Accompanied by a responsible person???
Just returned from another glorious Father's Day trip to the best amusement park on earth. Without doing an entire trip report, a good time was had by all with the exception of the typical customer service lapses. Of particular concern on this trip is the parks vague policy (or lack of) on what a responsible person should be for accompanying children below a certain height on family rides.
Example A: My family went to ride Dodgem. Before we entered the turnstiles another mother and her 2 daughters were blocking the entrance and waiting to get the ride ops attention. When the ride stopped, she asked if her 2 daughters could ride together, or did she need to ride with the younger one. I'm guessing the youngest daughter was 4 or 5 and was over 36 inches but not 48. The older daughter was at least 52 inches and probably 10 or 11. The male ride op said it would be okay for the girls to ride with each other and the mother went to sit on a bench next to the ride and the 2 girls waited in line in front of us for a couple of ride cycles. By the time it was our turn to ride a second female ride op showed up and helped operate the ride. When the 2 girls tried to enter the ride the female ride op stopped the girls and told them they couldn't ride together. The girls started to get upset; but, fortunately I had heard the entire conversation with the male ride op only minutes before and I intervened and informed the female ride op that the male ride op (who was standing right next to the female ride op) had already said it was okay for the girls to ride together. The male ride op sheepishly nodded in agreement and the female ride op reluctantly allowed the girls to ride. Crisis adverted. ThePointGuru saved the day again! Neither the male nor female ride op was at fault for this situation. Just another case of bad management failing to establish clear guidelines for guest and crew to follow.
Example B: Many of the so called "family rides" in Planet and Camp Snoopy are really kids rides. There is no way an adult who is even a slightly above average in size fit in the seat belts meant for kids. On almost every one of these family rides, you can watch older children try to accompany their younger siblings. Sometimes the ride op allows them to ride sometimes they don't. There is no rhyme or reason to how a particular ride op decides to let one child ride with another. That is managements fault. That is bad customer service if families can't ride family rides together because of bad management decisions.
Cedar Point has had an official definition of a Supervising Companion longer than almost anybody else in the industry. I don't remember it off hand but I think it's 16 years old.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
/X\ *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\_/XXXXX\_/XXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\__/XXXXXX
Thanks RideMan. I found the policy for you:
Some rides require a “supervising companion” to accommodate a rider. A supervising companion is someone who meets all the requirements to ride the ride themselves, is 16 years of age or older and demonstrates appropriate observed behavior*.
*Explanation: Appropriate observed behavior may include but not be limited to maintaining proper riding position, attention and compliance to safety instructions, proper use of all ride or safety equipment and a willingness to participate.
Limit one child per supervising companion on Calypso, Dodgem, Lolli Swing, Matterhorn, Monster, Peanuts 500, Troika, Turnpike Cars and Woodstock Express..
It does say 16 for a "supervising companion". Another lawyer may argue that is different than "a responsible person" which is posted on the site for height restrictions. While I am glad that some of the ride ops error on the side of being family friendly what does it say that this policy is so rarely followed. I would also say that such a high age limit is pretty family unfriendly.
Pointguru, are you the ASSHAT that complains at McDonald's when your French fries are cold because you didn't eat them in the first 20 minutes after they were served to you?
I'm too sexy for my harness!
Well, that would the fault of McDonald's management. They should have known he'd wait 20 minutes to eat his fries and brought them out to him then. Bad management decision!
campfreak06 said:
Pointguru, are you the ASSHAT that complains at McDonald's when your French fries are cold because you didn't eat them in the first 20 minutes after they were served to you?
Nope, I'm just one of the common villagers who isn't afraid to tell the emperor he has no clothes.
I was worried that reference would be too obscure for some on this site. For those who didn't catch it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes
"A vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The Emperor's ministers cannot see the clothing themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but continues the procession."
Do you really not understand the point of my post? Really? And yet you think the Emperor with No Clothes is possibly too obscure. Huh. Interesting.
Okay, I'll bite. In the story, the emperor is not actually wearing any clothes. Something so obvious even a child could see it. So, when you say:
noggin said:
And yet the emperor's wearing clothes when you say that to him...
Are you not getting the moral of the story or are you still one of the fanboys (err... emperor's ministers)?
*sigh*
Yes, PointGuru, I do understand the moral of the story. It's quite likely I was understanding the moral of the story well before you were even born.
And when I say "And yet the emperor's wearing clothes when you say that to him...", what I'm really saying is that you, PointGuru, fancy yourself to be the child in the crowd in the story... and you're not.
Indeed, if anyone, you're the emperor.
*sigh*
PointGuru is not wearing any clothes--he is clearly saying whatever contradicts other posts just to start afight, not what he believes.
This Isn't A Hospital--It's An Insane Asylum!
*sigh*
So many ministers, not enough town folk. I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to get folks to look at things from a different perspective. At least now I know how the Gardner's felt trying to teach sign language to Washoe.
I look at many things from many different perspectives. I just find your particular perspective, Emperor PointGuru, to be skewed.
Washoe had a better grip on good customer service then you do, my friend.
Closed because I'm tired of the self indulgent attention whoring.
Jeff - Advocate of Great Great Tunnels™ - Co-Publisher - PointBuzz - CoasterBuzz - Blog - Music
Closed topic.