Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Six Flags Great Adventure (SFGAdv) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

 

The point is that sure they'll be excited and maybe be disappointed the coaster isn't opening with the park, but that won't stop them from visiting so it makes no difference.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to say that for sure. Virtually everyone I know thinks of Six Flags as having a bad reputation, and that comes through a combination of long slow-moving lines, poor operations, and smaller things like the new ride you were excited for not being open. And I don't believe for a second that reputation is incapable of impacting their bottom line. How much it impacts it none of us can even begin to guess because we don't have all the numbers in front of us but it stands to reason. Sure they might be the biggest game in town, but give your costumers a lackluster experience enough times and they'll decide amusement parks in general aren't worth it and find something else to do with their summer days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point is that sure they'll be excited and maybe be disappointed the coaster isn't opening with the park, but that won't stop them from visiting so it makes no difference.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to say that for sure. Virtually everyone I know thinks of Six Flags as having a bad reputation, and that comes through a combination of long slow-moving lines, poor operations, and smaller things like the new ride you were excited for not being open. And I don't believe for a second that reputation is incapable of impacting their bottom line. How much it impacts it none of us can even begin to guess because we don't have all the numbers in front of us but it stands to reason. Sure they might be the biggest game in town, but give your costumers a lackluster experience enough times and they'll decide amusement parks in general aren't worth it and find something else to do with their summer days.

 

The park will still have one of the highest attedences of any park in the country. It sits between Philly and New York, Dorney isn't going to pull people away from Gadv and Hershey isn't exactly a day trip from that distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, residents of Jackson are really against the park going forward with their solar panel plan.

 

Six Flags Great Adventure's controversial solar project under fire

By Rob Spahr | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

JACKSON – Township residents and environmentalists packed the Municipal Building on Monday night in hopes of getting a solar energy project scrapped.

 

Six Flags Great Adventure is seeking approval from the township's Planning Board to construct a solar generation facility – consisting of solar panels, inverters, transformers and a substation – on approximately 66 acres of current woodlands between Reed Road, Perrineville Road and Six Flags Boulevard.

 

If approved, the project is expected to make the 510-acre theme park and safari entirely energy self-sufficient.

 

However, during the nearly five-hour meeting – which still was not long enough to accommodate all of the comments from the public – many of the project's opponents said Six Flags should find another location for its solar project.

 

"I've very much in favor of solar panels, but not at the expense of the nature that we're trying to save," township resident Linda McHale said.

 

Six Flags president John Fitzgerald previously said that putting the panels in the theme park's parking lot would be too close to the public and would put visitors at risk of injury or the equipment in danger of being damaged.

 

"Tens of thousands of visitors come to Six Flags every day and use the parking lot including many children and young adults," Fitzgerald said. "It would be imprudent to allow park visitors access to solar arrays set over such a large and widespread area."

 

But some residents argued that if places like Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia or Rutgers University could make parking lot solar arrays work, a mostly seasonal amusement park should also be able to accomplish its renewable energy goals without cutting down 15,000 trees.

 

"I can't help but think that Great Adventure is known for building all of these innovative rides and attractions, they're constantly building these new incredible coasters," township resident Debbie Hadley said.

 

"In my mind," she continued, "Great Adventure has some of the most creative and skilled engineers on this planet. And I can't figure out why they don't have the brainpower to figure out how to install solar panels on existing impervious structures. It seems that at their own hand, they have access to minds that can solve this problem and it should be a challenge Great Adventure should want to rise to."

 

Township resident Elaine Leighton said she was in favor of solar energy projects, but said there is a way that Great Adventure's solar aspirations could be a win-win for itself and Jackson Township.

 

"Removing those trees and allowing development in an area that is sensitive ... is not a good idea," Leighton said. "I would like you to consider putting solar panels in areas that are already cleared, already damaged and isn't going to harm anybody. That way we can have both."

 

During the lengthy public comment session, which is scheduled to continue on Feb. 29, there was only one Jackson resident who spoke in favor of the project: Joe Fiero, a member of the township's Economic Development Committee.

 

"The environmental benefits of this project far exceed the environmental costs," Fiero said. "(Great Adventure's) desire to be the first theme park to be run by renewable energy should bring accolades, not critical response."

 

http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2016/02/six_flags_great_adventures_controversial_solar_pro.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Six Flags president John Fitzgerald previously said that putting the panels in the theme park's parking lot would be too close to the public and would put visitors at risk of injury or the equipment in danger of being damaged."

 

This is such a hot streaming line of bullsh!t I can't even stand it. I want to hear EXACTLY how he thinks kids are going to hurt a bunch of solar panels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Six Flags president John Fitzgerald previously said that putting the panels in the theme park's parking lot would be too close to the public and would put visitors at risk of injury or the equipment in danger of being damaged."

 

Having potholes the size of the Grand Canyon in the parking lot puts visitors at risk of injury and tires in danger of being damaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Six Flags president John Fitzgerald previously said that putting the panels in the theme park's parking lot would be too close to the public and would put visitors at risk of injury or the equipment in danger of being damaged."

 

Having potholes the size of the Grand Canyon in the parking lot puts visitors at risk of injury and tires in danger of being damaged.

 

This! This. Right. Here.

 

Meanwhile, In the SFGAdv parking lot......

 

I'm just glad we opted for the insurance on the minivan we rented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG LMAO at that video ^

 

You guys just don't seem to appreciate what this park has done for us. At what other park are you able to ride something before you even enter the main gate? The parking lot even has a line to get on, just like all the other rides! This year they are offering flash pass to skip the toll booths! Just an extra $74 dollars and you can hop right on that parking lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their rationale is garbage (also I doubt that it is even accurate) and there's a reason no one else in the industry intends to seek to replicating it. And when you buy advertising time or space to promote a new ride in a timeframe in which you know full well there is no chance for it to be running, you are in a real sense promoting something that isn't going to operate in that time frame. They know that, and the purposely vague language is indicative of their general contempt for customers.

 

Take it up with park management then, despite what we say they don't care what enthusiast think for the most part. 95% of people on here disagree with what Six Flags does a majority of the time. But will Six Flags change their ways? No. The general public doesn't care or notice when rides should/shouldn't open.

 

You don't think the general public notices? Six Flags went bankrupt in recent memory, shed most of its parks and ended up permanently closing two (nearly a third) either attempting to delay the inevitable or in the immediate wake of filing Chapter 11. They've presently returned to their prior strategy of giving away season passes to try and increase per cap spending but refined that previous failed strategy by matching it with a "don't spend much" approach based around ride rotation, flat ride construction, mass purchases, and heavily promoted ride rehabs. So yeah, I'm not terribly concerned about taking it up with management. I'm sure plenty have and will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Six Flags president John Fitzgerald previously said that putting the panels in the theme park's parking lot would be too close to the public and would put visitors at risk of injury or the equipment in danger of being damaged."

 

This is such a hot streaming line of bullsh!t I can't even stand it. I want to hear EXACTLY how he thinks kids are going to hurt a bunch of solar panels.

 

Although I agree that this is crap - I'll play devil's advocate here - people DO suck. If there is a way to climb, break, fall off of, or damage something - they will find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "too close to the public" argument is not the argument they should be leading with. If the primary argument is about the added expenditure of a "parking lot" system putting the designated budget past realistic levels, then they'd be more credible in my eye. It's accepted that solar-covered parking lots are by far the most expensive type of solar system to build, and most past projects are nowhere near the size of the park's parking lot.

 

Unfortunately, preliminary research (aka a few quick Google searches) couldn't come up with any hard figures. Multiple sources continue to talk about how the costs associated with parking lot panel systems are the main thing preventing them from becoming more common, though.

 

It says something then about Six Flags that it thinks its customer base is so dumb that they'll manage to fry themselves climbing up onto photovoltaic cells.

 

Having worked within or right outside the park for over a decade, not to mention having grown up within walking distance from the park, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that generally speaking, the park's customer base are pretty much morons. Stone cold idiots. I've got more stories than can fill up a NYTimes bestseller, and all it takes is one of those morons to mess up something and create pretty expensive repairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six Flags president John Fitzgerald previously said that putting the panels in the theme park's parking lot would put the equipment in danger of being damaged.

 

Just saying, this is the only legitimate reason. But to be fair there are plenty of stupid/really drunk people at Rutgers every weekend and the solar panels in Livingston campus' parking lot haven't been damaged yet. I think it's definitely much better placement considering that clearing a forest area to be eco friendly makes no sense.

 

Also, going back to the earlier topic, Great Adventure's attendance has been rising every year since 2010. Also they mostly went bankrupt due to adding too many coasters and expansions in too short a time frame. Remember that time Kingda Ka and El Toro (which each included expansions and new themed sections of the park) were added back to back years? Consider that the recession also occured and that the coaster wars are essentially over and thay even RMC's are much smaller financial investments than Intamin or even B&M coasters. Six Flags' previous bankrupcy and current attendance is not affected by them opening rides in the beginning of the summer season. There's also budgeting and staffing issues during the spring that would make them weary of opening a ride in the spring when attendance is already significantly lower by default. I know enthusiasts may not like the policy, but it actually is a great way to get guests to come back later that year. Not everybody follows coaster news or hears about a new ride until they're at the park themselves so it makes season passes more enticing. Sorry if this post comes off as super condesecending, I wasn't going for that tone at all but now I don't feel like re-editing it haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all just a marketing campaign. Of course the ride could open with the park, but that isn't best for business. They'd rather you visit the park early, see the new attraction being installed and buy a season pass to go back when it's finished. I think the last new addition to open with the park was Nitro. That was 15 years ago.

 

That is terrible rationale. Promoting a new ride that you know isn't going to be running is always, always a bad idea. Six Flags does it because they're are notoriously cheap.

 

How is it being cheap? It very well could cost them the same amount to build either way. It might even cost them more to wait longer depending on the demands of the contractors.

Edited by larrygator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, going back to the earlier topic, Great Adventure's attendance has been rising every year since 2010. Also they mostly went bankrupt due to adding too many coasters and expansions in too short a time frame.

 

Since we're in a mode of writing things that sound condescending: Your understanding of the situation could best be characterized as weak, perhaps even outright incorrect. Obviously they spent more money than revenue was brought in. That's indisputable. But all companies, ALL COMPANIES, generally carry some sort of debt. Most individuals do as well. The issue wasn't merely that they spent borrowed money. The issue was that they weren't able to sustain any measure of growth from the significant increase of attendance those expansions brought about because they sucked at running amusement parks.

 

Six Flags' previous bankrupcy and current attendance is not affected by them opening rides in the beginning of the summer season. There's also budgeting and staffing issues during the spring that would make them weary of opening a ride in the spring when attendance is already significantly lower by default. I know enthusiasts may not like the policy, but it actually is a great way to get guests to come back later that year. Not everybody follows coaster news or hears about a new ride until they're at the park themselves so it makes season passes more enticing. Sorry if this post comes off as super condesecending, I wasn't going for that tone at all but now I don't feel like re-editing it haha

 

If it is a smart policy with definite potential for bringing guests back in, then why isn't Cedar Fair (who's financials in the Ouimet era speak for themselves) copying it? Or SeaWorld? Or Herschend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all just a marketing campaign. Of course the ride could open with the park, but that isn't best for business. They'd rather you visit the park early, see the new attraction being installed and buy a season pass to go back when it's finished. I think the last new addition to open with the park was Nitro. That was 15 years ago.

 

That is terrible rationale. Promoting a new ride that you know isn't going to be running is always, always a bad idea. Six Flags does it because they're are notoriously cheap.

 

How is it being cheap? It very well could cost them the same amount to build either way. It might even cost them more to wait longer depending on the demands of the contractors.

 

My assumption is that they pick up cheap employment from laborers laid off when winter arrives. That would explain the late starts in a lot of northern markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all just a marketing campaign. Of course the ride could open with the park, but that isn't best for business. They'd rather you visit the park early, see the new attraction being installed and buy a season pass to go back when it's finished. I think the last new addition to open with the park was Nitro. That was 15 years ago.

 

That is terrible rationale. Promoting a new ride that you know isn't going to be running is always, always a bad idea. Six Flags does it because they're are notoriously cheap.

 

How is it being cheap? It very well could cost them the same amount to build either way. It might even cost them more to wait longer depending on the demands of the contractors.

 

My assumption is that they pick up cheap employment from laborers laid off when winter arrives. That would explain the late starts in a lot of northern markets.

 

OK, I understand your point now.

 

But since the construction is contracted out work with a bid process, the contractors are the ones that would be saving money if they hire cheap labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all just a marketing campaign. Of course the ride could open with the park, but that isn't best for business. They'd rather you visit the park early, see the new attraction being installed and buy a season pass to go back when it's finished. I think the last new addition to open with the park was Nitro. That was 15 years ago.

 

That is terrible rationale. Promoting a new ride that you know isn't going to be running is always, always a bad idea. Six Flags does it because they're are notoriously cheap.

 

How is it being cheap? It very well could cost them the same amount to build either way. It might even cost them more to wait longer depending on the demands of the contractors.

 

My assumption is that they pick up cheap employment from laborers laid off when winter arrives. That would explain the late starts in a lot of northern markets.

 

OK, I understand your point now.

 

But since the construction is contracted out work with a bid process, the contractors are the ones that would be saving money if they hire cheap labor.

 

If I'm bidding on construction and I think I can use winter layoffs to my advantage, I can put in a bid for the work at a lower amount than my competition with the caveat that I start later. If that bid is going to anyone but Six Flags in this industry, chances are I'm not winning it because they're concerned with selling a quality product at a quality price. If that bid goes to Six Flags, they're not in that business. They've been selling a product of questionable and sometimes miserable quality for the same exact price for roughly 20 years (no lie, just compared season pass prices at SFGAdv and they're lower now than in '99 for top tier, SFA is only $2 more) to a stagnant/shrinking consumer base. They're gonna take low bidder and not care when the work gets done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their rationale is garbage (also I doubt that it is even accurate) and there's a reason no one else in the industry intends to seek to replicating it. And when you buy advertising time or space to promote a new ride in a timeframe in which you know full well there is no chance for it to be running, you are in a real sense promoting something that isn't going to operate in that time frame. They know that, and the purposely vague language is indicative of their general contempt for customers.

 

Take it up with park management then, despite what we say they don't care what enthusiast think for the most part. 95% of people on here disagree with what Six Flags does a majority of the time. But will Six Flags change their ways? No. The general public doesn't care or notice when rides should/shouldn't open.

 

You don't think the general public notices? Six Flags went bankrupt in recent memory, shed most of its parks and ended up permanently closing two (nearly a third) either attempting to delay the inevitable or in the immediate wake of filing Chapter 11. They've presently returned to their prior strategy of giving away season passes to try and increase per cap spending but refined that previous failed strategy by matching it with a "don't spend much" approach based around ride rotation, flat ride construction, mass purchases, and heavily promoted ride rehabs. So yeah, I'm not terribly concerned about taking it up with management. I'm sure plenty have and will.

 

Exactly my point. How many people you think actually knew Six Flags went bankrupt? I'll wager that a large amount of the GP doesn't know that. They don't pay attention to that, most people I know who are GP don't even know there is a Six Flags outside of Great Adventure and Magic Mountain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point. How many people you think actually knew Six Flags went bankrupt? I'll wager that a large amount of the GP doesn't know that.

 

Six Flags went bankrupt because their attendance nose dived and the brand bordered on toxic. It wasn't some strange and unforeseen series of events that led to that. They ran their parks like crap and people stopped going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point. How many people you think actually knew Six Flags went bankrupt? I'll wager that a large amount of the GP doesn't know that.

 

Six Flags went bankrupt because their attendance nose dived and the brand bordered on toxic. It wasn't some strange and unforeseen series of events that led to that. They ran their parks like crap and people stopped going.

 

The park attendance has been rising every year since 2010. Thats more than half a decade, so please explain that to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point. How many people you think actually knew Six Flags went bankrupt? I'll wager that a large amount of the GP doesn't know that.

 

Six Flags went bankrupt because their attendance nose dived and the brand bordered on toxic. It wasn't some strange and unforeseen series of events that led to that. They ran their parks like crap and people stopped going.

 

The park attendance has been rising every year since 2010. Thats more than half a decade, so please explain that to me.

SF went bankrupt in 2009, which is when the current management took over. There's your explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/