- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks. - Thread starter Sam
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
- Favourite Ride
- Taron
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
Busch Gardens Tampa: General Discussion
Matt N
TS Member
I guess targeting Busch as a coaster park (and I dare say SeaWorld up in Orlando as well) does distinguish it from the other parks in Central Florida; Universal and Disney cover the themed stuff like dark rides pretty well, so going for the big coasters that an immersive park likely wouldn’t go for is a sure fire way for SEAS to carve a niche for themselves within the saturated and competitive Florida market. The nearest big-scale thrill park to Central Florida is probably Six Flags Over Georgia, which is many hours’ drive away, so in that regard, SEAS’ parks are the only real option in Florida and the immediate vicinity for those seeking that no-frills amusement park experience with big coasters and flat rides.
SEAS knows that Universal & Disney have cornered immersion and dark rides, and they don’t have the obscene budgets to compete, so going all in on the thrills will quite clearly differentiate their properties from the other parks in the city and give people a reason to visit their properties. The SEAS duo in Florida seem to be becoming the places for people who just want a good thrill and nothing more, and to be honest, I think that could be a very lucrative niche for them, as in many ways, it could allow them to pursue ride options that Universal & Disney would simply never pursue, and it may also attract those who find the immersive approach of the big 2 a little overbearing and lacking in thrills.
I guess SeaWorld & Busch both honing in on thrills does raise the question of whether they will cannibalise each other’s attendance… but I guess SeaWorld has the marine life and Busch has the huge zoo, so they each have something to make them stand out from the other in their favour, and SeaWorld are also very good at offering those reasonably priced combi-tickets to encourage guests to visit both, so cannibalisation isn’t really an issue anyway.
SEAS knows that Universal & Disney have cornered immersion and dark rides, and they don’t have the obscene budgets to compete, so going all in on the thrills will quite clearly differentiate their properties from the other parks in the city and give people a reason to visit their properties. The SEAS duo in Florida seem to be becoming the places for people who just want a good thrill and nothing more, and to be honest, I think that could be a very lucrative niche for them, as in many ways, it could allow them to pursue ride options that Universal & Disney would simply never pursue, and it may also attract those who find the immersive approach of the big 2 a little overbearing and lacking in thrills.
I guess SeaWorld & Busch both honing in on thrills does raise the question of whether they will cannibalise each other’s attendance… but I guess SeaWorld has the marine life and Busch has the huge zoo, so they each have something to make them stand out from the other in their favour, and SeaWorld are also very good at offering those reasonably priced combi-tickets to encourage guests to visit both, so cannibalisation isn’t really an issue anyway.
Last edited:
A few years ago before COVID I would've agreed with you however I can't see SeaWorld lasting much longer. They seem to be in a massive financial hole. I don't trust the current shareholders much either. There is the potential for them to make more money of a bankruptcy than the chain carrying on. Do we know if they're financial situation has improved any? Then again they seem to want to take quite big risks. Adding large new rides when I'd say they probably couldn't really afford to do so. We saw what happened when six flags did that and they went bust. So perhaps we will see a giga.
Matt N
TS Member
Correct me if I’m wrong here, people who were around and following theme parks in this period, but I think 2000s Six Flags was slightly different, in fairness; in the peak building period of the 2000s, there were years where they were adding huge new coasters to their existing portfolio in double digits, with more than one coaster often being built in the same park, and each year also seemingly saw them buy at least one new park and chuck a boatload of new ride hardware at it; they seemed to build multiple very significant thrill rides in each new park they bought, as well as many smaller rides.
The outlay spent on Six Flags’ new parks alone must have been getting on for $100m per park, and with multiple in one year at some points, as well as numerous huge new rides in their existing parks, their spending was obscene to a level I can’t quite imagine… add to that the fact that Six Flags was supposedly selling very cheap season passes and very cheap admission, and that many of Six Flags’ parks have fairly low admission figures compared to SeaWorld’s, and there really can’t have been much spare money at all.
SEAS isn’t quite at that level yet. They make a fair amount of money on a per park basis (for context, I read somewhere that they make the same amount of profit/turnover across their 11 attractions that Merlin does across their 130, although don’t quote me on that), and I’d wager that their spending per year, even in 2020 when they bought 6 coasters, is still some way below 2000s Six Flags’.
I also believe that their financial situation has improved since the parks reopened after COVID 1.5 years ago, and I don’t think they ever hovered especially close to bankruptcy; I think the liens were only a measure to stop cash flow turning overtly negative for the business, and now that the cash flow has been coming in again for 1.5 years, the inward cash flow has been recovered and there’s no real need to stem outward cash flow.
The outlay spent on Six Flags’ new parks alone must have been getting on for $100m per park, and with multiple in one year at some points, as well as numerous huge new rides in their existing parks, their spending was obscene to a level I can’t quite imagine… add to that the fact that Six Flags was supposedly selling very cheap season passes and very cheap admission, and that many of Six Flags’ parks have fairly low admission figures compared to SeaWorld’s, and there really can’t have been much spare money at all.
SEAS isn’t quite at that level yet. They make a fair amount of money on a per park basis (for context, I read somewhere that they make the same amount of profit/turnover across their 11 attractions that Merlin does across their 130, although don’t quote me on that), and I’d wager that their spending per year, even in 2020 when they bought 6 coasters, is still some way below 2000s Six Flags’.
I also believe that their financial situation has improved since the parks reopened after COVID 1.5 years ago, and I don’t think they ever hovered especially close to bankruptcy; I think the liens were only a measure to stop cash flow turning overtly negative for the business, and now that the cash flow has been coming in again for 1.5 years, the inward cash flow has been recovered and there’s no real need to stem outward cash flow.
I agree that Sea World’s finances seem very precarious. I don’t speculator on the stock market, but if I did, I don’t think I’d touch Sea World’s shares.
As Matt said, I think the situation is slightly different to Six Flags. Six Flags took over parks that were getting relatively few visitors (often in the 600,000 – 700,000 mark) and poured huge amounts of money into new rides that often didn’t bring in the desired extra attendance. If you stripped out Great Adventure, Great America and Magic Mountain, a lot of the parks they were pouring money into weren’t big enough to justify the investment.
Of course, that’s an oversimplistic view of Six Flag’s problems and there are various events that added to their troubles, including a few accidents such as the drop tower accident at Kentucky Kingdom. One of their other parks had a scandal about the animal welfare (something that does have similarities with Sea World). Many of the rides Six Flags added were quite sound, but some of them were problematic, such as all the problems with X at Magic Mountain. There wasn’t one single source of Six Flag’s financial problems, but by and large they spent too much money on smaller parks that weren’t ready for the investment.
Most of the Sea World parks are very big and in many respects do warrant the money being poured into them. There are lingering issues around animal welfare that haven’t gone away, but the parks still get a lot of visitors. Although arguably not as many as they need to when you consider that several of them are open year round, and for much longer hours than the British parks. Some of the shows and events they put on are also quite expensive. Nonetheless, they are well visited.
The animal welfare issues are a problem. The Black Fish impact may have faded, but the general trend is for society to become more concerned about captive animals, not less so. In that respect, though, it makes sense to invest in roller coasters so that they can transition away from some of the animal attractions.
There is a problem that the competition from Disney and Universal has been getting stronger, and it’s hard for Sea World not to get left behind. For example, Aquatica Orlando’s attendance seemed to drop when Volcano Bay opened. When Universal Hollywood opens Nintendo Land, will that hit Sea World San Diego? Universal and Disney have budgets that Sea World can only dream of.
It's hard to see how Sea World can get out of this mess. I agree that spending their way out probably won’t work long term. Can they avoid bankruptcy? It’s going to be tough. But not investing probably won’t help much either. If anything, it might accelerate their problems, given the competition they’re up against, and given that they do need to reduce their emphasis on certain sea creatures.
As Matt said, I think the situation is slightly different to Six Flags. Six Flags took over parks that were getting relatively few visitors (often in the 600,000 – 700,000 mark) and poured huge amounts of money into new rides that often didn’t bring in the desired extra attendance. If you stripped out Great Adventure, Great America and Magic Mountain, a lot of the parks they were pouring money into weren’t big enough to justify the investment.
Of course, that’s an oversimplistic view of Six Flag’s problems and there are various events that added to their troubles, including a few accidents such as the drop tower accident at Kentucky Kingdom. One of their other parks had a scandal about the animal welfare (something that does have similarities with Sea World). Many of the rides Six Flags added were quite sound, but some of them were problematic, such as all the problems with X at Magic Mountain. There wasn’t one single source of Six Flag’s financial problems, but by and large they spent too much money on smaller parks that weren’t ready for the investment.
Most of the Sea World parks are very big and in many respects do warrant the money being poured into them. There are lingering issues around animal welfare that haven’t gone away, but the parks still get a lot of visitors. Although arguably not as many as they need to when you consider that several of them are open year round, and for much longer hours than the British parks. Some of the shows and events they put on are also quite expensive. Nonetheless, they are well visited.
The animal welfare issues are a problem. The Black Fish impact may have faded, but the general trend is for society to become more concerned about captive animals, not less so. In that respect, though, it makes sense to invest in roller coasters so that they can transition away from some of the animal attractions.
There is a problem that the competition from Disney and Universal has been getting stronger, and it’s hard for Sea World not to get left behind. For example, Aquatica Orlando’s attendance seemed to drop when Volcano Bay opened. When Universal Hollywood opens Nintendo Land, will that hit Sea World San Diego? Universal and Disney have budgets that Sea World can only dream of.
It's hard to see how Sea World can get out of this mess. I agree that spending their way out probably won’t work long term. Can they avoid bankruptcy? It’s going to be tough. But not investing probably won’t help much either. If anything, it might accelerate their problems, given the competition they’re up against, and given that they do need to reduce their emphasis on certain sea creatures.
I agree that not investing won't help but like you've also said they can't spend themselves out of this either. I simply don't think adding a giga is a wise move when there are other marketable rides that aren't going to be so costly. There is only a certain amount of debt you can have before it piles on top of you.
Matt N
TS Member
I don’t think the SeaWorld parks’ attendance and finances are as bad as some expect.
Prior to COVID, the rides strategy was working well, as their park attendance figures were beginning to increase towards the end of the 2010s.
And their attendances aren’t exactly terrible either. SWO got 4.6 million in 2019, BGT got 4.2 million and SWSD got 3.7 million. Even when taking into account that these are 365 day parks, those would be higher average figures on a per-day basis than any of the UK parks and many of the European properties. And while I’m not 100% on BGW and SWSA, BGW got a little shy of 3 million last time it was in the TEA report a few years ago, and SWSA got a bit over 2 million in the one TEA report it appeared in, quite a few years back. And neither of those parks are year-round like the others; I think they might be March-January, with limited operating calendars over Christmas?
Compare that to Six Flags Worlds of Adventure (Geauga Lake); even in their peak attendance year just after the purchase of SeaWorld Ohio, attendance was only around 1.5 million, and quickly fell to around 700,000. And this is for a park that was the biggest in the world, with an incredibly extensive ride lineup at its peak; following Six Flags’ phenomenal investment into it, Geauga Lake peaked at a size far bigger than any of SeaWorld’s current parks. Given Six Flags’ 2000s strategy of cheap season passes and the like, I can imagine profit margins there were abysmally low compared to any of SeaWorld’s current properties.
SeaWorld’s recent profit figures are fairly promising too. In their September 2021 financial report, they said that the parks generated $521m in revenue, $198m in operating income and $102m in net income.
And even in the first 6 months of 2021, where some of their parks were shut due to COVID restrictions, revenue was up 8.3% on 2019 levels, with spending per guest being very strong, and EBITDA and net income hitting record levels: https://blooloop.com/theme-park/news/seaworld-entertainment-latest-financial-report/
So my takeaway here is; I don’t think SeaWorld has too much to be worried about.
Prior to COVID, the rides strategy was working well, as their park attendance figures were beginning to increase towards the end of the 2010s.
And their attendances aren’t exactly terrible either. SWO got 4.6 million in 2019, BGT got 4.2 million and SWSD got 3.7 million. Even when taking into account that these are 365 day parks, those would be higher average figures on a per-day basis than any of the UK parks and many of the European properties. And while I’m not 100% on BGW and SWSA, BGW got a little shy of 3 million last time it was in the TEA report a few years ago, and SWSA got a bit over 2 million in the one TEA report it appeared in, quite a few years back. And neither of those parks are year-round like the others; I think they might be March-January, with limited operating calendars over Christmas?
Compare that to Six Flags Worlds of Adventure (Geauga Lake); even in their peak attendance year just after the purchase of SeaWorld Ohio, attendance was only around 1.5 million, and quickly fell to around 700,000. And this is for a park that was the biggest in the world, with an incredibly extensive ride lineup at its peak; following Six Flags’ phenomenal investment into it, Geauga Lake peaked at a size far bigger than any of SeaWorld’s current parks. Given Six Flags’ 2000s strategy of cheap season passes and the like, I can imagine profit margins there were abysmally low compared to any of SeaWorld’s current properties.
SeaWorld’s recent profit figures are fairly promising too. In their September 2021 financial report, they said that the parks generated $521m in revenue, $198m in operating income and $102m in net income.
And even in the first 6 months of 2021, where some of their parks were shut due to COVID restrictions, revenue was up 8.3% on 2019 levels, with spending per guest being very strong, and EBITDA and net income hitting record levels: https://blooloop.com/theme-park/news/seaworld-entertainment-latest-financial-report/
So my takeaway here is; I don’t think SeaWorld has too much to be worried about.
Last edited:
RicketyCricket
TS Member
Just catching up on last couple of pages. Yes, the throughput on RMC's can be terrible. Steel Vengeance seems to have a permanent 2 hours queue which moves at a snails pace despite running 3 trains. The restraints procedure is a right faff and if one guest sits down and pulls the restraint down it seems to cause further delay. Have been guilty of this myself a couple of times out of habit.
Regarding the ride I think comparisons with Zadra are fair given the length and scale of it. However I do think this will be the superior ride. Zadra is obviously brilliant but it's one of the weaker RMC's in terms of airtime. Untamed and Storm Chaser deliver buckets more ejector despite being smaller.
Steel Vengeance will forever reign supreme I think.
Regarding the ride I think comparisons with Zadra are fair given the length and scale of it. However I do think this will be the superior ride. Zadra is obviously brilliant but it's one of the weaker RMC's in terms of airtime. Untamed and Storm Chaser deliver buckets more ejector despite being smaller.
Steel Vengeance will forever reign supreme I think.
John_P
TS Member
Think the only candidates would've been an RMC'd Son Of Beast, or The Beast itself.
Suppose if a park ever gives Alan Schilke the go a head for a 300+ foot monster we might have a chance. But Steel Vengeance is lightning in a bottle stuff.
I don't know what kind of assistance there was for American companies, but in the UK I think it was quite tough for commercial zoos, because even in the lockdowns they had a lot of high fixed costs and staff they couldn't furlough. Sea World San Diego was closed for a long time, and presumably had to carry on paying for zoo keepers, animal food, vets bills etc?
MakoMania
TS Member
San Diego was closed for a long time. But the company’s 5 Florida parks & two Texas parks were only closed for 2 months out of the whole pandemic. BGW reopened sooner than San Diego too but I’d have to check the dates.
MakoMania
TS Member
This seems to be representative of most reviews that I’ve read so far. I’m actually going to be able to ride tomorrow, a couple days sooner than I thought so I’ll be sure to post what I think. I’m still a bit apprehensive given how underwhelmed I’ve been with RMC thus far.
One thing I have read over and over is that as well as having the ejector air you’d expect from an RMC, this ride has a few moments of B&M hyper style sustained floater as well.
I think this is about what was expected from this ride to be fair. Not quite as good a Steel Vengeance but still very good.
Rick
TS Member
@MakoMania which RMCs have you ridden / been underwhelmed by?
MakoMania
TS Member
Outlaw Run in particular. Wasn’t very smooth but even if it was smooth I’m not sure I’d say it was great.