Santa Raccoon 77
Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
Nope not proof that maintenance has been reduced. Just proof something fell off.The proof landed on asphalt, not concrete.
Still waiting.
Nope not proof that maintenance has been reduced. Just proof something fell off.The proof landed on asphalt, not concrete.
That's proof that it happened, not proof of what caused it.
I got your joke...I guess that one went right past you, but if you're demanding less funny and more serious you can just start here.
I guess that one went right past you, but if you're demanding less funny and more serious you can just start here.
I guess that one went right past you, but if you're demanding less funny and more serious you can just start here.
Cosmetically, they are not being maintained as they should be.
It's a real shame, and it really bothers me.
Having said that, we don't know without any real proof if mechanical maintenance has been reduced.
The piece falling off in and of itself isn't actual proof.
But, perhaps mechanical maintenance is reduced.
Well, "Don" is obviously a wdwmagic member.lol.
Worn carpet = lack of safety maintenance.
That makes perfect sense.
It could become a trip hazard.
On the door?
There's really no way to provide proof unless you are on payroll and have visibility into the maintenance schedule. It's an easy assumption to make though that if they aren't maintaining the appearance, they probably are not investing in more than what's necessary to keep it running. When you want to deflate an argument, the best way to do that is to demand evidence that can't be provided and use that demand as your stick.
There's a door with carpet on it?
I was just going off your post.
Yes, the article showed a photo with fabric on the door that was worn.
I'm not trying to deflate the argument.There's really no way to provide proof unless you are on payroll and have visibility into the maintenance schedule. It's an easy assumption to make though that if they aren't maintaining the appearance, they probably are not investing in more than what's necessary to keep it running. When you want to deflate an argument, the best way to do that is to demand evidence that can't be provided and use that demand as your stick.
I'm not trying to deflate the argument.
Without actual evidence, we can only speculate.
The cosmetic stuff, we can see - we know that isn't being done.
What is the likelihood that instead of ever seeing a new fleet, we will see Gondolas replace the Epcot beams in the next 5-10 years, and the 12 trains cannibalized into 6-10 +spare-parts to support the 7SL beams?
Would be a sad day - but unfortunately seems more practical.
Indeed they are. But definitely a possibility depending on how the gondolas are received.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.