Originally Posted By Rebekah This topic is for discussion of the 5/12/2003 news item <b><a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-asecdisney11051103may11,0,5579931.story" target="_blank">OrSen: No-fly zones shield Disney's resorts</a></b> The May 11th <I>Orlando Sentinel</I> talks about the FAA's decision to make the areas above Disneyland and Walt Disney World no-fly zones.
Originally Posted By kennect This is an interesting topic...Is it really a question of security or just Disney just trying to make sure it protects itself from a business standpoint? I personally want to think I like the idea of such regardless....
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think Disney has been trying to get this passed for years and it took a tragedy like this for them to spin it their way. Everyone knows how much of a control freak the Mouse House is when it comes to show. Most experts agree that closing the airspace over WDW isn't going to help unless they have defense missles around property or fighters in the air to control things. Now we are all going to be safe from that MetLife blimp!
Originally Posted By patmk22 wahoo, i think that's a good point. if someone is planning on doing something nasty to WDW with a plane, i'm willing to bet they don't care if there is a no-fly zone or not. it is really just another measure to make the public feel safe and perhaps for disney to jump at the chance to clear the airspace of other unwanted yet non-threatening craft.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'd feel safer if airplanes weren't allowed to fly over my house but I am not going to get the government to agree to it.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Now we are all going to be safe from that MetLife blimp!<<< THAT'S probably closer to the truth (or at least the reason for intense lobbying from the DisCo folks anyway). I read somewhere about how SeaWorld once sent a blimp "down low and under radar" to perch right above EPCOT's "world showcase lagoon"... I heard the lagoon show was cancelled cause of that. Any truth to this rumor?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: Just in case a ducklin' er two out there might be in'trested ta know, this new fly zone thing don't affect us no way, no how! We's exempt from the flyin' ban. So yer still gonna' be able ta ketch my high flyin' smoke writin' in the sky act from time ta time! (And since my big fat sister, Orwen, ain't NEVER been able ta git her broom more 'n 3 feet off the ground, anyways, ya can bet this REALLY don't affect HER!)
Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire uhh the last two times I went to Disney, I heard and saw two planes!!! Whats with that? Were they authorized military jets or what?
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic My two cents on this matter are contained in a Letter to the Editor published in the Orlando Sentinel today, Tuesday, 20th May 2003. It's text is reproduced below: A NECESSARY DECISION Regarding the recent article detailing the special provisions for making no-fly zones over Disney parks: I am surprised that there is any controversy whatsoever over the matter. This is not a matter of favoritism. It is a consequence of the nature of a terrorist war. Terrorists usually cannot compete in military or police force with the country they attack.Terrorist tactics exploit the freedom and interconnectivity of democratic society and media to deliver a primarily psychological blow to their victims and targets. The point of any attack is to instill fear and anxiety. Thus, in a kind of calculation, national symbols such as the World Trade Center's twin towers are prized targets. So would be Independence Hall in Philadelphia or the Liberty Bell. So would be the Golden Gate Bridge. And so would be Disney World or Disneyland. In short, terrorism is about bringing limited means and the horror of war to a civilian target. In that respect, highly visible and well-known places like Disney World are military targets in terms of this war. It is heartening to see Congress capable of reasoning consistently to that degree. Any probable military target deserves protection. Thus, despite the rationale and arguments and reasons decided behind closed doors, extending such airspace protection to the Disney parks is simply the right thing to do. Although my address is Endicott, N.Y., my wife and I own a significant timeshare condominium on Disney property. It is our "home" since, in New York, we rent an apartment. Thus, we feel a part of the Lake Buena Vista community, and it is the reason we read the Sentinel regularly and feel we have something to say. Jan Theodore Galkowski Endicott, N.Y.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, that is crap. No offense. Any pilot will tell you that it would take less than a minute for a plane flying out of WDW airspace to get in and attack any of the parks. No fighter pilot is going to be able to get in the air and bring down a plane that breaks that airspace. I think WDCo. used a sensitive issue, National Security, to get something that they wanted long before anyone heard the name Bin Laden.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic Okay, speaking of agendas, why should my time enjoying the DisneyWorld parks be distracted or polluted by someone taking a joy ride in a plane? I prefer a clean sky, thank you very much, and just because a person has a pilot's license doesn't mean they have the right to impose their presence -- or advertising -- on folks while they're on holiday. I oppose any flights over DisneyWorld for the same reason people don't allow billboards in some neighborhoods.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Billboards aren't allowed in some neighborhoods because of zoning regulations. I don't know of any neighborhoods that can restrict their airspace. The neighborhood I work in, as upscale as it is, cannot ban airplanes from flying overhead. The question is where do you draw the line? A factory employs thousands of people. Should the airspace over it be restricted?
