Rolling Thunder Removal Discussion

[sixflagsdude101]

I'm saddened by this news. RT was probably the most exhilarating ride at SFGA.

you sure it was the most exhilarating ride? or areyou just sayingthat cuz its leaving?

[jonlee]

could they sell pieces of rolling thunder to the fans of the ride? Just like small pieces of track or wood. i think its a good idea and they could make a little money in the process. It would be nice to own a piece of great adventure history.

[Nachos]

What do you mean over texas and over Georgia aren't owned by six flags?

[sixflagsdude101]

could they sell pieces of rolling thunder to the fans of the ride? Just like small pieces of track or wood. i think its a good idea and they could make a little money in the process. It would be nice to own a piece of great adventure history.

i like that idea!

[sixflagsdude101]

But park President John Fitzgerald said Six Flags spent two years investing in family-friendly attractions, like the 24-story swing ride called Sky Screamer in 2012, or the latest attraction, Safari Off Road Adventure.

“I do sympathize with them,” said Fitzgerald. “We do need to have more things for people to ride together and that’s what we plan on putting into the Rolling Thunder area.”

 

After hearing Fitzgerald say this, it makes me feel better about Rolling Thunder leaving. He is sad about it meaning he didnt want to do it and he is already saying in the years to come, better rides for thrills and families will take Rolling Thunder. I hope this makes everyone happier!

[GAcoaster]

What do you mean over texas and over Georgia aren't owned by six flags?

Six Flags Over Texas and Six Flags Over Georgia are only partially owned by Six Flags, but the majority ownership is a partnership. They were the original parks built by the Great Southwest Corporation which built the parks as part of larger industrial parks. The owners of the Great Southwest Corporation (or more precisely the companies/partnerships they have become over 50 years) still own majority stakes in the parks and have a big say over how they are run (though Six Flags manages them).

 

The partnership agreements state that Six Flags has to reinvest a certain percentage of profits into the parks each season to continue their growth. Under Time Warner's ownership of Six Flags, SF deliberately spent the minimum on the parks (and more specifically Six Flags Over Georgia) in order to lower the value of the parks to try and buy out the partnerships at discounted prices and fully own both parks. The partnerships sued Six Flags over that and won in court in (what was at the time) the largest judgement in history (I believe they won $225 million from Six Flags). Since then, Six Flags has made sure to invest over and above the promised amount each season. There were similar agreements for SFNO, SFDK, and La Ronde as well where Six Flags promised to invest a certain amount of money as part of the deal to acquire the parks.

[SFGadv123]

But park President John Fitzgerald said Six Flags spent two years investing in family-friendly attractions, like the 24-story swing ride called Sky Screamer in 2012, or the latest attraction, Safari Off Road Adventure.

“I do sympathize with them,” said Fitzgerald. “We do need to have more things for people to ride together and that’s what we plan on putting into the Rolling Thunder area.”

 

After hearing Fitzgerald say this, it makes me feel better about Rolling Thunder leaving. He is sad about it meaning he didnt want to do it and he is already saying in the years to come, better rides for thrills and families will take Rolling Thunder. I hope this makes everyone happier!

It is still sad, but yes it is good to know that he feels that way about it, although he could just be saying that.

[sfgalocal]

It is still sad, but yes it is good to know that he feels that way about it, although he could just be saying that.

Honestly I dont think it matters to him, he already made his decision what else would he say? If the man had any care for history this would never have happened.

 

If you read his linked-in profile he states that he is a 'change catalyst'. This is all his doing.

 

Not too long before other rides go, bet u log flume is next.

[sixflagsdude101]

the log flume is probably the last ride to ever leave the park. buti think Kristin cares about the parks history. Maybe they had to get rid of rolling thunder because it was unsafe. anyone else remember the rotting wood incident? maybe that was unfixable.

[GAcoaster]

I know from talking to him the John Fitzgerald values the park's history. He and Harry and I all are close in age and share a great deal of history at Great Adventure. This is one of those decisions that was hard to make based on sentiment but easier to make when you look at numbers and this is a business and they have to look at numbers.

 

While Rolling Thunder was a 'classic ride' in the park, I also realize it was a replaceable ride. If removing Rolling Thunder (along with some of the other rides removed over the past 10 years) saved a few of the irreplaceable rides and structures in the park then it was a necessary trade off. Part of losing something like this is the legacy of past Six Flags management and differed work which has added up to realizing it was time to cut the losses. Had previous management maintained and updated Rolling Thunder over time, it would have remained more popular, and it wouldn't have come to the point of costing more to fix/maintain/update than replacing it.

 

RT's cousins (Screamin' Eagle, GASM, Judge Roy Scream) have all been better maintained and updated in most cases (new braking systems, etc.).

[sixflagsdude101]

i wonder what will take its place in the future.

[SFGadv123]

The park needs to update the website because it still says rolling thunder is "temporarily closed".

[SFGadv123]

Close to 700 signatures, that's pretty good, too bad we didn't still have a few weeks.

[The Master]

I know from talking to him the John Fitzgerald values the park's history. He and Harry and I all are close in age and share a great deal of history at Great Adventure. This is one of those decisions that was hard to make based on sentiment but easier to make when you look at numbers and this is a business and they have to look at numbers.

 

While Rolling Thunder was a 'classic ride' in the park, I also realize it was a replaceable ride. If removing Rolling Thunder (along with some of the other rides removed over the past 10 years) saved a few of the irreplaceable rides and structures in the park then it was a necessary trade off. Part of losing something like this is the legacy of past Six Flags management and differed work which has added up to realizing it was time to cut the losses. Had previous management maintained and updated Rolling Thunder over time, it would have remained more popular, and it wouldn't have come to the point of costing more to fix/maintain/update than replacing it.

 

RT's cousins (Screamin' Eagle, GASM, Judge Roy Scream) have all been better maintained and updated in most cases (new braking systems, etc.).

 

 

Except many of the things removed in the last 10 years were irreplaceable rides and structures such as the Tee Pee and the Wagon. As stated, many parks successfully operate wooden coasters much older than Rolling Thunder, Dorney, Hershey, SFA, etc. If it was in such bad shape then it was SF or GADV that let it get in that bad shape and it is still their bad. Unique rides cost more to maintain, and that is what we can expect to be removed. I can easily foresee SF removing the flume, skyride, and parachutes claiming they are too costly to maintain, and replace them with nothing or something very generic and cheap.

Sixflagsdude, yes SF may promise they will add more to make up for RL's loss, but promises are cheap. They pretty much gutted Old Country, and after all these years still have no real plans for that area. They closed down the middle of Golden Kingdom, spliting it in half, for future work that has yet to happen. Even replacing GASM with GL has left alot of empty space they are leaving empty. This is why I doubt they have any real plans to redevelop RL's old footprint. It's just going to be another long, dead end, empty walkway to a single ride, just like with KK, Bizarro, Superman, and GL. It's just like back 9 years ago when Shapiero was removing older rides like crazy such as the Riptide Flume, Splash Down, Chiller, sim theater, and Freefall. Many of the GADV fan forums at the time were jumping with joy believing like you that they would be replacing those "old eyesores" with newer better rides such as more large fancy roller coasters. Many of those rides have yet been replaced with anything or with rides that the fan forums now complain about such as the Dark Knight.

[sfgalocal]

Close to 700 signatures, that's pretty good, too bad we didn't still have a few weeks.

That was intentional

[GAFanatic]

The fact that they think Sky Screamer is a family ride explains a lot.

[The Master]

Sure does, I consider it a thrill ride being so tall.

[jonlee]

Yea...I'm pretty sure the late announcement was intentional. They knew we would want to save it. If they wanted space to make more family rides, theres the whole other section of the park, already built and paved, closer to the entrance (children wouldn't have to walk as far) that could be used for family rides. I agree 100% with expanding the park, we have a lot of land to work with. We need more flats. If you dont like rollercoasters, what else is there to do?

[IgetAround]

I think the flats they added though in the previous few years was a great step forward. The addition of the Sky Screamer, Deja Vu, Royal Elephants, and bumper cars were a good move. Previous to this, the flat ride count was dangerously low with a lot of "holes" throughout the park. There's still a lot of areas to be filled in, but it was a great start. Let's hope these flats stick around and don't face a short lived life like so many others.

[silvermom05]

What is so upsetting though is that these rides have tall height requirements so they can not be considered "family rides." Sky Screamer is 48" and for the bumper cars you need to be 54" to drive! This is a much taller requirement on bumper cars than I see anywhere else. It means that I STILL can't go on it with my kids who are 6 and 8. That's what was so great about RT...we all could ride together and it was so much fun

[IgetAround]

Not having children, I guess I never saw it that way. It is unfortunate it that case, but there still is Skull Mountain, mine train, and Blackbeard as far as coasters go... or is there not? I do not know the height requirements off the top of my head.

[silvermom05]

Yes that is true, and while they do love those rides too, truthfully they are all pretty lame compared to RT. My kids really felt like big boys on that ride. Bummer

[SFGadv123]

Not having children, I guess I never saw it that way. It is unfortunate it that case, but there still is Skull Mountain, mine train, and Blackbeard as far as coasters go... or is there not? I do not know the height requirements off the top of my head.

Blackbeard and skull mountain don't compare to RT, I know you guys are talking about family rides, but Rolling Thunder was a family ride that was also a high thrill, SM and blackbeard aren't that much of a thrill.

[GAcoaster]

This is a perfect time to mention that the other ride that has similar demographics is RMT, and once again that is a ride that many parks have removed over time but we still have (and it is one of the park's originals). If it came down to a choice for management to save either Runaway Mine Train (which probably also has similar maintenance challenges to RT) or Rolling Thunder, they made the right choice.

 

RMT is irreplaceable as a ride no longer manufactured, while you can still get another wooden coaster (which could be built better), and RMT is really an original for Great Adventure where Rolling Thunder was a later addition.

 

Once again, it's not that I agree with the decision to remove RT or want to see it go, I just try to put it in perspective that it could have been worse.

[IgetAround]

What should have happened though is the park should have kept the rides in better condition all along so the repair costs needed don't blow the budgets out of the water. What should have happened is Six Flags and management should have given the budgets more money all along to make those repairs possible. What should have happened is they should have always looked at the big picture and not the "in the moment" picture. Now, as a result solely of revenue focused management, we are losing a classic ride that should NOT have had to go. The whole "they had to make a decision" ordeal could have easily been avoided if they'd realize they are desperately not putting enough money into their maintenance budget that the rides need.

 

Six Flags truly needs to learn the meaning of "You have to spend money to make money."