What ride would you remove?

Everyone will likely hate this answer but based on the constant issues SkyHawk could get shipped somewhere else with a new observation tower in its location. Not likely but wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the giant air compressor/paper weight gone.

Two problems that are directly related to one another (one of which had nothing whatsoever to do with the ride itself) does not fit the definition of 'constant'.

Nor does it make any sense to send a ride with constant problems someplace else; how, exactly, does that make it any better?

Ask Worlds of Fun and their new Windseeker. Any public view of past problems is gone to the new general area and hopefully the problems could be solved.

Knotts' Windseeker was moved because certain leftist government agencies refused to sign off on the rectification of it's problems, not it's problems in and of themselves.

The gov't may have not cleared the ride but the perception was terrible of the attraction. I believe the question asked was what I would remove... Easy decision due to downtime including more then 70 percent of an entire season down, with limited capacity an additional 25 percent of the year. The attraction is far from a signature attraction and has dropped in ridership like a rock. It's my belief the ride it's self should have never been put in the park. Great spot for an attraction but poor choice of attraction. I would be happy to see another entertainment venue in that location.

TheRealMaverick said:
Everyone will likely hate this answer but based on the constant issues SkyHawk could get shipped somewhere else with a new observation tower in its location. Not likely but wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the giant air compressor/paper weight gone.

The downtime on Skyhawk this year was unacceptable. In the 6 month operating season, it was only running a limited capacity for about 25% of the operating season. CP's maintenance crew are the best of any amusement park in the country, IMO. I can forgive them for the downtime on TTD in it's first couple seasons because it was something new to them and now they got it down to a science. Skyhawk has been up for several years and I think in the whole off-season last year, they could've found the problem and resolved it before opening day. And when it was running in July, it broke again which indicates the problem was not fully fixed. This was a fail on maintenance's part. I do not wish for the ride to be removed, just for maintenance to do a better job at running and maintaining the ride.

I think you might be failing to understand the whole issue regarding Skyhawk. If I remember right, it was stated somewhere that they were having difficulty locating a company to produce the part they needed. If that's true (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), then you can't solely blame maintenance for its downtime. The fact that they even got it to run for the small amount of time it did is proof enough that they were trying as hard as they could.

Would you be even more upset if they had just closed it for the entire season?

Skyhawk was never opened any day I was at the park, so whether it opened or not had no impact on me. The day I was going to ride it in July, it broke when I was in the park. It's great they got it open on limited capacity. I hope they get the issue fully resolved before next season. Is the ride manufacturer still in business? If they are, they could've gone to them for the part.

The manufacturer is S&S and I think the part in question is from a different company. I remember hearing something regarding how S&S didn't "deal" with the company that makes the parts or that particular company went out of business. Whatever it was, it was a big mess and caused quite a few problems.

At least this problem isn't as large of a problem as getting parts for Huss rides

I'd remove the ride that makes the most sense in terms of that ride's ridership, or lack thereof, and the space needed for the ride/attraction/venue/what have you I'm looking to add.

noggin said:
I'd remove the ride that makes the most sense in terms of that ride's ridership, or lack thereof, and the space needed for the ride/attraction/venue/what have you I'm looking to add.

Very original thought, thank you for your insight!

TheRealMaverick said:
Easy decision for means constants would include more then...

If you were less concerned about setting a posts-per-day record for new members, maybe your posts wouldn't seem like they were written by a 2nd grader. Slow down. Think more, post less.

...has dropped in ridership like a rock.

What are the ridership numbers?

Peaked in 2008 season with around 645,000 riders, in 2012 season was down to the 325,000 mark, as for 2013 based on downtime it would have to be a substantially lower number.

To compare this to MaxAir 710,000 in 2008 to 723,000 in 2013(gatekeeper helped).

You still failed to answer the question, thus proving his point

What question did I fail to answer? Ridership numbers are in my last post. I don't have 2013 numbers for SkyHawk but judging by the increase in down time from 2012 and the 2012 numbers it's easy to assume a decline year over year.

But what are the numbers...

That is where you haven't answered them. You merely guess, you are not listing actual information.

Where are you getting these numbers?

I don't guess I move them to an even number, for your enjoyment exact numbers

SkyHawk 2008-641,919 2012-324,772
MaxAir 2008-710,445 2013-723,561

You still haven't answered now two questions..