no idea what their purpose was.

 

My only idea for a new ride in 2012 would be a River Battle style attraction. I'm not getting my hopes up that something big or thrilling will be placed at the park. A River Battle would fit in with the Pirate theme and once you remove Skull Mountain, all that would be left will be a large empty pool that they can easily fill back up with water and build a cheap River Battle.

[coasterfreak101]

They're removing a ride because it's a mechanical nightmare. Seems clear to me...

[SFA Regular]

^ Other than Hurrican Harbor, SFA has 4 water rides; Penguin's Blizzard River, Renegade Rapids, Shipwreck Falls, and Skull Mountain. Losing 1 water ride isn't that big of a deal if you look at it that way.

 

What makes this a big deal is that SFA is removing a ride. SFA had PLENTY of room to expand. I don't understand why they would want to remove a ride in order to build one. Maybe they plan on connecting a path from Skull Island to Gotham or Whistlestop Park. If they do not use this as a new passageway, then I have no idea what their purpose was.

 

My only idea for a new ride in 2012 would be a River Battle style attraction. I'm not getting my hopes up that something big or thrilling will be placed at the park. A River Battle would fit in with the Pirate theme and once you remove Skull Mountain, all that would be left will be a large empty pool that they can easily fill back up with water and build a cheap River Battle.

 

Sorry, I forgot about Penguins Blizzard River. Does't get people as wet at Renegade and Shipwreck Falls, so I miscounted. My mistake. As for a path to connect the three themed sections; that's possible. Unless they wanted it to whip around the turn of Wild One near Skull Mountain and connect it to Whistlestop Park. As for the River Battle ride, that's possible. I doubt they want to pay money to fill in a sunken area. Not really expecting them to build anything major either. If it's going to be a ride, it could easily be plenty of space for a mouse coaster and a few other smaller flats.

 

Normally, I would bring my imagination up for them to build something thrill related in it's place; but I've disregarded all that with SFA. I have to agree with coasterNERD on this one. It will probably be room for something like Buccaneer battle. It's the easiest thing for them to do.

[redfoot12]

^SFA Regular--did you visit the fountain of youth or something? Your age used to be like 27 or 28.

 

Anyway, I may be getting a season pass but it will only be so I can use it at SFGAdv and SFNE. When I get it processed I may try to get a ride in on Superman and Wild One.

How's SROS running this year?

[Tiburon503]

Well if the park would just spend money on adding new rides then they'd see an ROI,they were on somewhat of a good path 15 years ago until Burke got it into his head that only SFMM,SFGADV & SFGRAM were the only three parks deserving of major rides year after year....granted in addition to rides they could've gone a longer way toward improving the overall guest experience which was sacrificed in favor of those early large ride installations that came along with the SF rebranding in 99.

I actually remember shareholders grumbling over Six Flags's investment in the smaller parks. Burke was accused of neglecting the big parks, specifically Great Adventure which provided the impetus to approve "Nitro" and "Superman Ultimate Flight".

 

It's easy to get upset at Great Adventure, Great America, and Magic Mountain taking the lion's share of CapEx. These parks bring in 2/3 of all Six Flags's income however, with Great America being the most profitable at the time. While Six Flags doesn't break out individual park figures, analysts speculated how "flagging" impacted overall performance, and wanted Six Flags to abandon their vision. It's not feasible to expand each park into a property larger than its market will bare.

 

For whatever reason, Six Flags America can't break through the ceiling of being ran as anything but a small park. I don't think that property will ever grow unless the Koch Family or Ed Hart runs the place. Six Flags invested big time in the former Adventure World initially. The park just didn't perform well enough to warrant further major investments.

[SFA Regular]

Well if the park would just spend money on adding new rides then they'd see an ROI,they were on somewhat of a good path 15 years ago until Burke got it into his head that only SFMM,SFGADV & SFGRAM were the only three parks deserving of major rides year after year....granted in addition to rides they could've gone a longer way toward improving the overall guest experience which was sacrificed in favor of those early large ride installations that came along with the SF rebranding in 99.

I actually remember shareholders grumbling over Six Flags's investment in the smaller parks. Burke was accused of neglecting the big parks, specifically Great Adventure which provided the impetus to approve "Nitro" and "Superman Ultimate Flight".

 

It's easy to get upset at Great Adventure, Great America, and Magic Mountain taking the lion's share of CapEx. These parks bring in 2/3 of all Six Flags's income however, with Great America being the most profitable at the time. While Six Flags doesn't break out individual park figures, analysts speculated how "flagging" impacted overall performance, and wanted Six Flags to abandon their vision. It's not feasible to expand each park into a property larger than its market will bare.

 

For whatever reason, Six Flags America can't break through the ceiling of being ran as anything but a small park. I don't think that property will ever grow unless the Koch Family or Ed Hart runs the place. Six Flags invested big time in the former Adventure World initially. The park just didn't perform well enough to warrant further major investments.

 

You are correct in this post. The best thing the smaller parks had going for them was Burke. That's one of the reasons why we have the current rides that we have. If he hadn't of invested in our park before he lost his job, we would barely have anything right now. Until this very day, I thank Burke for Superman, Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Batwing and Hurricane Harbor. Moving on now; SFA's case is very rare. We have proved that we can bring in big crowds, so why do people think we can't break the ceiling? The company has to realize that they must add in order for people to come. People are not going to flood the park before the company agrees to build something. The people have to see something before they pull money out their pockets to spend there. They could have easily rolled the dice on this park by adding Chang, but once again they sent it to Great Adventure. SFA would have received it's big crowds again if people saw a brand new coaster.

 

Tiburon is right. This doesn't just go for SFA, but a lot of the other small Six Flags parks as well. As much as guests would love them to, the company is not going to turn these smaller parks into mega parks. I feel that the best bet they have going for them would be for Six Flags to sell them and Burke and his company to buy them. I personally feel that if Six Flags put SFA up for sale, Burke would buy it and continue his plan to expand it. He already owns a water park in Virginia and he bought back Wymont Lake. SFA would be his Great Adventure.

[Tiburon503]

SFA's case is very rare. We have proved that we can bring in big crowds, so why do people think we can't break the ceiling? The company has to realize that they must add in order for people to come. People are not going to flood the park before the company agrees to build something. The people have to see something before they pull money out their pockets to spend there. They could have easily rolled the dice on this park by adding Chang, but once again they sent it to Great Adventure. SFA would have received it's big crowds again if people saw a brand new coaster.

Has Six Flags America actually proven they can draw big crowds? If the park was drawing large crowds/revenues, or was more profitable; I would imagine Six Flags would have continued large investments with this property.

 

Six Flags America suffers from several factors I'd imagine. It's in a highly competitive market with Kings Dominion, Busch Gardens, and even Great Adventure within a 2-4 hour driving distance. All of those parks either draw greater, or receive major investments annually. Labor costs are another factor, as well as the culture of low morale amongst the "rank and file" which is seemingly unbreakable. Investors don't want to see major investments in properties that aren't going to provide an immediate and exponential return on investment. For most, a $15M attraction at a park like Great Adventure; is a safer bet than even at $10-$12M project at a small park. With proper management, and a near complete re-imagination; Six Flags America could be transformed into a legitimate competitor. This would require huge capital and investors with iron stomachs willing "to go long". Hard to accomplish in any corporate environment outside of Silicon Valley.

 

Tiburon is right. This doesn't just go for SFA, but a lot of the other small Six Flags parks as well. As much as guests would love them to, the company is not going to turn these smaller parks into mega parks. I feel that the best bet they have going for them would be for Six Flags to sell them and Burke and his company to buy them. I personally feel that if Six Flags put SFA up for sale, Burke would buy it and continue his plan to expand it. He already owns a water park in Virginia and he bought back Wymont Lake. SFA would be his Great Adventure.

I think you mean Frontier City in Oklahoma. Burke & Story's company is actually leasing the park from CNL Lifestyle Properties. Personally I hope Burke can build his way back up to reacquiring Six Flags outright. Hopefully they're a little wiser from his previous stewardship and focus on customer service as strongly as attractions.

[QueerRudie]

I'm going out on a hefty limb here after doing a few 'look-sees' at the plot of ground- and some things I've read on Screamscape...

 

Lance at Screamscape reported that B&M were in consideration for 2012's new attraction- and I thought about this for a second: SFA does NOT have a really high-capacity 'looping' coaster, nor any real 'standard' type of looping coaster. After looking over the old Typhoon Seacoaster/Skull mountain site; I thought about it further- Please forgive the crappy graphics on it- but what about THIS?

 

(It might be a Dark Knight before it happens- but a compact B&M Floorless Looping...

 

A hunch- what do you think?

 

Like I said, Just a hunch- but I think I'm on the right course here.

 

R.D.

[MayTheGForceBeWithYou]

^Hmm...we can only hope!

[MrSum1_55]

Hmm...

 

I guess B&M really can fit a lot into a little space! A B&M is also the only thing SFA is lacking right now. (besides better park operations)

 

Meh, its probably just going to be a compact Gerstlaur spinner, though. (Although a Zac Spin is only .5 million more...)

[SFA Regular]

Rather than fitting a compact B&M coaster in there, they could make that whole area into a sub-theme section. I would call it Ship Wreck Cove. Rather than adding a coaster, they could add something like Tomb:Raider Fire fall, but with a haunted pirate theme. That would be the main attraction for this sub-theme section. Other than the ride, there would be games, shops and restaurants. I personally feel, that big amount of space can be used for a lot more than just one small compact coaster. I would much rather them save the high investment and try and add a B&M in Gotham City for 2013. Maybe then, will they complete the park in a loop.

 

Sense I normally get smashed for thinking up this imaginary coaster ideas, I figured this would be better. The suspended top spin, Pirate themed ride, would serve as a replacement for Iron Eagle. That way we get one of our lost attractions back and a cool theme area with games and shops with it. If done right, both families and teens would be happy.

[atem122]

^Wouldn't imaginary SFA Regular then get mad at imaginary SFA for not having enough coasters?