"Weather" Closures

[Thriller]

Addittionally these theme park companies do not offer refunds when they cannot provide their advertised operating hours. Sure its industry standard, but its unethical to take money from a consumer and not provide the advertised good or service with no option of refund. Which again leans toward the conclusion that these early closures are all about short-term corporate profits and nothing else. (a refunded customer is a happy customer that will return)

Here is an example of a legitimate, weather related business that offers customers mail-end refunds for inclement weather closures. It's not the standard in that industry either, but it shows ethics. Which Cedar Fair, Six Flags and SEAS mgmt has little IMO

Port Royal Speedway

www.portroyalspeedway.com

 

[Nicole]

I have not offered a personal opinion about the ethics or morality of any of these parks. I have only (several times) asked you to provide systematic evidence for your claims about their behavior. Please do not put words in my mouth. You know nothing about me, my opinions, my career, or my experiences at parks.

Your failure to provide actual data to support your apparent grievance is the issue I have raised. I’m not sure why a request for evidence for a sweeping criticism of now several chains is either unreasonable or a justification for making several insulting comments about me.

You draw a lot of conclusions about why they are doing something you have failed to demonstrate that they have done.

 

[warfelg]

Addittionally these theme park companies do not offer refunds when they cannot provide their advertised operating hours. Sure its industry standard, but its unethical to take money from a consumer and not provide the advertised good or service with no option of refund.

Except it’s in the fine print of the ticket sale and by purchasing and adding your name to the ticket you have agreed to that contract. It’s unethical if you are not informed, however you are informed and consent to that clause.

In fact in many of these cases these items are actually standard business practices. In the golf industry, I’m not required to give a rain check if you don’t play a full round of golf. In fact most courses policy is that you are charged for your tee time no matter what and might not get your money back if you cancel within 24-hours.

Read the back of a baseball ticket next time you go to a game - you aren’t getting a refund if enough of a game has been played. And often if there is a reason to postpone it to a letter date they want you to pay for the double header ticket.

I find this take that it’s “unethical” to be might high horse and I haven’t responded much because I find people who do that are rather unreasonable. But there’s nothing unethical going on here. A ticket is a contract, and like any contract the product giver is going to have terms and conditions that protect them.

If you feel so strongly that it’s unethical, and it’s happened to you, I would suggest finding a lawyer to attempt to bring a lawsuit against parks for every time you have recorded buying a single day ticket only good for that day and not being able to go to the park. I mean, I think you’ll struggle to find any that would take that case, but do that as opposed to continue to complain on a forum online about it.

 

[Zachary]

This:

If you feel so strongly that it’s unethical, and it’s happened to you, I would suggest finding a lawyer to attempt to bring a lawsuit against parks for every time you have recorded buying a single day ticket only good for that day and not being able to go to the park.

And this:

If you want to try to change it, stop complaining about it here and start contacting your representatives because that's the only way you're ever going to get these parks to act against their own best financial interests. Something tells me that a law requiring private entertainment venues to operate against their will won't be super popular, but godspeed—I wish you luck.

Whether you like it or not, all of these parks are following the industry standard. You don't like the industry standard. I honestly don't like the industry standard either. That said, constantly criticizing an individual park or specific chain for following industry standard practices seems tremendously unfair to me.

I don't remember a time when regional parks didn't close for "weather." None of us know the actual parameters and metrics any of these parks use to figure out whether or not to close today—let alone historically. Maybe a time when parks stayed open every hour their calendars said they would—hell or high water be damned—did exist; maybe it didn't—I don't know, you don't know, none of us can know. If, in theory, such a time did exist and one or even a handful of trailblazing parks suddenly changed their policy to close for "weather" without issuing refunds, I would have been right alongside you in criticizing that move as anti-consumer and unacceptable.

At this point though, the Rubicon has already long since been crossed. Essentially every regional park in the country seems to behave the same way when it comes to "weather" closures—it is now the industry standard. Additionally, as @warfelg has highlighted, it is also industry standard in ajacent outdoor recreation industries as well. Given how long these practices have been in place and how widespread they are in the amusement and ajacent recreation industries, I tend to believe that consumer expectation matches the current reality too—notably lessening harm in practice in my approximation.

When a practice we don't like becomes the standard in an industry, I believe it becomes unjust for people like us—people who understand the behavior in the larger context of the industry—to criticize individual parties in said industry for said behavior. When a limited number of individual parks are trailblazing new, anti-consumer practices—especially when out-of-line with consumer expectations—that warrants extreme ire in my opinion. That said, if customers, regulators, or the courts fail to nip that anti-consumer behavior in the bud and said anti-consumer practice becomes the modus operandi of an industry, the issue moves from being an individual park issue to being a systemic industry issue.

When a profitable, anti-consumer practice becomes the industry standard, all publicly traded members of that industry are essentially economically forced into adopting and maintaining that anti-consumer practice (barring extreme examples where individual businesses see a marketing opportunity to be a maverick). I can't fault JetBlue for charging people for the first checked bag on the cheapest tickets available because that is now the industry standard. I can, however, very reasonably criticize the industry standard as being anti-consumer and shout from the rooftops that the industry needs to reform.

How do you reform an industry though? Not by criticizing or trying to bully individual actors to act against their own best interests and break out of their industry standard position, but through regulation, legislation, and the courts. I support you trying any and all of those approaches @Blauer.

 

[warfelg]

At this point though, the Rubicon has already long since been crossed. Essentially every regional park in the country behaves the same way when it comes to "weather" closures now—it is the industry standard. Additionally, as @warfelg has highlighted, it is also industry standard in ajacent outdoor recreation industries as well. Given how long these practices have been in place and how widespread they are in the amusement and ajacent recreation industries, I tend to believe that consumer expectation matches the current reality too—notably lessening harm in practice in my approximation.

And I can add: these things are often industry standards due to safety regulations. With some rides there’s amounts of moisture where certain components might not operate as expected (thinking like breaks on a coaster). Wet pathways a fall hazards. High winds create falling object hazards. Dripping grease creates health hazards. Lightning around metal objects is obviously bad.

The line I was taught in my field was simple: could someone get seriously injured by doing something reasonable? If the answer is yes, your best bet is to shut it down for the safety of the guests. Can low attendance make that call easier? Absolutely. But if you feel the weather can lead to anything where someone can get seriously hurt or worse, it’s not worth it to the park from a liability standpoint.

 

[Riboflavenus]

I have not offered a personal opinion about the ethics or morality of any of these parks. I have only (several times) asked you to provide systematic evidence for your claims about their behavior. Please do not put words in my mouth. You know nothing about me, my opinions, my career, or my experiences at parks.

Your failure to provide actual data to support your apparent grievance is the issue I have raised. I’m not sure why a request for evidence for a sweeping criticism of now several chains is either unreasonable or a justification for making several insulting comments about me.

You draw a lot of conclusions about why they are doing something you have failed to demonstrate that they have done.

You're asking people to provide something that you know that they can't, because the information is not publicly available. That's a poor way to lead a discussion. All we have to go on is observations. Observation is a key for of collecting data. That is what is available, so that is what is being shared.

That is some major league backtracking, pal.

Nicole was spot on in her response. You need actual evidence to make a claim like that, and you haven't provided any. Anecdotes where a person assumes a motive behind a random closure, if it even occurred, is not real evidence, and the only person I've ever heard make this claim is you.

My eyeballs are all the evidence I need. You can't refute corroborated observed evidence from multiple observers because it's not from an official company source. You know the type of data that is being asked for is not possible for this forum to procure without illegal activity or an insider leak.

 

[GAcoaster]

Something all park fans tend to forget is that theme parks are a business. Sometimes business decisions have to be made that will piss off the guests, but it’s a calculation on their part that the benefit outweighs the costs.

I think the United Parks model of the “sunny day guarantee” is the way all parks should go, and having worked in Guest Relations for Six Flags, I can tell you is the unadvertised policy of just about any park. When operations are forced to close for weather or the operating day is shortened, guests who ask for it are issued return tickets for another day. The guests are usually happy they can come back, and the park makes money between parking, food, etc. on that second visit even if the guests had “free” tickets.

 

[Jonesta6]

You're asking people to provide something that you know that they can't, because the information is not publicly available. That's a poor way to lead a discussion. All we have to go on is observations. Observation is a key for of collecting data. That is what is available, so that is what is being shared.

Ok, so anecdotal evidence is now supposed to be considered the truth without any way to vet it?

Get the fuck outta here with that - that's bullshit logic and it's getting really old when it takes several others to tell you that in their own special way.

I don't remember a time when regional parks didn't close for "weather."

Only thing I can think of is the major change in weather reporting technology over the years - the John Hilderbrant book on his times as Cedar Point GM said it used to be they'd have a paid weather service that gave a handful of reports a day specific to Sandusky but I don't recall there was anything for the peninsula itself so a lot of decisions were made on direct observation. Eventually, between lightning detection that works even if it's not in visible range (same kind of stuff I used to see long ago when I worked on a golf course) and now everyone's phone has access to weather info, decisions can be made faster based on more accurate data. Therefore, based on his writing, sometimes storms snuck up on the park before the tech got better, so perhaps they simply didn't have an advanced enough warning until it was too late and they've already got sunk operating costs they can't really defray much more than maybe sending some staff home.

However, that in itself is an observation of changing times regarding weather reporting technology inputs to the closure decision - we still don't know the actual calculus going into it - I suspect that decision process itself probably hasn't changed much over time, outside of adjustments based on inputs.

 

[Riboflavenus]

Ok, so anecdotal evidence is now supposed to be considered the truth without any way to vet it?

Get the fuck outta here with that - that's bullshit logic and it's getting really old when it takes several others to tell you that in their own special way.





Only thing I can think of is the major change in weather reporting technology over the years - the John Hilderbrant book on his times as Cedar Point GM said it used to be they'd have a paid weather service that gave a handful of reports a day specific to Sandusky but I don't recall there was anything for the peninsula itself so a lot of decisions were made on direct observation. Eventually, between lightning detection that works even if it's not in visible range (same kind of stuff I used to see long ago when I worked on a golf course) and now everyone's phone has access to weather info, decisions can be made faster based on more accurate data. Therefore, based on his writing, sometimes storms snuck up on the park before the tech got better, so perhaps they simply didn't have an advanced enough warning until it was too late and they've already got sunk operating costs they can't really defray much more than maybe sending some staff home.

However, that in itself is an observation of changing times regarding weather reporting technology inputs to the closure decision - we still don't know the actual calculus going into it - I suspect that decision process itself probably hasn't changed much over time, outside of adjustments based on inputs.

I never said it should be considered the absolute truth. I said it can't be entirely discounted when it's all we have to go on. It is disingenuous to argue that we shouldn't be having this discussion without insider information we can't legally obtain when multiple users have made confoundingly similar observations.

 

[Zachary]

I suspect much of this controversy could be rectified by people using "I think" and "I believe" modifiers.

None of us have anywhere near enough information or evidence to make any conclusive statements about what specific metrics are resulting in the majority of these closures. All we can know from observation is that, seemingly, most all regional amusement parks have a pattern of closing "for weather" when there's some sort of confluence between poor weather and low attendance.

Because of this lack of information, the best any of us can do is "suspect," "think," or "believe." I tend to think that it's the firm statements of fact that some people who engage with this argument often employee that really grinds some gears and causes this debate to boil again and again.

 

[warfelg]

You're asking people to provide something that you know that they can't, because the information is not publicly available. That's a poor way to lead a discussion. All we have to go on is observations. Observation is a key for of collecting data. That is what is available, so that is what is being shared.

Eh - I can understand both sides here.

Observations are that, observations. It’s not data because there’s no way to see the full data set when you are observing a snapshot of time. So it’s not fact that there’s certain causations. And on top of that you don’t have the full data set. Sure it might be low attendance, but if they know impending weather comes at 3, an overwhelming amount of the people in the park are pass holders, and there’s very little transactions at POS systems it could matter. On the flip side they could know that the impending weather is so bad that none of that really matters. The other thing the park has no full control on is that they don’t know where people are coming from, not should they care.

I never said it should be considered the absolute truth. I said it can't be entirely discounted when it's all we have to go on. .

Depends on how it’s presented in the first case. The OP in this instance is saying it’s fact that they only do it because of these things, when in fact, it’s not. That’s an observation that every time the park closes early it’s not crowded. But again you don’t know the full picture.

If this were presented at the start as “I’ve observed when I go and it’s closing, it’s not every crowded” without drawing conclusions then it’s the side where I would defend it, because fact isn’t being stated.

But regardless of all of that, we also are missing a very important part of this whole picture, that I pointed to above, even if the park is using low attendance to make the decision and you can prove that, we don’t know the rest of the data set. If, as an earlier example stated, the park has 500 guests and 490 of them are pass holders who don’t pay for parking, aren’t buying and food, aren’t paying for merchandise and the 10 daily ticket holders are not doing so, it’s far better for the park to close due to the weather and issue sunny day tickets than it is to stay open.

~~ @Zachary beat me to the point of this post which is the presentation of observation matters ~~

 

[Riboflavenus]

Eh - I can understand both sides here.

Observations are that, observations. It’s not data because there’s no way to see the full data set when you are observing a snapshot of time. So it’s not fact that there’s certain causations. And on top of that you don’t have the full data set. Sure it might be low attendance, but if they know impending weather comes at 3, an overwhelming amount of the people in the park are pass holders, and there’s very little transactions at POS systems it could matter. On the flip side they could know that the impending weather is so bad that none of that really matters. The other thing the park has no full control on is that they don’t know where people are coming from, not should they care.

Depends on how it’s presented in the first case. The OP in this instance is saying it’s fact that they only do it because of these things, when in fact, it’s not. That’s an observation that every time the park closes early it’s not crowded. But again you don’t know the full picture.

If this were presented at the start as “I’ve observed when I go and it’s closing, it’s not every crowded” without drawing conclusions then it’s the side where I would defend it, because fact isn’t being stated.

But regardless of all of that, we also are missing a very important part of this whole picture, that I pointed to above, even if the park is using low attendance to make the decision and you can prove that, we don’t know the rest of the data set. If, as an earlier example stated, the park has 500 guests and 490 of them are pass holders who don’t pay for parking, aren’t buying and food, aren’t paying for merchandise and the 10 daily ticket holders are not doing so, it’s far better for the park to close due to the weather and issue sunny day tickets than it is to stay open.

~~ @Zachary beat me to the point of this post which is the presentation of observation matters ~~

I haven't put forth an opinion on whether it's a net positive or negative, nor to whom. I've only argued that from an outside perspective, it appears to happen. We can make a pretty simple deduction that it's financially better for the park to close if the attendance is that low and nobody is buying anything extra in the park - sure, at least in the short term. I'd be curious to see the long term ramifications in customer trust if they continue to operate in this observed manner.

 

[warfelg]

I haven't put forth an opinion on whether it's a net positive or negative, nor to whom. I've only argued that from an outside perspective, it appears to happen. We can make a pretty simple deduction that it's financially better for the park to close if the attendance is that low and nobody is buying anything extra in the park - sure, at least in the short term. I'd be curious to see the long term ramifications in customer trust if they continue to operate in this observed manner.

Well - parks have been operating like that for a long term, and the observation is - there is little ramification. I would say most reasonable expectations are that when the weather is bad you can expect outdoor activities to be cancelled or closed.

 

[Mushroom]

Relevant passage from the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin:

I retained only the Habit of expressing my self in Terms of modest Diffidence, never using when I advance any thing that may possibly be disputed, the Words 'Certainly, 'undoubtedly', or any others that I give the Air of Positiveness to an Opinion; but rather say 'I conceive', or 'I apprehend a Thing to be so or so', 'It appears to me', or 'I should think it so or so for such & such Reasons', or 'I imagine' it to be so or so, or 'it is so' if I am not mistaken.—This Habit I believe has been of great Advantage to me, when I have had occasion to inculcate my Opinions and persuade Men into Measures that I have been from time to time engag'd in promoting.—And as the chief Ends of Conversation are to inform, or to be informed, to please or to persuade, I wish well meaning sensible Men would not lessen their Power of doing Good by a Positive assuming Manner that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create Opposition, and to defeat every one of those purposes for which Speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving Information or Pleasure: For if you would inform, a positive dogmatical Manner in advancing your Sentiments, may provoke Contradiction & prevent a candid Attention.

 

[jscll]

Even back when I worked for Dorney Park more than a decade ago, they would not tell us low level employees the official policy for when the park would close due to weather. We closed one time that season, a day with an all day downpour. Most rides remained open, we stayed open until less than 200 people were left in the park. That is practically no one. (Technically we also were closed the last two days of the season, but that was due to an October snowstorm, and the entire area had no power.)
A great way to encourage a park to stay open is to spend money on slow days, I will only buy merchandise on slow days, at least at any park I visit regularly.
If I traveled hours to go to a park, and they are closed when I want to be there, of course I am upset. However, there is a difference between a decision I don't like and the right decision for the park.
Management is human, and can make bad business decisions. As I am not on the payroll of any park, I will criticise anything a park does that I don't like. Sometimes I criticize a park as a guest, and sometimes I criticize as a shareholder. As a shareholder two three amusement park companies, soon two be two, I belive you have to keep guests happy. Unfortunately, corporate executive incentive packages encourage as much short term profit as possible, even at the expense of long term profit.
Congratulations on anyone who reads through these long posts. It is great there are so many people who care about this industry. A passionate enthusiast community is good for any industry. If we did not argue, then we would not care. See you on a coaster next rainy day.

 

[SLC Headache]

Like, I'm not normally one to agree with Blauer, but closing for the slightest inconvenient weather absolutely happens. Its happened both times I've flown out to Cali, once at CGA for minor rain, and once at SFMM.

When was this? I remember my trip to Gadv in 2017 where there was a lightning threat and a few drops of rain, and the park didn't close despite nearly everyone leaving.

 

[Fiender]

When was this? I remember my trip to Gadv in 2017 where there was a lightning threat and a few drops of rain, and the park didn't close despite nearly everyone leaving.

CGA was March 2022, SFMM was March 2023.

With CGA, it was a murky day but the park wasn't a total ghost town. The major coasters were still a 10-15 minute wait. Psycho Mouse was 45 minutes, but... it's Psycho Mouse and the ops didn't really care lol. The rain picked up and the park announced they would close 3 hours early. The rain let up around the time they closed.

With SFMM, it had been a very soggy week, and the day we'd originally planned on going, they never opened due to lightning (fair enough; the weather WAS pretty nasty). The following day, the forecast was much better with only a brief lightning storm "scheduled" for around noon, and the park was still closed all day for inclement weather.

 

[Nicole]

You're asking people to provide something that you know that they can't, because the information is not publicly available. That's a poor way to lead a discussion. All we have to go on is observations. Observation is a key for of collecting data. That is what is available, so that is what is being shared.


My eyeballs are all the evidence I need. You can't refute corroborated observed evidence from multiple observers because it's not from an official company source. You know the type of data that is being asked for is not possible for this forum to procure without illegal activity or an insider leak.

I never said it should be considered the absolute truth. I said it can't be entirely discounted when it's all we have to go on. It is disingenuous to argue that we shouldn't be having this discussion without insider information we can't legally obtain when multiple users have made confoundingly similar observations.

I am not asking anyone to provide data they can't. I am saying that it is unreasonable to assert an opinion based on anecdotal evidence as fact. People can complain about whatever they want as long as they make clear that they are upset about their specific experience. @Blauer has repeatedly made assertions that he cannot substantiate and then has drawn broad conclusions based on those opinions, all while presenting them as facts.

Unless you have visited the park frequently enough over a a long enough time period, your eyeballs do not provide enough systematic data to draw the kind of conclusions that are being presented here.

No one has demanded an official company source, so that is a complete red herring. Similarly, no one has said the conversation can't be had without leaks. Claims like that are disingenuous rhetoric.

Beliefs and opinions need to be presented as such and not as facts.

 

[jwranson]

I am not asking anyone to provide data they can't. I am saying that it is unreasonable to assert an opinion based on anecdotal evidence as fact. People can complain about whatever they want as long as they make clear that they are upset about their specific experience. @Blauer has repeatedly made assertions that he cannot substantiate and then has drawn broad conclusions based on those opinions, all while presenting them as facts.

Unless you have visited the park frequently enough over a a long enough time period, your eyeballs do not provide enough systematic data to draw the kind of conclusions that are being presented here.

No one has demanded an official company source, so that is a complete red herring. Similarly, no one has said the conversation can't be had without leaks. Claims like that are disingenuous rhetoric.

Beliefs and opinions need to be presented as such and not as facts.

I mean… up until the second half of last year, when I got tired of their shenanigans, I’ve been a season pass holder since I was 4 years old in 1987, and gone more than a dozen times a year every year except a couple of years when I was in the Marine Corps and not at Quantico. So yeah, I think I have enough experience to draw from here- I’d wager that I’ve been to the park more than almost anyone, if I’m being honest.

So if that’s your criteria, I think I meet them. And I’m still out asserting my observations as fact, I’m just stating them as a piece of data from which people can draw whatever conclusions they want.

That 2024 will be the first time in my life since then that I’m not buying a season pass is kind of crazy, and it’s a direct result of how the park is being run.

 

[Thriller]

I am not asking anyone to provide data they can't. I am saying that it is unreasonable to assert an opinion based on anecdotal evidence as fact. People can complain about whatever they want as long as they make clear that they are upset about their specific experience. @Blauer has repeatedly made assertions that he cannot substantiate and then has drawn broad conclusions based on those opinions, all while presenting them as facts.

Unless you have visited the park frequently enough over a a long enough time period, your eyeballs do not provide enough systematic data to draw the kind of conclusions that are being presented here.

No one has demanded an official company source, so that is a complete red herring. Similarly, no one has said the conversation can't be had without leaks. Claims like that are disingenuous rhetoric.

Beliefs and opinions need to be presented as such and not as facts.

A logical person can deduct a conclusion from the evidence. Do you have any logic? If so, please advise ONE legitimate reason other than cost cutting that a park would close early in non-dangerous weather. If there are tornado warnings, torrential non-stop downpours, snow or ice fine. But its none of these circumstances.

1. Attendance is low
2. There is off and on rain in the air. Not thunderstorms, not a downpour. Nothing dangerous.
3. All 3 chains are currently infamous for cost cutting.
4. These employees are not being paid their scheduled hours when there is an early closing. So apparently it is not a "safety" issue as in my experience properly managed companies pay their employees when they send them home early because of dangerous weather.

Logic says its to pump up their bottom line AT THE EXPENSE OF THE EMPLOYEES. That's the most disgusting thing a corporation can do.

This hasn't happened to me just once at these parks. It happened to me 4 times on my trip to Virginia last June alone. Twice at Busch (one day they closed at 3!) and twice at KD. Unfortunately i chose an off and on rainy week to go. The forecast did not indicate that when i left or i would never have went, given these parks reputation for ghost weather closures. I met a friend from CA one of those days at KD. It was his only day there and he left with a VERY bad taste in his mouth for the park mgmt.

It happened to me at Carowinds last June as well. Another day with no significant rain forecast. On a Sunday which should be a busy day at the park. It rained, most of the crowd left and they closed the park at 6 (10 PM advertised closing). It stopped raining entirely at 6. 3

Plus my other incident there when it was 50 degrees, not a cloud in the sky and they closed at 3 PM instead of 8. Nobody was there. Please advise what other reason a park would close under these cirumstances???????????????

I follow these parks social media and fan pages. It happens quite often IMO. Carowinds closed early at least 10 times last summer.

I just want to prevent anyone possible from traveling to these parks if the weather is doubtful so they don't waste their travel funds. I also hope that people that are searching steady employment that they can count on will search elsewhere. These are not good companies to work for.

As stated before, these parks have put themselves in a bad financial position depending on perfect weather for attendance. It also makes it harder to fill open positions when a place has a reputation for cutting wages with no notice. I believe we will see the further downgrade of the experience because of their focus on cost cutting for any reason.