Login or Register to Hide This Ad
Nov 24, 2009
3,354
3,452
250
I really don't constitute removing a single ride (without a replacement) as a "trend".
Technically they removed the ride in LotD and said they are adding the play area.....and then they removed the swings but added a table.....so I guess we didnt really lose anything without a replacemnet.
 
Oct 7, 2011
1,676
5,252
250
So just open one from opening till 2pm, then the other from 2pm till close. Make that a standard with a sign so everyone knows where it stands on that days operation and go with that.
Still more expensive to have both rides on the docket for in-season and off-season maintenance, parts, etc. And while wear and tear will still be more than half of what it once was, you only get a half-day's utilization from each attraction when you half-staff them. Not great overall. And I think it's a wash in terms of guest experience; for half the day the popular Baron ride will be shuttered while the tiny swings ride bores kids to death.

Seriously, my kids hated that tiny swings ride, even when they were barely old enough to ride it. Never a crowd. Occasionally a one-cycle line, only because the load/unload was annoyingly slow.

I kind of agree with the general spirit of your "lose two, gain one" point, though. The general metaphorical feel I've had around the park for years is that they're picking rocks out of the water after dropping the water level to the point where a handful stick out. And I do wonder where the water level goes from here. It's just a different operation post-AB.
 
Nov 24, 2009
3,354
3,452
250
Still more expensive to have both rides on the docket for in-season and off-season maintenance, parts, etc. And while wear and tear will still be more than half of what it once was, you only get a half-day's utilization from each attraction when you half-staff them. Not great overall. And I think it's a wash in terms of guest experience; for half the day the popular Baron ride will be shuttered while the tiny swings ride bores kids to death.

Seriously, my kids hated that tiny swings ride, even when they were barely old enough to ride it. Never a crowd. Occasionally a one-cycle line, only because the load/unload was annoyingly slow.

I kind of agree with the general spirit of your "lose two, gain one" point, though. The general metaphorical feel I've had around the park for years is that they're picking rocks out of the water after dropping the water level to the point where a handful stick out. And I do wonder where the water level goes from here. It's just a different operation post-AB.
Im not suggesting season long operation like that, just slow days. In reality they should have moved it to Ireland, rethemed it and ran it as a kids Finnegand Flyer. That area needs something for kids while the big kids fo FF. A little off colored rockwork paint...bam huge marketing addition of two "new" attractions in Ireland. Think Finnagins Jr Flyers!
 

netdvn

Team Instinct
Jan 12, 2012
1,853
3,030
260
in the rear
dvn225.deviantart.com
Having worked the kiddie swings, it wasn't really that popular. Ride would pretty much be a walk on, even on the busiest days. It was great after lunch when you had the itis and didn't want to do anything. Sucked when it rained though since you had zero cover.

Also hitting the E-stop would cause the ride to run backwards. That little thing would cause so much trouble since it was the only ride that legit broke down in the area.
 
Apr 16, 2017
704
1,096
210
Zach's post was the cause of confusion ... the way he quoted the article mislead readers into thinking the seating area was for entertainment.

also if you guys think bgw pays ride ops $12/hr you must be insane. ride ops get like $9.80 maybe $10/hr if that.
 

Zachary

BGW Eggspert
Administrator
Sep 23, 2009
15,199
42,801
260
I made a very deliberate decision to quote BGW's statement in the way that I did. I believe the first sentence was responding to the issue of ride removals at BGW in general and hence, 100% applicable here.

Other people can read the statement differently, and that is just fine, but I don't believe my interpretation is any less valid than any other reading.

Regardless, it's all sort of a non-issue as the park's statement regarding Wirbelwindchen is legitimately useless. The insinuation that the ride was removed because BGW wanted a place to put more picnic benches is absurd. Why the park couldn't just say "Wirbelwindchen presented a number of maintenance difficulties for the park and continued reinvestment into the attraction in light of its meager ridership no longer made sense," I'll never understand. Consumers want honesty, not PR-speak.
 
Last edited:
Aug 1, 2010
688
1,449
210
Seven Pines, Virginia
Here's what BG could do now that the kid swings are gone. They could then remove the soccer goal kick game and put a Coke stand. There's plenty of room in that location. Say it with me...coke, coke, coke.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,105
2,044
250
Dude my daughter was disappointed about this yesterday. She's just turned four, but she is always trying to ride this. She was going to ride with her little brother, but oh well. Nothing in the area for a really little kid to do now other than roto baron which has a stupid long line. I mean she can ride the Autobahn Jr, but he can't yet. And those kids have no idea what they're doing. Lol.

I did like the toddler play area in the shade in LotD though.
 
Sep 24, 2018
2,782
5,581
250
Generally I would advise against posting pictures that were taken in an employee only area
 

sereniv

Professional Snack Provider
Feb 9, 2018
265
597
210
yes, i agree there are some sensitive objects that should not be shown outside of their restricted areas.

but, i don't think a picture of a pole that has been seen by millions of people is worthy of that comment.
 
Sep 24, 2018
2,782
5,581
250
yes, i agree there are some sensitive objects that should not be shown outside of their restricted areas.

but, i don't think a picture of a pole that has been seen by millions of people is worthy of that comment.

I would argue that if something isn't in a guest facing area then it shouldn't be shared. If it was somewhere that guests could view it then I'd say go ahead but I think it's inappropriate to share pictures of items that are clearly placed somewhere to be out of guest view. Regardless of how many people have seen it before they haven't seen it in the condition it's currently in and in the location that it's in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LudwigII
Jun 13, 2011
359
707
210
I would argue that if something isn't in a guest facing area then it shouldn't be shared. If it was somewhere that guests could view it then I'd say go ahead but I think it's inappropriate to share pictures of items that are clearly placed somewhere to be out of guest view. Regardless of how many people have seen it before they haven't seen it in the condition it's currently in and in the location that it's in.
You can see it from the Griffon, but yeah.
 

Mushroom

Getting aHEAD of myself
Advisory Panel
Feb 12, 2011
5,928
17,126
250
I think as long as an employee is aware of the risk he or she is taking by posting a backstage photo here, there’s no problem. The more information the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor and Zachary
Login or Register to Hide This Ad