Sea World Resort to get Water Park from Sea World

[Bush Beast Forever]

Just noticed on the myfun website that after boxing day Sea World Water park will become part of the Resort: http://seaworldresort.myfun.com.au/Resort-...s/Waterpark.htm "Sea World Resort today revealed plans to incorporate Sea World's Water Park - making it the only resort in Australia to offer its very own Water Park. From 26 December, guests staying at Sea World Resort will be able to enjoy free unlimited use of the expansive 1.6 hectare Water Park. Sea World Resort General Manager, Ernst Pfister said that the new Water Park would cement the resort's place at the forefront of the family leisure market. "In January we opened a $1million WaterPlay aqua playground for hotel guests which totally exceeded our expectations. The new Water Park will have enormous appeal to families wanting a complete holiday experience." Sea World Chief Executive Officer, John Menzies said that after the success of the WaterPlay playground it made sense for the Water Park to become a feature of Sea World Resort. Mr Menzies also said that current Sea World Annual Pass holders would be able to access the Water Park under the term of their existing pass. Sea World guests will have the option to upgrade their day pass to include use of the resort's Water Park facilities for a small fee. Currently the Water Park features two large lagoon style pools, two full sized flumes, a mammoth plunge and a kids' water zone. Mr Pfister said that the resort was planning exciting upgrades to the Water Park including private cabanas, additional shaded areas, increased seating and relaxation areas plus a licensed bar and dining area. This summer Sea World will also launch a new family thrill ride, Jet Rescue, and a brand new interactive animal exhibit, Ray Reef, offering families even more reasons to visit the iconic theme park and resort." While I think this will not be too well received by park guests I guess it isn't all negative news for park visitors (vs. Resort guests where it's all upside): 1) Sounds like they will be spending some money to improve the experience in the Water Park. 2) Annual Pass holders still get access (although assume this will only be until the end of the current pass). 3) Park guests will still be able to access the Water Park for a small fee (Suppose it's better than what Dreamworld did where they basically forced you to pay for a whole new park entry (at WWW) if you wanted a water experience post ripping out their Water Park).

[Gazza]

Big news day today. Lame....charging for something that was once free, without any real improvement other than seats and shade sails. I've always imagined it being the next thing to go since it takes up valuable real estate that could be used for year round attractions, and the place is dated but I guess the water park is here to stay then for the next few years.

[cadboy]

Yep, a complete money maker. Do you think families will even bother paying extra? I don't.

[rappa]

It's a bit of a funny one, as a theme park water park it kinda blows, but as a hotel pool area it's pretty kick ass! Would many visitors to sea world really be that disappointed they can't go to the water park?

[Troy81]

The maintinance of the water park would be quiet high so to give this away would save Seaworld a few dollars one would think. I bet the entry price will still go up - with the introduction of Jet Ski Rescue.

[rappa]

Resort and sea world are one entity so there is no change is upkeep costs.

[mattcrombie]

Its $10 for Seaworld Guest to enter the waterpark

[Bush Beast Forever]

Its $10 for Seaworld Guest to enter the waterpark

Looks like they have decided to start at a lower price. Website says $5 for adults. Kids are free. http://seaworld.myfun.com.au/Tickets-and-S.../Water-Park.htm

[Theme Park Girl]

It was a bit odd yesterday actually as we went to the water park for the afternoon, I had my purse in hand ready to pay the $20 entry for 4 adults (it was a REALLY humid day) only to be told it was "free for today" and to keep my money. So that was nice, though were still given little coloured wristband thingies to wear inside? Not sure of their purpose, maybe it was a practice run for future practices or something lol. From my knowledge the water park was supposed to be a paid part of the resort from boxing day onwards Not complaining by all means though that we got in free of charge!

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Maybe high capacity in the park made them realise that the water park is a good crowd soaker (in both terms that is) and they opened the gates to absorb some of the flow (enough puns in there???). The wristbands are probably so you aren't mistaken for hotel guests - poor old mr McGregor in suite 401 would be really annoyed if half the park guests started charging poolside bar drinks to his room. I think we might see seasonal changes with the waterpark... or perhaps the decision to change it over to the hotel was a little premature and they might need to revisit the idea.

[Theme Park Girl]

The wristbands are probably so you aren't mistaken for hotel guests - poor old mr McGregor in suite 401 would be really annoyed if half the park guests started charging poolside bar drinks to his room.

I think you might be right there, I did notice that some of the other visitors in the water park had different coloured wristbands from ours Hopefully they do revisit the idea personally, I don't understand why the resort needs to steal SW's huge water park when they only recently spent 1m on one of its own? That park has been part of Seaworld for as long as I can remember, and comes as a great relief on a hot and humid day like the one we had on our visit. The "splashdown" from the Flume and the BT just don't cut it, especially during busy periods when there is a long lineup. Furthermore, with a park like Seaworld which has little room for expansion, I would think they would want to offer visitors everything they can, not take away major areas and further limiting options to their guests iykwim. Don't get me wrong, I think $5 per adult and kids for free is reasonable if they insist on charging for water park entry, but I just have a feeling its not going to stay that price for long. They'll probably hike it up a dollar or two at a time over the next few years as everything else becomes more expensive. Edited December 29, 2008 by OceanGirl

[Park Addict 93]

They apparantly started charging on Monday, All the price signs ect. cleary state this is an introductory rate.

[Gazza]

The wristbands are probably so you aren't mistaken for hotel guests - poor old mr McGregor in suite 401 would be really annoyed if half the park guests started charging poolside bar drinks to his room

.The wristbands are actually there to stop people from getting into SW for free from what I observed. Resort guests can come freely into the water park, but of course you need to be able to stop them from entering the main park. Hence when you enter the water park from the main park, you get a wristband to let you back into the main park.

[Habitat Waterford]

Just noticed on the myfun website that after boxing day Sea World Water park will become part of the Resort: http://seaworldresort.myfun.com.au/Resort-...s/Waterpark.htm "Sea World Resort today revealed plans to incorporate Sea World's Water Park - making it the only resort in Australia to offer its very own Water Park. From 26 December? Sounds way cool.

[strop]

Looks like this news has finally reached the papers, and that parkz got a mention too...

Greed is latest theme as park slugs visitors VISITORS to Sea World are being slugged an extra $5 per person to use the 22-year-old water park and slide which used to be free to enter. The move has been branded a greedy profit grab by consumers and politicians. The charge was the result of the pool area being taken over by Sea World Resort - which has the same parent company as the theme park - and took effect after the peak summer holiday period. Guests of the resort are entitled to use the water park for free but visitors to Sea World who pay $69.95 for entry are slugged $5 each to enter the pool area. The fee also applies to children and pensioners, on top of their $45.95 admission price. Surfers Paradise MP John-Paul Langbroek yesterday led criticism of the new charge, which comes after 22 years of Sea World visitors having pool use included in their admission price. "People pay a considerable amount to go in anyway and to be seen as trying to extricate a few extra dollars from people, it doesn't do a lot for tourism or the Gold Coast's reputation," Mr Langbroek said. The Queensland Consumers Association expressed concern the move could set a precedent for other parks. "If it works there, obviously others will look at it and develop their model much the same. We would urge them to reconsider," QCA secretary Max Howard said. "We understand they need to make a profit, that's why they're in business. But there needs to be give and take. It's just making that type of entertainment overly expensive. They're going to price themselves out of the market." A Sea World spokeswoman said the new charge was not advertised upon entry to the theme park but it was identified in the park guide and at the entrance to the water park. "Annual pass holders and guests of the resort don't have to pay," she said. She said she had not been made aware of any complaints about the charge but it generally "took time for people to get used to any changes". Mr Langbroek said visitors would vote with their feet and go elsewhere if they found the park too expensive. "Most people set a budget for these outings and you have to wonder, at what level is there resistance ?" he said. The Gold Coast Tourism Bureau said Sea World and Sea World Resort were entitled to operate their business as they saw fit. "We wouldn't like to see it replicated across theme parks but we don't think it has become a wider issue," said the bureau's Ben Pole. Subscribers to theme park website www.parkz.com.au were scathing. "Yep, a complete money maker," read one post. "Lame ... charging for something that was once free," wrote another. Mum Said: "Families unite!"

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0...52-3102,00.html I only bought the paper because the sign outside the newsagent's read "Theme Parks look to cash in" (or something similar) and expected it be about special offers to attract visitors, like the Q150 passes. Edited March 18, 2009 by Gazza
Put link in.

[Gazza]

Geeze, CM is 3 months late on this one. Personally, I hope they are using this a way of testing the water in terms of how guests react to an on-site water park. If it is a success, then I'd like to see them demolish the whole lot (bar the 'plunge' given it slots in down the side and takes up little space) From there, establish a new and better, "mini aquatica" style park (with say about 3 slides, with an underwater slide being the main feature), that way the resort offers guests something new and very unique to the gold coast, and SW visitors have a water park that is genuinely worth upgrading to visit. Naturally, the water park could be designed to be compact, so that valuable expansion space freed up. On another note, has the plug resulted in an increase in traffic Richo?

Edited March 18, 2009 by Gazza

[cadboy]

Haha, can't believe a section of my post got in that article. I think it is so rich to charge for the water park especially after such an entry fee, but that is business for you.

[Original]

That article also made it onto a American theme park based site, Roller Coaster Pro http://www.rollercoasterpro.com/index.php?...&ucat=&