SeaWorld Entertainment eliminates hundreds of jobs

[Mr. EPCOT]

SeaWorld Entertainment eliminates hundreds of jobs - Orlando Sentinel

Think about how many people have have to sign off on, "Okay, we're going to fire all of these people just before Christmas." Not just once, but twice within the span of two years.

 

[bob albert]

When people don't show up, you don't need as many employees I guess. Hopefully universal hires a bunch of them. The parks are hardly ever open long enough for more than one shift.

 

[Nick]

When people don't show up, you don't need as many employees I guess. Hopefully universal hires a bunch of them. The parks are hardly ever open long enough for more than one shift.

There's always 2 shifts no matter what. You have an opening (comes in at 6 to get the park open and ready) and then a closing (stays an hour or 2 past close). I've done it. The hours were never all that great though. 6 hour shifts if I remember correctly.

 

[bob albert]

I never worked in a year round park but 10-6 would have meant a 10hr shift for most people at the seasonal ones.

 

[Nick]

I never worked in a year round park but 10-6 would have meant a 10hr shift for most people at the seasonal ones.

10-6 isn't what people are working though. People are coming in from 6-1 and 1-8 if it's an 8 hour day like that.

 

[s8film40]

10-6 isn't what people are working though. People are coming in from 6-1 and 1-8 if it's an 8 hour day like that.

Yeah theme parks seem to love 6 hour shifts. I know Disney has a lot of those. I've never really understood the logic behind that. There's no real benefit. When I scheduled I would give everyone 8 hours sometimes even 10 or more unless they were somone who specifically wanted shorter shifts. Each shift requires time to get ready, drive to work and expenses while at work meals etc. it's much better for employees if they can get a little more "bang for their buck" and use their time more efficiently.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Yeah theme parks seem to love 6 hour shifts. I know Disney has a lot of those. I've never really understood the logic behind that. There's no real benefit. When I scheduled I would give everyone 8 hours sometimes even 10 or more unless they were somone who specifically wanted shorter shifts. Each shift requires time to get ready, drive to work and expenses while at work meals etc. it's much better for employees if they can get a little more "bang for their buck" and use their time more efficiently.

You can employ five days a week at six hours and not have to provide benefits.

 

[Nick]

Yeah theme parks seem to love 6 hour shifts. I know Disney has a lot of those. I've never really understood the logic behind that. There's no real benefit. When I scheduled I would give everyone 8 hours sometimes even 10 or more unless they were somone who specifically wanted shorter shifts. Each shift requires time to get ready, drive to work and expenses while at work meals etc. it's much better for employees if they can get a little more "bang for their buck" and use their time more efficiently.

I used to get a ton of hours at Disney. One of the upsides to working there over any other park is they don't balk at giving people overtime. Universal tries to avoid it as much as possible and SW almost never offers it, but I had many weeks at Disney where I was scheduled for 40 hours and ended up with 70+ hours.

 

[s8film40]

You can employ five days a week at six hours and not have to provide benefits.

I'm not sure about other parks but I know in Disney's case at least those getting 6 hour shifts are almost always eligible for the very same benefits.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I'm not sure about other parks but I know in Disney's case at least those getting 6 hour shifts are almost always eligible for the very same benefits.

Very possible I'm wrong. Always heard 35 hours or less don't require benefits, or that's what I heard around my last theme park job.

 

[WAJAS]

Very possible I'm wrong. Always heard 35 hours or less don't require benefits, or that's what I heard around my last theme park job.

Maybe it's different in different counties?

 

[Mad Dog]

It's sad to watch the former excellent Busch owned parks sink further into the abyss since the Busch family has exited the ownership.

 

[SeventyOne]

Very possible I'm wrong. Always heard 35 hours or less don't require benefits, or that's what I heard around my last theme park job.

Biggest difference at WDW is that you're not guaranteed any set amount of hours as a part-timer. You'll often work 35, double that even during holidays, but it's not a lock--could be one shift the week after. Getting full time status is still a big deal. (There may be other benefits as well.)

 

[SeventyOne]

It's sad to watch the former excellent Busch owned parks sink further into the abyss since the Busch family has exited the ownership.

Not sure anyone was going to save SWO once Diagon Alley opened. Management definitely made its share of mistakes, particularly in response to Blackfish and allowing some bad attractions, but the #1 problem is their de facto top competitor going from a 1-day park to a 2-day park with a slew of onsite hotels.

 

[s8film40]

Biggest difference at WDW is that you're not guaranteed any set amount of hours as a part-timer. You'll often work 35, double that even during holidays, but it's not a lock--could be one shift the week after. Getting full time status is still a big deal. (There may be other benefits as well.)

Yep and location makes a big difference. At one point both me and my wife were working part time at Disney. She was getting 1-2 shifts per month. At the same time I was working every week and was told I wasn't working the minimum number of hours required for my part time status.

 

[Mad Dog]

Not sure anyone was going to save SWO once Diagon Alley opened. Management definitely made its share of mistakes, particularly in response to Blackfish and allowing some bad attractions, but the #1 problem is their de facto top competitor going from a 1-day park to a 2-day park with a slew of onsite hotels.

Definitely issues associated with the rise of Universal in Orlando, but I was basically commenting on the state of the entire chain. Things have not gone well in the broader text. They were pretty strong all around before the In Bev & then Blackstone purchases. BGW, for one, has really seen it's fortunes decline.

 

[Nick]

Not sure anyone was going to save SWO once Diagon Alley opened. Management definitely made its share of mistakes, particularly in response to Blackfish and allowing some bad attractions, but the #1 problem is their de facto top competitor going from a 1-day park to a 2-day park with a slew of onsite hotels.

Comcast could probably buy up the entire property for fairly cheap right now as SWO is at pretty much a company low as far as where they stand in the market. The question is, does Comcast want that land and does it benefit them to have it? I feel like they would want to close up shop on that park, which, with all the animals there could be quite the hassle.

 

[bob albert]

I feel like BGW really lost a lot of its luster as a destination place. The last and upcoming coasters were about the cheapest you could get besides a kiddie coaster. As for Sea World I wish they would get sold but it seems like they were trying to shop it a few years ago and largely gave up. As I have said before, I really wish Herschend could run sea world as they do entertainment as well as anyone and would be able to leverage the entertainment capacity Sea World has and expand on some of the festivals and shows they have at the other parks.

I think Universal is pretty comfortable building a third park with their money instead of spending a whole lot on Sea world, even though the multi day packages would prob boost Sea world attendance at least %20. I wouldn't think they are the right fit to run that type of entertainment anyway. I don't think there is any chance of the park closing in the future. At worst they are still one of the most popular parks in the country. What would be interesting is the ability they would probably have to connect the future transport to Sea World if Universal were to ever buy it. That would be a huge deal to have a chain as big as Disney that was easier for guests to get around.

One thing to remember is that Sea World is a pretty good park for young families, much better than Universal currently. It would help them appeal to a larger market.

 

[SeventyOne]

I don't think there is any chance of the park closing in the future. At worst they are still one of the most popular parks in the country.

Even 2 years ago, I would have agreed with this. Still have park infrastructure and zoning, can keep a nominal sea theme or go 100% in a different direction, but still a theme park.

Now I'm not sure. There's a concerted effort to turn that area into the new Baldwin Park/College Park. I don't know how a theme park fits in those plans, especially when that park has to compete with the two best in the business 5 minutes away. I only think it survives if one of the remaining big theme park players decides they want a shot at the big time, and Osceola won't accommodate them. Otherwise, land may be more valuable as mix of residential/office use.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

If SeaWorld where to sell any of their properties... SeaWorld Orlando and Busch Gardens Tampa are the last ones to be sold... there the #1 and #2 visited in the chain