Possible Mini-Events During COVID Operations

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Memles said:
Even if the park somehow manages to get around the 1000-person limit and separates BGW into two separate businesses, effectively, the truth is that doing it simultaneously would be a mess from a staffing and logistics perspective, which is the bigger issue here. The whole point of the limited events is that they're able to operate on a reduced staff footprint, and keep many full-time staff furloughed, which would be much harder if not impossible to do if they were running two halves of the park simultaneously.

Basically, right now the park is using the two timeslots to effectively double the daily capacity to 2000, which is already a loophole of sorts around the state's restrictions. To go any further in trying to game the system runs into the optics issue that is equally attached to suing the current restrictions, and it appears that the park is content with the profitability of this event to move forward within those restrictions.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. However at a certain point they will need to start bringing back the full-time. There are two main reasons.

#1 would be to avoid a complete loss of all the expertise that they bring and the subsequent brain drain that would follow.

#2 would be that eventually they will need to begin to work on next season. There's a lot of work that needs to happen for that and most of those people aren't currently working.

It is my understanding that these events being profitable would allow them to begin bringing back some of that full time staff that has been furloughed.

I do think that if the park were to spiky the park it would only be with the approval of the governor's office. Without that I don't think that it would happen. However were it to happen, I don't think that the logistics would be as difficult as you think. Most countries currently run lately self contained for day to day operations. They only support from outside their areas needed would be things like the warehouse for food supplies and merchandise to name some big ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
rswashdc said:
If you want to get into fun legal strategies, BGW should set up every store and restaurant they want to open as a wholly owned subsidiary of the park and then count their individual capacities towards how many are allowed on property. Festhaus alone should open up a few hundred more slots. Santa's workshop during CT could get a few hundred more.
Click to expand...

But I think that's just it: the park is not interested in fun legal strategies, because their public image would not benefit from fun legal strategies. If Virginia was currently comfortable in Phase 3 without a rise in cases, and without additional restrictions having been added, I think the park would have more of an appetite for finding loopholes or trying to double up their attendance, etc. But as it stands, I think they realize that anything that highlights the park's pushback against the current state of things is not in their best interest.

It is my understanding that these events being profitable would allow them to begin bringing back some of that full time staff that has been furloughed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would imagine that around Christmas Town they would need to start working through the logistics of that in preparation for what they clearly hope will be a closer-to-normal 2021 season, perhaps? But yes, my overall point is I don't think they intend to rush into that level of staffing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mushroom and BGWnut
Memles said:
But I think that's just it: the park is not interested in fun legal strategies, because their public image would not benefit from fun legal strategies. If Virginia was currently comfortable in Phase 3 without a rise in cases, and without additional restrictions having been added, I think the park would have more of an appetite for finding loopholes or trying to double up their attendance, etc. But as it stands, I think they realize that anything that highlights the park's pushback against the current state of things is not in their best interest.
Click to expand...

The main reason they wouldn't change the legal structure of the company is the amount of time it takes to do all the filings and business changes to even make it legal and feasible. However if come next spring, the governor is still playing hardball about the 1000 person cap, I would say all bets are off on getting creative to make the business work (that goes for KD as well).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
BGWnut said:
#1 would be to avoid a complete loss of all the expertise that they bring and the subsequent brain drain that would follow.

...Most countries currently run lately self contained for day to day operations. They only support from outside their areas needed would be things like the warehouse for food supplies and merchandise to name some big ones.
Click to expand...

To the first part - that makes perfect sense to me, but I'm curious if that's at all a thought for SEAS leadership if they're essentially managing the purse-strings as it were and BGW has a super limited budget?

To the second - while if this is true then operationally the plan is more feasible, but physically managing guests and their expectations by running essentially two separate parks and two separate operations to get around a reduced capacity cap sounds like it'd create a huge mess... Which they won't have the managerial staff needed to straighten it out. That's assuming guests are even willing to come to only half the park when the other half is also open albeit not physically connected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
Gavin said:
Trying to break the park up into individual business would cause a whole mess of issues and would probably be cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...

ABC licensing for one - the park would have to revert to individual premises vs the current singular premise that allows guests to consume alcohol without physical restrictions (assume for the most part).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tursiops and BGWnut
BGWnut said:
I thought I was plenty polite considering the initial comment. I'm not here to start drama or anything of the sort. Just here to talk about BGW and other theme parks. I will say this though, your post also applies right back to you. In fact, I think your post was even more uncalled for than my response to the initial comment or the initial comment.
Click to expand...
Internet intentions suck. It was NOT directed toward you. I was responding to what SEEMED an impolite response toward you. Also not here for drama and getting weary of it's presence here.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Mushroom, tursiops and BGWnut
Jonesta6 said:
To the first part - that makes perfect sense to me, but I'm curious if that's at all a thought for SEAS leadership if they're essentially managing the purse-strings as it were and BGW has a super limited budget?

To the second - while if this is true then operationally the plan is more feasible, but physically managing guests and their expectations by running essentially two separate parks and two separate operations to get around a reduced capacity cap sounds like it'd create a huge mess... Which they won't have the managerial staff needed to straighten it out. That's assuming guests are even willing to come to only half the park when the other half is also open albeit not physically connected.
Click to expand...
It does open up a fair amount of questions which I agree would require them to bring back full time staff and more leadership than they currently have. They wouldn't be able to do it without that.

Obviously this entire scenario is a complete hypothetical because I don't believe that the park is currently looking into splitting the park into two separate events. However if they were able to do that and they were able to do 2 time slots a day that would equal 4,000 people which gets them closer to that 5000 that the park said would be financially feasible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonesta6
Jonesta6 said:
To the first part - that makes perfect sense to me, but I'm curious if that's at all a thought for SEAS leadership if they're essentially managing the purse-strings as it were and BGW has a super limited budget?

To the second - while if this is true then operationally the plan is more feasible, but physically managing guests and their expectations by running essentially two separate parks and two separate operations to get around a reduced capacity cap sounds like it'd create a huge mess... Which they won't have the managerial staff needed to straighten it out. That's assuming guests are even willing to come to only half the park when the other half is also open albeit not physically connected.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for corporate but I know that there are a number of people who are concerned about the effect that losing that much full-time leadership would have on the park's operational ability moving beyond COVID. I have been told that the park is hoping/planning to begin bringing back more full time staff soon
 
BGWnut said:
I can't speak for corporate but I know that there are a number of people who are concerned about the effect that losing that much full-time leadership would have on the park's operational ability moving beyond COVID. I have been told that the park is hoping/planning to begin bringing back more full time staff soon
Click to expand...

I'd certainly hope so, but my understanding (which may be incorrect as limited as it is) is that BGW is only given so much budget to work with by SEAS, and may even be required to use it on certain items vs managing it completely on their own. Revenue could be added into the budget, but more likely at the moment is used to service debts.

Therefore, with the revolving CEO chair problem plus trying to pay contractors and shuffle debt in addition to stopping the bleeding, I'm curious if SEAS would be concerned enough about losing their most knowledgeable employees enough to increase the park's budget so they can bring those employees back to work.
 
Jonesta6 said:
I'd certainly hope so, but my understanding (which may be incorrect as limited as it is) is that BGW is only given so much budget to work with by SEAS, and may even be required to use it on certain items vs managing it completely on their own. Revenue could be added into the budget, but more likely at the moment is used to service debts.

Therefore, with the revolving CEO chair problem plus trying to pay contractors and shuffle debt in addition to stopping the bleeding, I'm curious if SEAS would be concerned enough about losing their most knowledgeable employees enough to increase the park's budget so they can bring those employees back to work.
Click to expand...
This how it normally happens in the budget process to my knowledge The park proposes a budget that is then reviewed by corporate. Corporate can then make changes to it as they see fit. However generally the budget is more broad than you would think. It generally specifies labor and other costs but largely how the budget is then spent is up to the park. The park will say that for this event and this number is operating days this is what we think we will need and this is how much revenue that will generate. The park is largely free then too manage that how they see fit.

There are times where corporate earmarks find for certain projects like they did for Pantheon. But largely the park discretion on how to manage it's funds
 
  • Like
Reactions: dsdl, warfelg and Zachary
That was one of the options that Six Flags had in their survey when they sent it out last month.
 
Between Tampa’s Howl-O-Scream announcement and the vague suggestion that BGW is committing to seasonal events, I’m seeing a lot of people on social media asking for/brainstorming a version of Howl-O-Scream that is an absolute pipe dream under the current circumstances, and I’m curious how BGW manages expectations for whatever Halloween-themed event they ultimately deploy. As it is, the value proposition of these events for the general public is an open question, but there’s a lot of pie in the sky thinking that (naturally) comes up around the holiday events, and I think the park is going to need to be very clear about the limitations of their plan in terms of recreating anything approximating traditional Howl-O-Scream.

The best message is that if the 1000-person limit remains (and there’s no sense it will be done anytime soon), the staffing levels for any future events will be comparable to this one. I do think they may need to expand the budget to allow for some type of scare experience (whether it is a single scare actor-staffed scare zone or the Haunted Train’s return) in order to avoid outright revolt, but that’s really all I can imagine given the circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alf33, VikingvadR, musicman3204 and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad