A Spirited Valentine ...

[thehowiet]

Not we. Me. And that's not what I said. I get you are desperate to bash the mouse. I get it. It's weird, but I get it. However, if you look back at what I said, you'll see that your comment is far off base.

I said, if it's true, then Exploder needs to move this beyond these forums. He seems to have information that the general public does not. People are going to die. This is serious.

But....

If he made it up from whole cloth, then he's moved past simply using exaggeration to make a point, and into just plain lying. About serious stuff that will impact people. I think that's trolling and grounds for being banned.

FWIW, that's not a defense or an indictment of Disney. It's about this poster and information he's claiming to be privy to.

This appears to be a hot button issue for you, so my apologies if I upset you.

 

[xdan0920]

This appears to be a hot button issue for you, so my apologies if I upset you.

Not accepted.

That's back to back condescending posts. I'm guessing you're about to go 3 for 3 too.

 

[Mike S]

There's no reason some of these projects on HKDL's expansion plan couldn't be moved up, but at this point, they have to be approved - and as far as I know, none have been as of yet.

You've got to be kidding me. They announced something that's not even approved yet? Unbelievable. That's even worse than the early announcement for Avatar!!! We all know Hong Kong needs this desperately.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

You've got to be kidding me. They announced something that's not even approved yet? Unbelievable. That's even worse than the early announcement for Avatar!!! We all know Hong Kong needs this desperately.

The government has to approve the expansions, and so far, there has been so vocal reluctance. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[DDLand]

You've got to be kidding me. They announced something that's not even approved yet? Unbelievable. That's even worse than the early announcement for Avatar!!! We all know Hong Kong needs this desperately.

So like the American system of Government, Hong Kong has legislative and executive organs. Each provide checks on the other.

Note there's increasingly strong interference by Beijing, especially in the courts, but that shouldn't have a significant or any impact on this matter.

The executive branch worked out this agreement with The Walt Disney Company, and has already hammered out some general details. The final approval, on the other hand, for funding and commencement has to come from the Legislative Council which has received the proposal coldly.

They're questioning whether this is the most prudent use of funds when HKDL has yet to make money, and whether there are other more distinctly Hong Kong tourism ventures that could be developed. Uncertainties with the integrity of Walt Disney Company are also being raised, based on the assertion it is simply enriching itself on the backs of Hong Kong taxpayers. There's even calls by some in government for divestment.

The Hong Kong Executive Branch contends that the park doesn't actually have to make tons of money because the livelihoods of Hong Kong citizens and industry are improved by the presence of Disneyland.

I expect the expansion will go through, but they're taking time and not moving aggressively when this park simply cannot handle delays.

Shanghai has much less rigorous public process to go through, that's why we didn't hear about Toy Story Land until ground was breaking. They can move like that because of a totally different political structure.

Ha, imagine trying to get Star Wars Land through congress!

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is what I remembered reading:

Which seems reasonable. Sort of a temporary rush job lines up with what we're seeing on the ground even months after opening. He also said this in early 2016, which was quite impressive he was calling this issue from then.

It also makes Tom Morris's treatment all the more unimpressive.

Finishes go beyond just paint and of course the materials that are painted are also of concern. Huge chunks of the park already looked years old only months after opening.

You've got to be kidding me. They announced something that's not even approved yet? Unbelievable. That's even worse than the early announcement for Avatar!!! We all know Hong Kong needs this desperately.

The whole point of announcing early was to generate public interest and pressure on the government. It's not an entirely improper move since the public should be aware of how their tax dollars are being spent. Circusmstances however means that it really reinforces all the negative perceptions towards Disney.

 

[FigmentJedi]

So like the American system of Government, Hong Kong has legislative and executive organs. Each provide checks on the other.

Note there's increasingly strong interference by Beijing, especially in the courts, but that shouldn't have a significant or any impact on this matter.

The executive branch worked out this agreement with The Walt Disney Company, and has already hammered out some general details. The final approval, on the other hand, for funding and commencement has to come from the Legislative Council which has received the proposal coldly.

They're questioning whether this is the most prudent use of funds when HKDL has yet to make money, and whether there are other more distinctly Hong Kong tourism ventures that could be developed. Uncertainties with the integrity of Walt Disney Company are also being raised, based on the assertion it is simply enriching itself on the backs of Hong Kong taxpayers. There's even calls by some in government for divestment.

The Hong Kong Executive Branch contends that the park doesn't actually have to make tons of money because the livelihoods of Hong Kong citizens and industry are improved by the presence of Disneyland.

I expect the expansion will go through, but they're taking time and not moving aggressively when this park simply cannot handle delays.

Shanghai has much less rigorous public process to go through, that's why we didn't hear about Toy Story Land until ground was breaking. They can move like that because of a totally different political structure.

Ha, imagine trying to get Star Wars Land through congress!

Basically why Disney never built Walt's Epcot in a nutshell.

 

[flynnibus]

the irony is it's titled 'valentines'... yet this thread has been nothing but bickering for the last few pages.

Somethings you just keep on driving past... there are no points for proving the obvious.

 

[SorcererMC]

I'm relatively new here, but I did vaguely remember the Shanghai Disneyland/Chinese tourist issue (ETA: with video) from an old Spirited thread (July 2016)....(oddly enough, the condition of Space Mountain was discussed on the same page). So I guess we've come full circle.
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/...mes-takes-anaheim.915452/page-19#post-7316465

 

[MisterPenguin]

oddly enough, the condition of Space Mountain was discussed on the same page

It's not odd. The same people keeping bringing it up any chance they get though it not be the topic of the thread. In their mind, it's their smoking gun of why Disney should be hated and they're just waiting for the accident that vindicates their long-simmering rage.

 

[SorcererMC]

It's not odd. The same people keeping bringing it up any chance they get though it not be the topic of the thread.

I knew the video of the Chinese tourists was around here somewhere....found it, and also found chatter about SM.
Did you click the link? Several posters on that page talking about the condition of SM, none of whom is @ford91exploder.
Just pointing out that it is normal fodder for Spirited Threads - which should not be a surprise to anyone here.

 

[asianway]

@WDW1974 There was some chatter on another thread of Epcot being renamed. Is this piece of info mistaken for the rumored Future World rename? Or will the actual park? I can't see them changing it for a variety of important reasons. Any insight?

Merf floated a rumor that it was going back to EPCOT Center

 

[Haymarket2008]

Merf floated a rumor that it was going back to EPCOT Center

That would be wonderful. Cast my vote.

 

[October82]

Merf floated a rumor that it was going back to EPCOT Center

I'd love to believe this, but it isn't exactly consistent with Disney's M.O. or the almost certain future of this park as IPcot.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I'd love to believe this, but it isn't exactly consistent with Disney's M.O. or the almost certain future of this park as IPcot.

Its full name will be "The Epcot Center For Misfit IP Attractions"

 

[DDLand]

Merf floated a rumor that it was going back to EPCOT Center

So this is the "Dream Big" plan...

1) Disney destroys the last vestiges of a once great park.

2) Disney rules out of hand any attractions that actually fit the purpose of the park. "Who wouldn't," they ask, "that Disney Park isn't very Disney®."

3) Disney builds new rides that cartoonify and lesson the intellectual strength of the park.

4) In order to make everyone okay with this (and sell tons of merchandise) they pull a Polynesian Village and change the name back to something that actually meant something. That had heart and mission.

I'm actually against the change back. Let it Rest In Peace. They took the Mona Lisa of theme parks and threw Nemo and Rocket Racoon in there. It's simply not the same thing.

EPCOT Center is gone.



Edit: I'd also add this is in no way directed to @asianway, you're just the messenger.

 

[Nmoody1]

So like the American system of Government, Hong Kong has legislative and executive organs. Each provide checks on the other.

Note there's increasingly strong interference by Beijing, especially in the courts, but that shouldn't have a significant or any impact on this matter.

The executive branch worked out this agreement with The Walt Disney Company, and has already hammered out some general details. The final approval, on the other hand, for funding and commencement has to come from the Legislative Council which has received the proposal coldly.

They're questioning whether this is the most prudent use of funds when HKDL has yet to make money, and whether there are other more distinctly Hong Kong tourism ventures that could be developed. Uncertainties with the integrity of Walt Disney Company are also being raised, based on the assertion it is simply enriching itself on the backs of Hong Kong taxpayers. There's even calls by some in government for divestment.

The Hong Kong Executive Branch contends that the park doesn't actually have to make tons of money because the livelihoods of Hong Kong citizens and industry are improved by the presence of Disneyland.

I expect the expansion will go through, but they're taking time and not moving aggressively when this park simply cannot handle delays.

Shanghai has much less rigorous public process to go through, that's why we didn't hear about Toy Story Land until ground was breaking. They can move like that because of a totally different political structure.

Ha, imagine trying to get Star Wars Land through congress!

We're gonna build a Millennium Falcon, and we are going to make the Empire pay for it!

I also believe that the HK government want longer exclusivity rights on the new build stuff than what is currently being offered?

 

[Lets Respect]

I appreciate the info on Space Mountain. It's not one of our faves anyway, so I think we'll be skipping it from now on
I don't find it that surprising really. This happens with old bridges all of the time. They are deemed safe until poof one day they are closed hopefully before they collapse

 

[rushtest4echo]

People complained about the way Disneyland treated their rides back in the 90s and for a while nothing changed. You know when it started to change? When upkeep was so poor on Thunder Mountain that the train literally derailed and crushed a young man in the front seat. The sad part is telling most basic Disney people, even those in Guest Relations, isn't going to do anything. They will first deny anything like that and then tell the guest not to worry about such things.

Let me be clear once again. Disneyland's maintenance policies in the last 90's were not the cause of that accident. Disneyland adopted two "controversial" policies that people feel contributed to the accident, one of which actually did but was not related to maintenance. The first policy was to clear the inventory/stockpile of replacement parts and only order the ones that were immediately necessary. This led to a delay in receiving parts in a timely manner. This did not, however, result in any unsafe operations or maintenance practices. It simply meant that Disneyland of the late 90's had a rash of almost daily downtimes that lasted for significantly longer because of a lack of needed replacement parts. Some items literally needed to be shipped overnight around the globe to get a ride open after a part failure. If a part was beyond it's shelf life or it broke, the ride was closed or the train in question was not permitted to run. Still, this downtime caused people to assume that maintenance was being deferred- it was quite the opposite in reality. If you think Disney's maintenance would put the liability on themselves for running an unsafe ride, then you've clearly never worked there. They are the most litigious people on earth policy wise. There is always an amount of blame that goes around during downtimes or incidents, and maintenance has always striven to avoid being 'charged' for anything that results in an problem. This policy is still in place at WDW and DLR. I don't think it's the most efficient or effective policy to order parts only when needed, but it does not affect safety. It affects downtime and causes deferred maintenance on non-safety and non-ride system stuff.

The policy that DID result in Thunder Mtn's infamous death was that CM's were completely lax in reporting maintenance issues. They were also relied on to add/remove trains (from nearly all rides at Disney, a practice which is unheard of anywhere else). When a part failed, Cast Members did not call maintenance and instead decided that if the train continued to make an abnormal noise that they would pull the train and then call maintenance. Early in my career, I was an operations trainer at a SoCal park, and we also strictly enforced this policy. Just to clear up a related point- if you think that maintenance is supposed to catch and correct ALL ride safety issues before the ride opens for the day- you're clearly never operated a ride or any other piece of heavy machinery. Things break, sometimes at random intervals that maintenance can't account for. At my park, I personally knew the maintenance guys around my operations areas and talked with them on an almost daily basis during mornings before park opening. They fixed 99% of failed parts/ride problems during off hours, but they can't be expected to make everything perfect all of the time. It's just the nature of a big machine with thousands of sensors and moving parts that runs hundreds of times a day. It's like your car- you can have perfect maintenance on it yet parts will still fail. Same with airliners- even the best maintained plane is going to have parts that need replacing or fail before their MTBF has been met. This is why planes are grounded and why you have a mechanic look at your car.

Back to Thunder though, anything unusual- E-stop without question. It was the policy before and hasn't changed. This was a major violation of policy when they decided to run the ride anyway. While CM's had the right (under the direction of leads/coordinators/whatever they're at DL called now) to add/remove trains for capacity and staffing reasons- the policy was quite clear for abnormal noises. E-stop the ride, immediately, at all times. Worry about evacuating guests and powering back up after the ride has been inspected by maintenance. Instead, the ride vehicle was dispatched with riders, which unfortunately meant the end of a guests life. It's horrible, and was a shocking violation of operations policy. The (foolish) policy allowing CM's to transfer ride vehicles remains in place and has led to many close calls on Thunder Mtn, California Screamin, Splash Mtn, Matterhorn and others (this is just the stuff I've been told through the grapevine, nothing official) but the policy is flawed and is still in place at all Disney parks except Tokyo. However, the policy that led to the accident, which was a failure to E-stop the ride and call maintenance, has been drilled into operations CM's since that horrible tragedy. Anything abnormal should trigger an immediate E-stop- every time, no hesitation. That was the policy before the accident, and it remains in place after- it's just emphasized far more now.

And just to be clear, complaining to Guest Relations about alleged poor maintenance practices resulting in unsafe conditions is utterly idiotic. It's like complaining to Delta's guest relations if hear that Delta is flying aircraft with a recalled part. You'd obviously call the FAA for that. If you feel/felt there's an issue with Disneyland's upkeep/safety- please let CalOSHA know about it. While I don't care for their version oversight, the fact remains that they do have the authority to investigate claims of that sort. If Disneyland truly engaged in a multi-year scheme to defer maintenance and allow rides to operate in an unsafe manner, Disneyland would be raked across the regulatory coals and publicly crucified. But that never happened... Nor will it.

 

[Nubs70]

Let me be clear once again. Disneyland's maintenance policies in the last 90's were not the cause of that accident. Disneyland adopted two "controversial" policies that people feel contributed to the accident, one of which actually did but was not related to maintenance. The first policy was to clear the inventory/stockpile of replacement parts and only order the ones that were immediately necessary. This led to a delay in receiving parts in a timely manner. This did not, however, result in any unsafe operations or maintenance practices. It simply meant that Disneyland of the late 90's had a rash of almost daily downtimes that lasted for significantly longer because of a lack of needed replacement parts. Some items literally needed to be shipped overnight around the globe to get a ride open after a part failure. If a part was beyond it's shelf life or it broke, the ride was closed or the train in question was not permitted to run. Still, this downtime caused people to assume that maintenance was being deferred- it was quite the opposite in reality. If you think Disney's maintenance would put the liability on themselves for running an unsafe ride, then you've clearly never worked there. They are the most litigious people on earth policy wise. There is always an amount of blame that goes around during downtimes or incidents, and maintenance has always striven to avoid being 'charged' for anything that results in an problem. This policy is still in place at WDW and DLR. I don't think it's the most efficient or effective policy to order parts only when needed, but it does not affect safety. It affects downtime and causes deferred maintenance on non-safety and non-ride system stuff.

The policy that DID result in Thunder Mtn's infamous death was that CM's were completely lax in reporting maintenance issues. They were also relied on to add/remove trains (from nearly all rides at Disney, a practice which is unheard of anywhere else). When a part failed, Cast Members did not call maintenance and instead decided that if the train continued to make an abnormal noise that they would pull the train and then call maintenance. This was a major violation of policy. While CM's had the right (under the direction of leads/coordinators/whatever they're at DL called now) to add/remove trains for capacity and staffing reasons- the policy was quite clear for abnormal noises. E-stop the ride, immediately, at all times. Worry about evacuating guests and powering back up after the ride has been inspected by maintenance. Instead, the ride vehicle was dispatched with riders, which unfortunately meant the end of a guests life. It's horrible, and was a shocking violation of operations policy. The (foolish) policy allowing CM's to transfer ride vehicles remains in place and has led to many close calls on Thunder Mtn, California Screamin, Splash Mtn, Matterhorn and others (this is just the stuff I've been told through the grapevine, nothing official) but the policy is flawed and is still in place at all Disney parks except Tokyo. However, the policy that led to the accident, which was a failure to E-stop the ride and call maintenance, has been drilled into operations CM's since that horrible tragedy. Anything abnormal should trigger an immediate E-stop- every time, no hesitation. That was the policy before the accident, and it remains in place after- it's just emphasized far more now.

And just to be clear, complaining to Guest Relations about alleged poor maintenance practices resulting in unsafe conditions is utterly idiotic. It's like complaining to Delta's guest relations if hear that Delta is flying aircraft with a recalled part. You'd obviously call the FAA for that. If you feel/felt there's an issue with Disneyland's upkeep/safety- please let CalOSHA know about it. While I don't care for their version oversight, the fact remains that they do have the authority to investigate claims of that sort. If Disneyland truly engaged in a multi-year scheme to defer maintenance and allow rides to operate in an unsafe manner, Disneyland would be raked across the regulatory coals and publicly crucified. But that never happened... Nor will it.

Being that lack of parts on hand leads to extensive downtime, would not ride operators be implicitly compelled to operate ride longer than they would if replacement parts were readily available?

Deferred maintenance by omission?

I see this in my business where things do not run properly and are not inherently unsafe at the time, but are still allowed to run in the hopes the replacement part arrives before failure.