Six Flags America (SFA) Discussion Thread

[Tiburon503Did my donkey title just change???]

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 RegularYou can just skip over my posts.]

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.

[Tiburon503Did my donkey title just change???]

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.

[QueerRudieFull Fledged Meat Enthusiast!]

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?

Viewed 501 times

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

R.D.

[MayTheGForceBeWithYouStar Wars is gay.]

^Hmm...we can only hope!

[MrSum1_55The only thing better than a naked woman is a naked donkey!]

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 RegularYou can just skip over my posts.]

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.

[atem122Did Medusa in the front and back]

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

[SFA RegularYou can just skip over my posts.]

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

Actually no, that was the past me. I'm aware that the economy has got things on a struggle and that it's hard for theme park companies to take gambles on these big coaster attractions. Therefore, I have came up with a lot of other smaller ideas that would work. One could say that the company doesn't want to invest in SFA, which could be a reason why we have not received spanking new attractions. But if you look at it, we went through management changes. Look at the history. When Burke was CEO we received Two-Face, Joker's Jinx, Superman, Batwing, Penguins Blizzard River and Hurricane Harbor. When Danny and Shapiro took the seat, they replaced our former GM Janet Porter and brought in Terry Prather from SFNO. He later on left and went to BGE and now is president of one of the Sea Worlds. When Shapiro was at the seat, all he did for other parks were ride revamps. So when you look at it, we weren't neglected that much. We lost a couple of rides like Two-Face and Iron Eagle, but the new board can easily replace them. It just felt that way because of the economy. Summer of 2010, Shapiro and Danny were kicked off the board and we received Alexander Weber as interim CEO. Now Jim Reid-Anderson is our CEO and Alexander Weber is chairman if I'm correct. We aren't being neglected at all. The new board of directory is trying to learn the parks. So basically it all comes down to transition.

[Thom25Don't let this donkey melt you with its laser eyes!]

I thought Lance had reported that if the Green Lantern at SFMM was successful this year, other SF parks nationally would receive one next year. I agree the park would benefit from a B&M, especially from a capacity point of view, but a Zac Spin would provide the "wow" factor the park needs to compete against KD and BGW.