Six Flags Future Attraction Surveys

I think most of these are common sense, especially Peanuts which I don't know why they wouldn't add to all parks. SF already announced many months ago that SFGAm is doing a kids area for 2026, so one would assume its Peanuts considering SFGAdv is surveying it for 2027+. Also I could definitely see SFGAm replacing Roaring Rapids with a giga, that ride was SBNO for 2 years and barely ever operates now. Between the outdoor theater that has been SBNO for over 30 years, Yankee Clipper (also rarely ever open), and Roaring Rapids you could easily fit a giant giga.

The question now is do you ditch the Looney Tunes branding that the Six Flags brand has been synonymous with for 40 years in favor of a Cedar Fair style Peanuts, and where does that leave DC? (as far as I know Looney Tunes and DC are still owned by Warner Bros). I think the ideal scenario is ditch Looney Tunes in favor of Peanuts and keep DC.

The only two things i'd not be in favor of is flying theater, and the SFGAdv Mack spinning coaster replacing Kingda Ka (which was in the survey last year, not this one...and is under construction). I think SF can do dark rides decently enough (see Monster Mansion/Justice League) but the flying theaters at every non-Disney park are so boring and sad its not worth the effort (even Soarin is pretty boring at this point too).

In regards to Kingda Ka's replacement, my big question is why? I can ride launched coasters but I won't ride spinning coasters anymore, and a Kingda Ka size spinning launch coaster is going to turn so many people off. Not only that but the ride is really ugly, looks very similar to their new coaster they just opened this year, and low capacity. I'm holding out hope that what has been floating around the internet is just a big troll and they are actually building something else.

I don't see why SF can't keep BOTH Peanuts AND LT. Most of the larger parks in the chain have multiple kids lands (even SFA had 2 before they closed what used to be a Thomas the Tank Engine land). Even if a park doesn't have 2 separate lands, there's no reason the 2 IPs can't occupy adjacent spaces by splitting an existing, large kid's area in half.

I think SF is in a situation where they really need to find more efficiencies after they've completely botched this merger, during which the whole goal was supposed to be to find efficiencies and overlaps between the 2 chains. If they own rights to both IPs (and I believe they do for at least another 5+ years), there is absolutely no reason for them to jettison one to focus on the other. This chain needs to figure out how to cut costs without sacrificing the guest experience and to leverage what they do have to generate maximum revenue.

When it comes to new attractions, I think these surveys are a bunch of hot air, and that the chain has probably already committed to a capital improvement plan for at least the next 2-3 years. While there might be some push and pull to those plans (see SFGAdv's delay of their Kingda Ka replacement), there's probably not anything in these surveys that should be news to anyone with the only differences being the park each concept is being considered for. Ultimately, it's not new additions or selling land beneath parks that is going to turn SF's fortunes around, it's going to be a company-wide commitment to improving the overall guest experience and living up to their stock symbol by selling actual "FUN" to its guests instead of annoyance, which is what so many find when they try to visit a SF park.

(Russell, I know you are NOT advocating for this...) I am struck by how many times it gets brought up that SF should/will/is going to sell the land under their parks, and then lease back for the parks. This turned into an absolute disaster for Vegas, when this scheme was launched there. Sure, it would be an infusion of capital, which would theoretically pay off debt, but you go from a fixed cost to a cost that is increasing year over year. Every time a distressed company (or government) sells an asset to fix an immediate problem, it only exacerbates the problem. I gave the Vegas example already, but it was something that Bed, Bath, and Beyond tried and failed at. Sears also sold assets to a REIT in a sale-leaseback arrangement to raise cash, and we all know how that worked out. Heck, Chicago sold the rights to their parking meters for $1.15B for 75 years to private equity investors who recouped their investment in just 15 years, leaving them with 60 years of pure profits while Chicago gets nothing. Selling their land and leasing back will only expedite the rate of SF's downfall.

I should clarify the reason I think SF should dump Looney Tunes is because its dead IP and makes the company appear outdated. No kids know the Looney Tunes characters, most parents can't even name the characters maybe except for Bugs and Daffy.

@MLB - In no way am I advocating or think it's a good idea for SF to sell the land under its parks. I think it's a terrible idea, but there is a significant investor in the chain doing that, because they know that the quick infusion of cash from such a sale would instantly pop the stock price and allow the chain to have more resources to invest in the parks over the short term, which again will give a quick pop to the stock price. It's all about the short term gain for these investors so they can cash out. I think this strategy is the absolute worst thing the chain could do, because it continues to perpetuate the expectation from SF guests that the parks build major new attractions every year or 2. While that seems like a great strategy to ensure guests are coming back over and over, the problem arises when the parks spend all of their capital on these new attractions and have nothing left to maintain what they have or to make improvements, which when done right is what gets guests wanting to come back over and over.

The LAST thing SF needs right now is an infusion of cash that they're inevitably going to waste on shiny new rides. Sure, those additions will definitely create a bump of interest, but unless you're making those additions every single year, eventually guests will tire of the rides as they age and will stop coming because the experience outside of the actual rides is subpar. Now, if there was some assurance that SF would spend a cash infusion on all the smaller projects that their parks have been deferring for decades, maybe selling land might not be such a bad idea to allow that needed investment to happen. However, we all know that would never occur, and SF is always going to chase those short term gains no matter the sacrifice or impact on the long term stability and viability of the chain.

@ Russell - I knew you weren't, and I apologize for missing the "not" in my initial post. You'll see that I have edited a "NOT" into my post to make that correction. Again, my apologies...

Regarding IP, if new Six Flags is considering a switch, I suspect they'll install Snoopy areas in a couple of their parks alongside the Looney Tunes areas, then analyze whether or not there is affinity for those characters. I do think the fact that Cedar Fair was pretty regularly investing in new attractions for their Peanuts areas while Six Flags didn't do anything notable with Looney Tunes for nearly a decade prior to the merger does tip the scales in favor of a switch to Peanuts, but I could also see some retention of Looney Tunes to diversify offerings, particularly in areas where multiple parks share an audience. I don't feel DC is at risk of being cut as it's kind of synonymous with the Six Flags brand at this point, but it definitely doesn't seem like expanding the usage of DC characters to additional properties is something they're currently considering.

Regarding flying theaters, this only makes sense to me if Six Flags is going to outsource the production completely, which would probably require signing another IP deal. They're also complicated ride systems with high maintenance demands, which makes me worry after a couple years they'd be operating at bare minimum or closed more than they're open. Very few properties in the chain currently have simulator rides, and I'm not sure that's really the best direction for them to go, but it would give parks an additional indoor attraction.

Regarding Kingda Ka replacement, that's what happens when a major coaster needs to be installed on short notice. Both that and Tormenta Rampaging Run started out as projects destined for a Cedar Fair property, but following the merger they were reallocated to locations more in need of the attractions. You could argue that Tormenta should have gone to SFGAdv and the spinning shuttle to SFOT (and I'd actually agree with that), but it was a choice between installing something you've got ready to go or taking a couple years longer to design something custom for that location.

Regarding timelines, while work often begins 3-5 years out on planning for new attractions, things usually aren't locked down until about 2 years ahead. Most likely, Six Flags has made purchasing agreements for some of the attractions shown, but has not solidified which parks they'll be installed at yet, and there also might be concepts for which they haven't yet committed but are considering in the future. The surveys were also not presented as a "which of these do you want?," but instead as a "what are your thoughts on this proposal?"

Regarding selling land, this should be a last resort option in the event the chain is looking at bankruptcy, and should only be done for properties Six Flags is willing to lose should things not go in their favor. It's highly unlikely the chain is going to survive long term with 24 theme parks, but selling all their property would probably result in sacrificing all but the most profitable parks in the chain within a decade.

So has anyone here actually responded to any of these surveys? Especially voters for OG