Jump to content
29yrswithaGApass

Gr.Adv. Debate #3: The Six Flags Ride Rotation Program

  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the Six Flags Ride Rotation Program a good idea or bad idea?

    • Good idea
      13
    • Bad idea
      19


Recommended Posts

It may depend if you are on the giving or receiving end, but is the Six Flags Ride Rotation Program a good idea or a bad idea? Feel free to vote and comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not sure about it but i chose good idea because if a ride at a certain six flags does not do well, it may do better in another six flags park. I would love to be the receiving end!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for the smaller SF parks, bad for the lager SF parks. I voted bad since Great Adventure is usually the park that gives up rides and we wouldn't have gotten Green Lantern (if that is considered part of the ride rotation program since SFKK closed) if there wasn't a change in management since it was going to Great America.

 

There were rumors all season that Bizarro was going to be removed and I would have hated to lose the ride, it's my 3rd favorite coaster in the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes because on a business stand point, it's a very good idea. Instead of scrapping a ride, that is still in perfect condition, moving it to a new location saves the company a lot of money. In return, this abundance of money allows the Six Flags Cooperation to buy new rides and attractions. However, it may turn out to be a hit or miss, with only a few parks getting BIG new attractions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said yes but with the stipulation that it depends on which ride you're talking about. A lot of the gimmick coasters like Z-force and Shockwave were ideal since they were huge sensations when they opened but quickly lost their appeal after just one or two seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no, purely based on what the original program was designed to do. Economics were the only real reason for this program at a time when individual funding for attractions decisions were not decided on a parks financial ability to fund the attraction from a prior seasons profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a bad idea. If a ride is good people will be upset that it is taken out of their park and sent elsewhere. If a ride is not good then it should be scrapped and not tried to be pushed as a "new, exciting attraction" at another park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a bad idea and Robert expressed the same feelings I have about the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the rides in the Ride Rotation Program, It took it's toll on them. Like Batman which is still in storage at Darien Lake, Ultra Twister which was never rebuilt, Greezed Lightning at SFKK too old and bad to operate. Flashback being a boring, painful attraction from what I've heard and probably more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that also proves the point. Ultra Twister, Batman, Greezed Lightnin' and Flashback were all gimmick rides that had short shelf lives. They quickly were surpassed by bigger, better rides that offered the same experiences but in better way.

 

Shuttle loops have become a thing of the past. Yes they may be fun rides, but most people want a full circuit looping coaster.

Standup coasters are a gimmick that gets old quickly, and Shockwave/Batman was not a particularly good standup coaster.

Ultra Twister's gimmick was a heartline loop which many coasters now can do, but utilizing a full circuit and much higher capacity.

Flashback/Z-Force was just a weird one-off ride that was not particularly thrilling (which is why no other Space Divers were built).

 

They all had a moment in the sun when they were introduced, and that moment was extended by moving them to other markets that had not seen anything like them before. If anything, the internet has killed the idea of ride rotation in some ways because now everyone can see everything and read what everyone else thinks about it. It used to be you saw something like a standup coaster briefly on a TV show and you hoped your local park would get one because it looked so cool, or you'd have to make a long trip to get to one and try it for yourself. Now, everyone dismisses things they've never been on simply because they watched the POV on YouTube and some kid 3,000 miles away said it was lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ This is why I think it is NOT good. Six Flags too often buys cheap, gimmick rides that have no extended life, which makes them a wast of money from the start. Sending them to another park and trying to "trick" the public into thinking it's something new and great only creates disappointment when they finally get to experience it.

 

They need to be more selective about what they buy. They could learn a lot from Busch Gardens. Busch does not add a new ride every year, but when they do add something it is good and lasts a long time. They research first, buy quality, and theme them well so they are enjoyed much more and for a longer time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But those rides weren't cheap gimmicks when they were purchased. They were all state of the art and cutting edge experiences at the time. They proved after several seasons to be passe, and that's when they were moved. It was good business sense to try and get as much mileage from them as they could.

 

Yes, it's always better to spend the money on a great custom ride that will delight generations of guests, but smaller parks often can't foot the bill for that. That was another reason why the program was a good idea. while parks like GA and MM have 3 million guests a year, many parks are lucky to get half that. It makes sense to send them hand me downs.

 

Busch generally does a great job, but they also tend to wait a season or two before they purchase a coaster and let the other parks work out the problems while Six Flags and Cedar Fair jump on every trend to offer "the first" of everything, which is what drives their attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But those rides weren't cheap gimmicks when they were purchased. They were all state of the art and cutting edge experiences at the time. They proved after several seasons to be passe, and that's when they were moved. It was good business sense to try and get as much mileage from them as they could.

 

Yes, it's always better to spend the money on a great custom ride that will delight generations of guests, but smaller parks often can't foot the bill for that. That was another reason why the program was a good idea. while parks like GA and MM have 3 million guests a year, many parks are lucky to get half that. It makes sense to send them hand me downs.

 

Busch generally does a great job, but they also tend to wait a season or two before they purchase a coaster and let the other parks work out the problems while Six Flags and Cedar Fair jump on every trend to offer "the first" of everything, which is what drives their attendance.

 

In general, spending a great deal of money on something new every season to drive attendance and becoming dependant on that lone attraction as the key to increased attendance is why ALL of the Six Flags parks have such erratic attendance. Six Flags promotes a single new attraction each season rather than promoting the entire park experience. Unfortunately, there is now little left among their parks that can be called a unique experience. You can not build single attractions without regard for each attraction's theme and its fit with the overall park theme and expect people to want to return again and again. Real planning and consistency with a park's overall theme are what make truely great theme parks (Disney and Busch) as upposed to amusement parks thrown together half-hazardly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are making the same mistake with Sky Screamer. It is only a gimmick. It is not cutting edge or state of the art. It is a cheap carnival ride whose gimmick is that it is tall. It has no theming, will not enhance the park experience, and will be nothing but an eyesore in a very short time.

 

Buying poor quality just to have the bragging rights of being first or having the most does not drive attendance. This is the miscalculation Six Flags makes over and over again. It's actually hurting them, not helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ride rrp was a good idea on the planning board but turned out to be a nightmare in the field. It could stop a park from receiving decent roller coasters and instead get he rejects from other parks. Yet it still could introduce something new each year, which was six flags's gimmick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ride Rotation Program is a good idea in different ways. If you're a small park like the Great Escape, you would like to get a hand me down SLC or Stand Up. But, if you're like Great Adventure, you don't want rides like Bizarro leaving the park. Sure it is somewhat successful but if a ride does well for about 7 or 8 years, what would you do? Move it then. I'm just glad they did move rides like Z-Force or Ultra Twister around. It's better than moving rides like Nitro around to different parks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Moonracker7

it was good enough because if this had not existed, ultra twister could of been scrapped just like viper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't vote because I have mixed feelings about it. While I would not want to see a ride that had become overshadowed by newer and bigger rides scrapped if it was still in good shape, you can end up with a park full of coaster rejects like Great Escape for Six Flags and Michigan's Adventure for Cedar Fair. With that, you might get old unreliable rides that aren't that popular among guests. At Great Escape, all the coasters are rejects from other parks except the Boomerang and the kiddie coaster. They only got the other coasters (Alpine Bobsled, Steamin Demon, Canyon Blaster, and Comet), because other parks didn't want them anymore. I am surprised that GASM didn't end up at Great Escape because is was newer than Steamin Demon and bigger and more advanced ride. GA didn't want it anymore, so they could have sent it to Great Escape. However, I would like SF to use the program to get some low capacity rides like Supersuck out of GA. It would be so much better at a smaller park like Great Escape where only one train would be needed, so no more hanging on the brake run like beef in the slaughterhouse. I'm sure that Superman would do well at Great Escape and be one of their best attractions, but it is just a low capacity ride at Great Adventure with a crazy line that is a mediocre ride compared to the other coasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of hand-me-downs, but not when they are part of an extensive program. It jeopordizes the top tier parks in quality AND quantity, and usually saturates the smaller parks with crappy, gimmicky rides that won't keep guests coming back.

 

If HW can add half a dozen world class attractions in 15 years with attendance hovering around only 1M annually, most of the smaller SF parks can do the same. Meanwhile, the larger parks can keep their collections in tact and remain destinations.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×