I mean I get this criticism and I don't entirely disagree with it, but at the same time, the amusement park experience is already so financially stratified that it's sorta hard for me to care about a little more capitalism, you know? In my perfect world amusement and theme parks wouldn't need to maximize shareholder value, but if I'm in a world where parks either need to optimize shareholder value or risk withering, I'm going to want to see some aggressive shareholder value optimization. I'd rather the art exist in a "corrupted," capitalist state than for it to not exist at all.
Walking away from the philosophical side of the argument (though one day I will write a diatribe on this forum about my belief that some amusement parks definitely should be owned by means other than privately-held/publicly-traded corporations), the United Parks properties have stratified pass member previews for their attractions since COVID and I honestly believe it has made the experience far better for everyone. Doing so has substantially distributed opening crowds over multiple weeks making it way easier for everyone—from the highest tier members to the single-day ticket holders—to experience the attraction. The vast majority of people don't care about riding a ride RIGHT when it opens, they just want to experience it soon and without much headache. These tiered debuts have been great for that—they keep lines short, reviews positive, impacts of operational hiccups minimal, etc.
I also think a pretty easy-to-explain, pretty reasonable case can be communicated to guests with a promotion like this. "Phantom Spire is our new-for-2027 coaster. If you want to give it a spin early—before much of the ride's surroundings are ready for guests—you can get exclusive, limited-capacity, preview access by buying a 2027 Prestige Pass today and visiting during FrightFest 2026. The complete Phantom Spire experience will debut to everyone in 2027 as previously announced."
Lastly, circling back to your main critique, though I do think we share a lot of agreement re: the harm aggressive profit-seeking has done to the art form of amusement parks, I do believe that, given this is the environment in which we find ourselves—an environment where parks have to maximize profits and an environment where regional parks are entirely dependent on subscription-based, tiered membership programs—I do think it's reasonable that the people contributing most to the financial health of the business (those buying the highest margin products such as top-tier passes), be provided outsized access, preferential treatment, etc. If you've ever read about the economics behind premium seating on planes, I think that's a good parallel—people buying these ultra-high-margin products are subsidizing the broader business and enabling prices for other, lesser products to remain more accessible for the masses.
Like I said, I very much don't like the environment in which our parks exist, but given that's our current reality, I do think premium benefits offered exclusively to certain groups is, unfortunately, reasonable.