For those uninitiated, picture a stopwatch looking device, that guests to Dreamworld rent at the start of the day and then carry with them. When they want to ride something, instead of entering the queue they select it from the device, and it tells them to come back after a certain amount of time, where instead of queuing, they walk right up to the front and board the ride immediately. 

Ignoring the whole other can of worms that is Dreamworld's woeful lack of attractions that can appropriately and fairly handle a system like QBot (branded at Dreamworld as Q4U) in addition to normal queuing guests, let's take a closer look at QBot on its own.

Reports suggest Dreamworld initially offered 130 of the Q4U units daily, with up to 6 riders per unit (at $5 per rider). This initial number could account for anywhere up to 10% of the daily attendance on a busy summer's day. It is offered only on eight of the park's major attractions.

The great claim that proponents of QBot, including its inventors Lo-Q and its clients like Dreamworld, will emphatically state is that QBot is not queue jumping. They offer several key arguments to back up this claim:

Buyers of the QBot wait the same amount of time as everyone in the normal queue, just they are not confined to the queue area while they wait.

Because they can only queue virtually for one ride at a time there is effectively no way of cheating the system and not waiting the set queue time for each and every ride.

Together these two points seem to make a very convincing argument, designed solely to make it appear that normal non-Q4U holders aren't getting ripped off by a small group of people given preference at attractions. This works for theme parks, who now have a good argument for potential angry guests, upset at the sight of people waltzing by them in a hot queue. They'll tell the irate customer that this person didn't just jump in line, that they waited, just not in the queue.

The problem is that this argument against queue jumping is flawed.

Let's say a family decides it wants to ride Cyclone and they load it up on the device. It tells them to come back in an hour. With an hour to spare, they head over to The Claw and enter its queue for say 20 minutes before riding it. With 40 minutes to spare they then walk over to Wipeout and give it a ride. With that, they head back to Cyclone and walk right up to the front and hop on the ride. They're riding with people who made the decision to enter the queue at the same time that they logged the decision on their Q4U device.

Wow, the system works. Q4U is great, and best of all, it inconveniences no one!

With that out of the way, let's look at a similar scenario.

A family walks up to Cyclone. After a bit of dismay at the length of the queue, Dad really wants to ride so he sticks around and enters the queue. Meanwhile, Mum and the kids head off to The Claw, queue and ride it. A quick phone call to Dad to find out where he is, he tells them he's only halfway through the queue. Then the rest of the family checks out Wipeout. After they ride that they give Dad a ring and he tells them he's nearly at the front. The rest of the family thinks that's perfect and decide to meet him there. So they barge through the queue to where Dad is and in no time they're on the ride.

Hang on... that definitely sounds like queue jumping, right? Well, apparently giving the park $20 makes it not.

So, that's where I stand on Q4U. But that's really not the only answer. If you've got thoughts on the matter, whether the same, different or ambivalent we want to hear them. If you have experiences with the system to share, either as an observer or a user, even better!

Just make sure you're logged in and add your comments below.

Comments

Posted by paauly101 at 5:42pm, 14 Jan 09

Wow. Can you really do that with the Q4U? Im getting me one of them! I hate que jumpers but this is a little different because its not like you have just decided to jump to the front of the que.. You RESERVE your place in line. The Q4U just gives you the most out of your time in the park. If the other people dont like it then they should have got themselves a Q4U. I like the idea of it and i really hope it stays.

Posted by wondercam at 6:25pm, 14 Jan 09

I think they should just leave the Ques how they were. Think that your waiting all day for a ride and you get to the front and someone pushes past you. It's annoying. And I think this is a way for dreamworld to make some easy money. Anyway thats my thoughts, correct me if im wrong,
WonderCam

Posted by Lotl_90 at 9:48pm, 14 Jan 09

Just to clear a few things up, the user of the device doesnt need to go anywhere near the ride itself to reserve their spot. It is all done using the device. Dreamworld also has more Q-Bots for sale now, as 130 were seling out every day, and there were quite a few dissapointed people.

Im with the opinion of Lo-Q. In no way (IMO) is it queue jumping. Users are still waiting the same amount of time as everybody else, that I know for sure. Guest comments about the system and its use have all been positive, and guests who see other guests using them then go to get one for themselves. Especially families. Anyone who has waited in a 90min queue with children will understand the interest in wanting to utilize this system.

Normal riders are not disadvantaged in an overly large way, as the Q4U riders are mixed in with normal riders to fill up each cycle. If the Q4U line is becoming over large, they will send a whole ride/train of Q4U guests to keep the lines moving, where possible.

I think if dreamworld can successfully offer this service and keep the same level of operating 'efficiency' then they may as well go for it. Maybe if Macquarie sees a bit more money coming in they will be more willing to spend a bit more.

Anyway, thats my two cents worth.

Posted by Bush Beast Forever at 11:58pm, 14 Jan 09

Sorry but Richard's example shows it really is queue jumping.
While it's true that Q4U users wait the same amount of time at these attractions, they are highly likely to use that time to ride other rides and therefore use more of the park's capacity.
During peak periods when the park reaches capacity it really is a simple equation. If a Q4U user gets to go on say 5 more rides in a day because he has paid for the device those 5 rides will have come at the expense of other non paying guests.
The more Q4U are sold the more extra capacity is eaten up and the less rides other guests will be able to experience.
This should be seen transparently for what it is; an effort to increase expenditure per guest.
Now DW already do plenty of things to increase expenditure like installing upcharge attractions and having paid early admission. I don't have any particular problem with those. The difference is because those things don't directly detract from other guests experience of the park. This does.

Posted by Richard at 10:28am, 15 Jan 09

Thanks for those corrections regarding the functionality of QBot, Lotl_90. I've fixed the article to clear these minor matters up.

Posted by SuperYoshi at 3:43pm, 15 Jan 09

QUOTE (wondercam @ Jan 14 2009, 06:25 PM)

I think they should just leave the Ques how they were. Think that your waiting all day for a ride and you get to the front and someone pushes past you. It's annoying. And I think this is a way for dreamworld to make some easy money. Anyway thats my thoughts, correct me if im wrong,

I agree.

QUOTE (Lotl_90 @ Jan 14 2009, 09:48 PM)

Users are still waiting the same amount of time as everybody else, that I know for sure.

Yea but their not waiting in the heat,standing in the same spot and only moving every 5 mins are they?

QUOTE

If the other people dont like it then they should have got themselves a Q4U.

They are limited... so not everyone can get them.
But i suppose, if they made enough so at least half the park could use them, their would be hardly anyone in the line, meaning that it would be a waist of money(us), since (their point) is to not que in long lines.

Posted by skeetafly at 3:46pm, 15 Jan 09

Well I agree with Richard QBot is queue jumping and as per normal Dreamworld is ripping people of by saying its ok if you pay for it. What gets me the most about this is Dreamworld tell you on there web site” It means you can try other rides”. Last year on a Saturday before Dreamworlds peak season I waited for 1.12 hours for the moto coaster and in comparison I waited 15min in peek season to ride the jet rescue at SeaWorld. I can’t see how Dreamworld can justify there current entry tickets for people (keep in mind Dreamworld has just put gate entry up) who are not buying a QBot if Dreamworld has decreased what that person can go on in a day. By my calculations a person who does not have a QBot would have to wait for an extra 1560 guest per day if the QBot riders got on 2 extra rides per day. Shame Shame Shame.

Posted by qldtaw at 3:48pm, 15 Jan 09

It is ridiculous to think that introducing Q-Bots is queue jumping. It is an amazing invention and simply gives consumer more choice. When entering a theme park you enter on the theme park terms... you don't like it... pay for the Q-Bot or don't go to the park.
I was at Six Flags Great Adventure and New England in August last year and used them the whole day... once society is introduced to a new idea, feature, product, ticketing option they are afraid... becuase society is afraid of change.
Is it fair that people with Visa cards in some cases can purchase tickets to concerts earlier then the public? is it fair that people who are a member of the RACQ get into Dreamworld early?
Life isn't fair... money talks... you got the bucks you get the perks.. easy as that.

Posted by Richard at 4:03pm, 15 Jan 09

This article is not about the issue of whether QBot is a valid addition to a theme park.

If you read it, then you'll see that the sole purpose of this article is to address the specific claims by its inventors and Dreamworld (along with other parks using it) that QBot is not queue jumping.

Posted by skeetafly at 4:11pm, 15 Jan 09

quote"It is ridiculous to think that introducing Q-Bots is queue jumping."
What do you call it if one guest actions directly have an impact on another guest time in the park?
quote"It is an amazing invention and simply gives consumer more choice."
I would not call it an amazing invention I prefer a pace maker or a bionic ear as an amazing invention.

quote"When entering a theme park you enter on the theme park terms... you don't like it... pay for the Q-Bot or don't go to the park."
When guest brought there annual passes last year they where not informed that the value from the park would be reduced unless they spent more money.

Posted by Lotl_90 at 8:35pm, 15 Jan 09

It all comes down to how you want to look at it really. Personally, I see that yes it may be reducing capacity on one or two rides for a short period of time, but realistically, even if the Q4U guest was standing in the queue line in front of you, you would still have to wait for them to ride before your turn. I dont see it as too much of a difference.

If people were actually not waiting for the ride and walking straight on and riding, yeah i'd have a problem too, but they are still waiting for the ride. A lot of Q4U guests show up early in an attempt to get on the ride early, and in every instance will be turned away, or told to wait until their designated time. If too many guests are booking for a ride or showing up at a ride, the 'Virtual line' is closed (so that no more bookings can be made) until it clears and the physical queue is reduced again so that the normal queue waiting guests arent made to wait longer than is fair. I think you really have to experience the system before you can make a clear cut decision.

Sure, it may be an excuse for dreamworld to drag every last cent out of the guest, but its just like any decision, It benefits the people who use it and the people who dont use it (for whatever reason) are going to whinge and complain.

I see both sides of the story, and im not discounting anyones POV, but im more inclined to run with the company on this one.

Posted by Shcotty at 2:51pm, 16 Jan 09

As for the queue jumping, the people with Q4U wait the same amount of time as they would have if they were in the queue and are also paying for the service of not having to stand in line. There is a limited number of units available each day and hopefully this number would vary depending on how many people are in the park on that given day so that there is a balance between virtual queuers and those standing in the line. I was there the week between Christmas and New Years with it in effect and chose not to buy it and managed to get on each ride at least once and that was in peak period. Not once did I think that people were jumping the line when I saw them go past. Infact I might actually get it so that I can fit more into my day next time I go.

Posted by qldtaw at 5:26pm, 16 Jan 09

QUOTE: 'I would not call it an amazing invention I prefer a pace maker or a bionic ear as an amazing invention'.

I thought this was a forum for Theme Parks and rides not medical forum?
As far as crowd crontrol goes and virtual queing name one other invention in this field that performs the same task. Being at Six Flags Great Adventure with one actually meant i got to go on most things.. without it i would have been hard pressed to get on half the rides. A device that allows me to view all rides and the times i can virtually queue for them along with reserve my spot from anywhere in the park... i call that pretty unique... wouldn't mind being the company that thought of it and a re reaping the benefits.

QUOTE: 'When guest brought there annual passes last year they where not informed that the value from the park would be reduced unless they spent more money'.

Mute point, it is standard practise with all 'anuual passes', concert tickets, anything like that, that the promoter can change features of the purcahsed product at their discretion. What about people that buy a three park superpass and on the day that they go to Movieworld Superman is not working and they don't get to ride it?
All theme parks reserve the right to close and open attractions where they see fit, which etexnds to pening hours, entry price.. and sorry add-ons like Q4U. They are well within their right to add them against their annual pass holders.

Posted by Gazza at 5:52pm, 16 Jan 09

QUOTE

As far as crowd crontrol goes and virtual queing name one other invention in this field that performs the same task.

Disney's Fastpass.

Posted by Original at 9:34am, 18 Jan 09

Well then I would say that the hydraulic launch is a a more amazing invention then Q-Bot.
While yes you are queing like everyone else, you are able to maybe have lunch, go on a few extra rides, this is therefore is unfair to the people who actually waited in line, Q4U holders are getiing on more ridesb than the average person like Richard said.
What about people who wanted buy one but are sold, or people who don't have a lot of money, they have saved up everything to go, only not to get the most out of their day becasue someone paid money they don't have to get more rides than them.
The thing is DW have low capacity rides and most staff their make no effort to at least load the rides as fast as possible unlike WVTP staff!

Posted by Gold Coaster at 3:36pm, 18 Jan 09

Hope they introduce these to Screamworld. Wait times at those events is a big turn-off for me which is why I never go anymore. Much as I love our parks at night, it just isn't worth it

Posted by kieron5379 at 12:59am, 20 Jan 09

The Q4U system is currently in use in every six flags in the United States. In great Adventure in Jersey the unit sells for $44.99 for one person on a standard unit and $89.99 for one person on a gold unit (which cuts 75% of the que time of ur waiting time). Some of the parks sell in excess of 1000 units a day. I think that $15 for one person at Dreamworld is not an unreasonable price to pay for the convenience of not having to stand in a que line. And the fact that the unit is only able to que for one ride at a time means that the user does not have the ability to "jump" que lines. Also, Original, this is not an issue about park staff. On a recent visit to Movieworld I found that the ride operator had bought a new pair of jeans the day before. So i don't think its particularly fair to blame somebody who day in, day out has to put up with people complaining about the heat and how they've had to line up for hours and they're day's ruined because they haven't got all of the rides in that they wanted to do.I think that all ride operators grin and bear alot regardless of what park they work in.
Overall, i think that the Q4U is a step in the right direction for the park. It shows that Dreamworld is grasping a concept that has taken off in the US and running with it. As with the issue of que jumping i feel that if someone wants to pay for the convenience of not having to stand in line but still wait the same time, then i say go for it. i certainly would.

Posted by skeetafly at 9:39am, 20 Jan 09

A lot of people are beating around the bush here. Richard ask do you think QBot is queue jumping and some posted have not addressed this question. Example “As with the issue of que jumping i feel that if someone wants to pay for the convenience of not having to stand in line but still wait the same time, then i say go for it. I certainly would.” This does not answer the question is QBot queue jumping. (its queue not que)

Posted by MichaelD at 9:36pm, 20 Jan 09

Yes, a QBot is queue jumping simply because it allows you to ride more rides than physically possible if you were to join the queues for real (the example of riding Claw and Wipeout whilst waiting out the virtual queue time on Cyclone is spot on the money and exactly how I would use a QBot).

So what?

I'm sorry, but I don't care about the hypothetical family who can't afford the QBot and how they are disadvantaged by QBot users. I am at a park to enjoy myself as much as possible. For me, that means maximizing the number of rides I take and if I can achieve this by the use of a QBot then I will if the QBot is priced appropriately.

If QBots fail to deliver (too many QBots, too highly priced, don't work properly) then they will not sell.

Posted by Richard at 9:53pm, 20 Jan 09

The only issue I have is with the fact that Dreamworld and Lo-Q choose to misleadingly advertise the system as not being queue jumping. Whether you're a supporter of Q4U or not (I personally am) doesn't change that this is deliberately skewing the truth so as to minimise potential upset from non-Q4U buyers.

That to me is an issue worth discussing.

Posted by JD_bunnies_supporter at 12:50pm, 21 Jan 09

i thought it was a good choice too, lol. considering, the motocoaster and the cyclone arent the greatest rollercoasters iv been on, and compared to the 3 at movieworld, it was easy to pick against dreamworld. althought ToT and the claw r great rides, all i been hearing is bad reports about this new q4u stuff at dreamworld. it sounds similar to disney's fast pass.

Posted by Spotty at 5:39pm, 21 Jan 09

Where have you been hearing all this bad stuff about the Q4U? All I've ever heard about it is praise, and having used it myself before it does come in handy. Although as much as Dreamworld says it's not queue jumping. It is

My usual cycle if I have the Q-Bot is, Reserve either Cyclone or the Tower, and go on smaller rides like The Claw or Wipeout.

Posted by SuperYoshi at 6:26pm, 21 Jan 09

QUOTE

My usual cycle if I have the Q-Bot is, Reserve either Cyclone or the Tower, and go on smaller rides like The Claw or Wipeout.

Thats what people hate about it . You see here is a scenario:

You reserve your spot with TOT. Another guy walks into TOT and starts to line up. You go on the claw and the wipeout, meanwhile that other guy is still in the heat waiting. Then you go to the tower. Hes just about to go on, but then you arrive and take his place, then he has to wait another load, before he can get on. Its simply the case of people (that have Q4U) being able to explore the park, while other people that either, wanted to get one but they were sold out, didnt have enough money or just didnt know about it ,and didnt get one, have to wait in the heat and only move every once and awhile!

Even you said it was queue jumping

Hope this helps,
Movie_World

EDIT:

This is what Richard said in the article he made:

QUOTE

The problem is that this argument against queue jumping is flawed.

Let's say a family decides it wants to ride Cyclone and they load it up on the device. It tells them to come back in an hour. With an hour to spare, they head over to The Claw and enter its queue for say 20 minutes before riding it. With 40 minutes to spare they then walk over to Wipeout and give it a ride. With that, they head back to Cyclone and walk right up to the front and hop on the ride. They're riding with people who made the decision to enter the queue at the same time that they logged the decision on their Q4U device.

Wow, the system works. Q4U is great, and best of all, it inconveniences no one!

With that out of the way, let's look at a similar scenario.

A family walks up to Cyclone. After a bit of dismay at the length of the queue, Dad really wants to ride so he sticks around and enters the queue. Meanwhile, Mum and the kids head off to The Claw, queue and ride it. A quick phone call to Dad to find out where he is, he tells them he's only halfway through the queue. Then the rest of the family checks out Wipeout. After they ride that they give Dad a ring and he tells them he's nearly at the front. The rest of the family thinks that's perfect and decide to meet him there. So they barge through the queue to where Dad is and in no time they're on the ride.

Hang on... that definitely sounds like queue jumping, right? Well, apparently giving the park $20 makes it not.

Posted by tipsy_bella at 9:26pm, 21 Jan 09

This is not mistakingly advertised. Check how the systems overseas have advertised it and it is exactly the same. I think you are all forgetting, you are paying for the privilege of booking a place virtually and then going on more attractions. The system is available to all guests also, so everybody has the option of Q4U.

Some of you are very anti Dreamworld currently - are you trying to tell me if Movie World introduced the system (for Batwing, Superman, Shrek 4D, Wild West, Scooby Doo, HSD, Lethal Weapon) to some of you would be the best idea WVTP could of made.

Posted by SuperYoshi at 10:19pm, 21 Jan 09

QUOTE

The system is available to all guests also

It is limited....

QUOTE

Some of you are very anti Dreamworld currently - are you trying to tell me if Movie World introduced the system (for Batwing, Superman, Shrek 4D, Wild West, Scooby Doo, HSD, Lethal Weapon) to some of you would be the best idea WVTP could of made.

(I think everyone, that thinks Q4U is Queue Jumping, would say this, if not correct me)

No, we would still think that its queue jumping. Its not just the Q4U that so "great" about Dreamworld... and were also not saying that Movie World is the heaven of all of the theme parks, it has some problems to, but its a hell lot better than Dreamworld. Just look at the 'Favorite Theme Park 2009 Poll' and theres some reasons.or look at this thread about why were being so anti-dreamworld

But other than that welcome to the site.

Posted by joz at 10:29pm, 21 Jan 09

Here's what really ticks me off about Q4U: When they were selling out like hotcakes, instead of capping the numbers to preserve the experience of other guests and making the same money on a better margin by raising the price, they just started selling more. What is the point of it being an upcharge if nearly everyone in the park has them?

As far as I'm concerned, they should be $50 with a $10 charge for every extra person and strictly limited in number. If they sell out, raise the price again. Basicly it comes down to this: Its a premium service, and it should be treated as such to preserve the experience of those who don't buy them, or it should be free for everyone (Disney style). Charging entry, then charging extra to be able to have fair access to the rides is a bad for customer service.

Also, it is line jumping no matter how you look at it, and MW should not get it. Even durning Xmas at MW queues don't get much beyond 40mins, and for the rest of the year rarely extend beyond 10mins, so its a redundent service at MW.

Posted by Spotty at 12:40am, 22 Jan 09

Well, the "They didn't know about it" Excuse couldn't work as there is PLENTY of signage about the devices. Even an audio speil at the front gate mentioning it. I have never even heard a person in the normal queue line complaining about it either.

They also only allow a certain amount of people to have a ride reserved at any one time so that the normal wait time isn't delayed by much.

Posted by SuperYoshi at 12:45am, 22 Jan 09

QUOTE

Well, the "They didn't know about it" Excuse couldn't work as there is PLENTY of signage about the devices. Even an audio speil at the front gate mentioning it. I have never even heard a person in the normal queue line complaining about it either.

I have " Are they cutting... Im going to report this... $@*#^ cut in front of us."
and theres a Q4U sign in front of them

QUOTE

They also only allow a certain amount of people to have a ride reserved at any one time so that the normal wait time isn't delayed by much.

Yes but it is still delayed, isnt it?

Anyway thats what all the bad stuff about Q4U is, Well in mosts peoples opinion!

Posted by Spotty at 1:00am, 22 Jan 09

By what... 5 minutes at the max unless the ride breaks down. I am in the park almost every day and I have never heard anyone complaining about it. Apart from someone harrassing a guy in a food and bev outlet about "This peice of crap isn't working, it wont let me cancel the ride!" And there was ALOT of swearing involved and the poor guy had no idea what to do! But yeah, Apart from that very pissed off guest, I have not really heard anything bad about it.

Posted by SuperYoshi at 10:52am, 22 Jan 09

QUOTE

By what... 5 minutes at the max unless the ride breaks down

Hmm, your right about how its not delayed much. But im trying to point out that it is still queue jumping; you have acknowledged this point already though. Like Richard wrote:

QUOTE

apparently giving the park $20 makes it not

Posted by Spotty at 9:54pm, 22 Jan 09

We get the point that it is Queue Jumping mate, and if you don't like the fact of having to wait an extra 5 minutes because you didn't feel like coughing up a few extra dollars for a perk. That is your choice.

Posted by Gazza at 10:05pm, 22 Jan 09

QUOTE

Yes but it is still delayed, isnt it?

No.

Lets say that there are 400 people in a queue for a ride, and the park doesn't have Q4U.
Lets just say the ride takes 800pph, so therefore the queue is 30 minutes.

However, lets just say that 50 people have Q4U units. They are no longer in the queue, so there are only 350 people in line. Therefore the queue time is now only 26 minutes 15 seconds.

Those 50 Q4U people would take 3min 45 seconds to clear if they decided to do them all at once.

So add them back together, and people are still waiting the same amount of time as before.

Posted by SuperYoshi at 10:20pm, 22 Jan 09

QUOTE

No.Lets say that there are 400 people in a queue for a ride, and the park doesn't have Q4U.
Lets just say the ride takes 800pph, so therefore the queue is 30 minutes.
However, lets just say that 50 people have Q4U units. They are no longer in the queue, so there are only 350 people in line. Therefore the queue time is now only 26 minutes 15 seconds.
Those 50 Q4U people would take 3min 45 seconds to clear if they decided to do them all at once.
So add them back together, and people are still waiting the same amount of time as before.

Oh... great explanation!

Posted by MichaelD at 5:16pm, 24 Jan 09

QUOTE (Gazza @ Jan 22 2009, 10:05 PM)

However, lets just say that 50 people have Q4U units. They are no longer in the queue, so there are only 350 people in line. Therefore the queue time is now only 26 minutes 15 seconds.

Those 50 Q4U people would take 3min 45 seconds to clear if they decided to do them all at once.

So add them back together, and people are still waiting the same amount of time as before.

Erm, not so.

Those 50 people are more than likely in line for another ride, adding to the other ride's wait time. Q4U allows you to effectively queue in 2 lines at one; one real line and one virtual line.

Speaking from personal experience, we used Q4U a couple of days ago. This allowed us to get through all the rides at Dreamworld that we wanted to do in 1/2 the time it would normally take us, as we virtually queued in the longer lines and physically queued in the shorter lines at the same time.

A guest without Q4U undoubtedly would take longer to complete the park - eg they're waiting in line exclusively for Tower of Terror for 1 hour when we walk right on after having done several other rides during the waiting time.

I personally will never go to Dreamworld again without a Q4U.

(Oh, and according to the Q4U person, DW now have 147 units and she said the park could take a maximum of 200).

Posted by Gazza at 5:55pm, 24 Jan 09

^The point I was making was that the Q4U people wont delay the line you are in (Unless they decided they want to double up, and physically queue for the same ride they are in the virtual queue for)

I guess the real issue is increased demand for rides at the park in general, and the behaviour of Q4U users. So long as the Q4U people always virtually queue on the attractions where the device is enabled, then there shouldn't be any real issues because all that is happening is you are shifting them out and putting them back in again at the end.
They are free to go ride other things, but the other stuff at the park isn't popular anyway, so the only thing that will change is that say Gravitron will have all spaces taken instead of half of them, and the Vintage cars will have a 4 minute queue instead of a 2 minute queue.

PS, I moved some posts here because they fit the topic.

As for the question originally posed. Yeah, you can sort of see how it is queue jumping, but at the same time, if you changed a few words around then Fastpass could be made to be queue jumping too.

I still think it is stupid for the reason that a small park in global terms should even have these sort of queue problems. As Joz said, there is no need for it to go to the WVTP parks because it is a redundant feature, why have it at MW when SDSC is the only thing it would be useful on?

Posted by glennborthwick at 11:48am, 28 Jan 09

For some it is, but I would say only a small proportion would choose to go line up on other rides. As a parent when I use a qbot I want to sit in the shade, see the shops, get a drink, get some food. Its a fantastic product. It was so good that I decided to buy shares in the company who made it.

Posted by iwerks at 8:35pm, 29 Mar 09

I don't have a problem with Q-bots and Q4U type stuff as long as it doesn't become a two class system with 'gold class' being twice the price of normal. Is it queue jumping - yes. Is it legal - yes. I'd like to see how Dreamworld handles the different entry points.

(I just have a problem with posting comments - ignore the above.)