Walt Disney World bientôt à vendre?

For Sale, 1BR 1BA

A little birdie whispered something disturbing in my ear recently: imagine if the Disney World you know and love was gone in a quarter century. Oh, there would be the same parks there to visit, but what if they were run by someone other than Disney, in the model of the Disney Stores or the Tokyo Disney resort? What if someone else controlled the hotels, ran the restaurants, and, as blasphemous as it seems to us right now, also operated the parks and rides themselves, and Disney only collected a licensing fee?

We may yet see that, friends and neighbors. What could cause Disney to give up its precious cash cow? Why, the cash cow no longer making money hand over fist, of course. And what kind of impossible scenario could create that, where Disney World no longer made money? Well, it's not impossible after all, but it's certainly nightmarish: the oil crunch possibly heading our way.

There are wildly different accounts and interpretations of what kind of future we might be facing regarding oil. There are prognosticators who confidently predict that not only has the world used up less than half of the 'proven reserves' out there, but that we're finding more all the time (indeed, that's almost a direct quote from Bill Nye in Epcot's Energy pavilion). But at the other end of the spectrum, people are making more and more noise about 'peak oil', also called Hubbert's Peak, named after a Shell geologist who predicted, correctly, that US production of oil would peak and then decline in the 1970s, and predicted a world peak in 1995. Hubbert was obviously off about world production, which is still climbing, but some experts warn that the 1970s oil instability caused the delay, and that the peak will be reached any day now (indeed, some claim it's happened already).
Big deal, you may be thinking, we still have half the oil left! Not so fast. China, India, and the emerging countries now gobble oil, whereas before they only sipped. Much worse is the fact that the remaining oil is much harder to obtain and much, MUCH more costly. The result, these folks claim, is that oil prices could rise sharply higher, and the entire economy take a turn for the worst. On a dime. Permanently. We're talking $200 barrels of oil (it's around $70 now, and was at $40 only a few years ago, and an incredible $10 in the late 1990s). The news only gets worse--as inventories shrink and demand STILL goes up, remembering that other countries will continue to need more energy, the prices will soar ever more. The really bad predictions say all this could occur in the span of just a year or two, once it starts. Remember, experts vary wildly on whether this event will even occur.

But Disney, understandably, is nervous. Shortly after 9/11 rocked the economy and put a very sizeable dent in airline travel, Disney re-examined its assumptions about the business it was in, and commissioned an internal study in the past couple of years, hiring a major investment banking and consulting firm to help them drum up scenarios. Not wanting to repeat the tourist shock of 9/11, Disney wanted to know what the future might bring. What's the worst-case scenario, they asked?

Turns out there are some pretty bad scenarios. The hired accountants brought back a picture of Disney World that no one wanted to hear. As you might suspect, there does come a time at which point oil is so expensive that Disney World ceases to make money. That part is intuitive enough--just imagine oil costing a hypothetical $2,000 per barrel, and a flight from Los Angeles costing $40,000. No one would fly to Disney World, right? To bring the numbers back to reality, the breaking point at which Disney World would no longer make money is much closer than we think: something less than $200/barrel of oil, perhaps as low as $160/barrel. True, that's more than twice the current level. But if you'd told me in 1999 that oil would vault from $10 to $70 in less than a decade, a seven-fold increase, and people would simply accept it, then I wouldn't have believed that either.

If you want to scare yourself--badly--then pick up a book called The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler, or just read the excerpts at www.rollingstone.com for the short version. Kunstler is at the far extreme end of pessimists on this oil peak business, and he's envisioning nothing less than the breakdown of society and a return to rural living. Cities would first contract, then die out entirely. Oil, it turns out, is needed not just for cars and planes, but trucks to move goods and also to move food around. Kunstler asks this pointed question: does your community have land enough to grow its own food? If there was no gasoline, you'd need to eat local food only. Kunstler is talking about this kind of scenario by 2030 at latest, with the first signs of the 'emergency' beginning no later than 2012.

Disney isn't thinking quite so dramatically. But they do have this oil situation on their radar. They got pretty badly burned by 9/11, so they want to avoid a repeat performance. So what do you do to avoid injuring your income during such a crisis? Well, one option is to let someone else take the body blow.

In a nutshell, Disney has plans around that could include divesting itself of much of its Florida property. I do mean the excess land (there's a 25 acre parcel for sale south of DAK Lodge and along 192 right now, in fact), but I also mean the hotels. It is no accident that the two major hotel constructions on property right now do not belong to Disney. There's a Four Seasons going into the NW corner, and at Bonnet Creek (where the land isn't owned by Disney), a Waldorf-Astoria, a Wyndham, and a Hilton are going up. What are the odds that the hotels built for the eventual Western Beltway Expansion (still not much happening there; just a dirt lot) might also be licensed out? And there are whispers that another large deal, like the Four Seasons, might be announced soon, involving yet another external party.

But I'm talking about more than just hotels. If you're Disney and you want to recession-proof yourself, frankly you don't want to be the owner of the parks themselves anymore. Rather, you want to be the one collecting licensing fees. That's the model for the Disney Stores and the model for the Tokyo Disney Resort as well. Still, it's hard to imagine the WDW parks being run by someone other than Disney. I have a hard time even conceiving of it. Who would run the parks? Would quality suffer? Would they get new rides all the time still? It seems inconceivable.
And yet... something about this also makes sense. It helps things fall into place. It's in keeping with Disney's recent strategy and expansions. Consider:



* Disney is not only passing on the chance to reclaim lessee restaurants (like Alfredo's) as its own, Disney is even expanding the presence and reliance on outside restaurant chains. Consider the Yak and Yeti going into DAK, to be run by Landry's.


* Disney wants to ramp up per-person spending at the WDW property, because they realize trends are for people to visit less often. Disney hopes that means they'll spend more when they DO visit. Increased oil costs definitely factor into tourists' decisions to travel now or delay yet another year.


* Disney wants to expand in China, probably in Shanghai, because this is a major metropolitan center that, unlike Orlando, can support a Disney park even if oil were to collapse world markets.


* Disney wants to bring regional hotels and very minor amusement parks to cities around the world (the so-called Location-Based Entertainment, or LBE). The oil problem makes the LBE move logical, even prescient. In fact, I could see the LBE concept coming to American cities after all, if the oil problem gets to be bad enough. Disney World would suffer dreadful declines in attendance, but local amusement park operators (Six Flags, this means you!) may benefit. Disneyland in Anaheim is probably OK and wouldn't need to be sold, since it relies so heavily on its base of locals.


* Speaking of Anaheim, Disney isn't going to own the new 'Disney' hotels in GardenWalk, as our own Al Lutz reported recently, in a further example of pieces falling into place once we learn of this global wariness regarding ownership.
Disney is pushing the DVC concept hard not only because it's great profit for the company now, but also because it 'locks in' visitors to come back here year after year. This is as close as you get in this business to a guarantee that the tourists will come back, even if oil prices are much higher. Hotel ownership offers no such guarantee.


Disney is a publicly-traded company and its first allegiance is to its bondholders and shareholders--it has to make money. They'd be remiss if they didn't consider master plans that take major shifts of the economy into account. On September 17, Disney CFO Thomas Staggs held a press conference and announced that Disney so far isn't feeling the effects of a national downturn, though international travel still hasn't recovered to the pre-9/11 levels, even after all these years.

It should be noted that there isn't much new about this plan--Disney has been thinking these thoughts for some time. The plans on the books include a scenario to completely divest itself of the hotels, the land, and the parks within twenty-five years.

I must stress that Disney having plans is not the same thing as saying that they will actually use the plans. Think of them as options, or even as contingency plans. But Disney may yet have to consider them. A good many analysts think the lifespan of the major airlines can be measured in decades, not centuries, and air travel as we know it may not return again. If that happens, Disney World will face a gigantic crunch, since so many people fly here.

Maybe it's not so inconceivable that they could sell off the parks, after all. Let's hope for all our sakes that the oil crunch doesn't happen. Thankfully, there's nothing imminent about this story.

http://miceage.com/kevinyee/ky091807a.htm

Il est possible d'avoir en français ce que ce texte signifie ? Merkiii

lol ouai sa sers pas à grand chose ^^

En gros, il existerait un plan optionnel d'ici une vingtaine d'années, qui consisterait pour Disney à vendre les hôtels et les parcs de WDW à un gérant extérieur (comme pour Tokyo Disney Resort par exemple), se contentant uniquement des royalties et revenus de license.

Ouais, encore un sujet bidon de ce Kevin Yee. Autant j'ai une certaine forme de respect pour Al Lutz, pas pour ses opinions et sa mauvaise foi mais pour ses infos, autant Kevin Yee, c'est le mec qui disserte juste sur ce qui lui passe par la tête. Alors, avancer un truc du genre "et si dans 20 ans...", c'est facile. En plus, autant je comprendrais que Disney se casse de DLP, autant des parcs américains, qui sont hyper rentables, j'y crois pas une seconde. Un article bidon, je vous dis...

+10

Pourtant c'est incomprehensible parce que les Parcs US font enormement de benefices .

kalico a écrit:

Pourtant c'est incomprehensible parce que les Parcs US font enormement de benefices .

Oui, pour l'instant... tu as lu l'article?

J. Thaddeus TOAD a écrit:

kalico a écrit:

Pourtant c'est incomprehensible parce que les Parcs US font enormement de benefices .

Oui, pour l'instant... tu as lu l'article?

Sîl ne lit pas l'anglais, il n'a pas pu voir ce détail.

altro-m-s a écrit:

J. Thaddeus TOAD a écrit:

kalico a écrit:

Pourtant c'est incomprehensible parce que les Parcs US font enormement de benefices .

Oui, pour l'instant... tu as lu l'article?

Sîl ne lit pas l'anglais, il n'a pas pu voir ce détail.

Il n'y a pas besoin de savoir lire l'anglais, Grandmath a bien résumé l'article... en français:
En gros, il existerait un plan optionnel d'ici une vingtaine d'années, qui consisterait pour Disney à vendre les hôtels et les parcs de WDW à un gérant extérieur (comme pour Tokyo Disney Resort par exemple), se contentant uniquement des royalties et revenus de license.

Pas de souci. Je pensais que, comme tu avais écris "pour l'instant", ce qui m'a fait penser que l'article aurait éventuellement pu contenir une info sur des non-bénéfices futurs. Je ne lis pas l'anglais non plus. Sorry

Sorry, We're Closed

There's potentially big news in today's update that may affect many of your upcoming vacations, if it comes to fruition.

Let's start with the crowds at Disney World. Presently, they are still there! Hordes of folks still clamor for FastPass, huddle for parades, and snap up them restaurant reservations. Disney has indeed weathered the looming (present?) recession relatively well so far. As Iger noted recently, Disney parks are well-positioned for an economic downturn, in part because of programs like Magic Your Way tickets (which make extra-day tickets so ridiculously cheap you dare not go to Universal instead) and the Disney's Magical Express shuttles (which move you from airport to Disney hotel for free, so you dare not waste money on a car). Disney still has a pretty lock-solid captive audience, even more than ever before.

But scratch under the surface and you'll begin to see the faintest signs of decay. The reservations desks are a lot quietier than was the case in previous years. Don't take my word for it; talk to any travel agent. People aren't booking travel and buying packages like they used to.

We don't have to stretch our imaginations to see why. A flight from LAX to Orlando used to run about $200; now a check reveals most flights in October on that same route going for $400. With transportation costs going through the roof, and the price of a barrel of oil setting new records every week (if not every day), people just aren't looking to travel.

As you might imagine, people staying home isn't part of the business plan for Walt Disney World. Projects to be built in the coming years, some of them cataloged in the recent Rumor Rundown, are suddenly questionable. It's not that things are being cancelled, but there's no particular rush forward at this point. MiceChat user WDW1974 called them the administrative equivalent to the "creep" mode you might have seen on the Haunted Mansion: you click a button and things dramatically slow down, but still creep forward, centimeter by centimeter.
There have been some contingency plans assembled, in case this fall looks more dicey than Disney had originally planned for. One major push that probably will see the light of day is the reduction of operating hours, starting right after the summer season. Parks will close an hour or two earlier, and some may even open an hour later… and this is on top of the usual shifting of operating hours that occurs every autumn. That saves Disney quite a bit of money on operating expenses, and they still reap the same income from ticket sales, at least theoretically. In the back of my mind I'm already grumbling about the Decline by Degrees (Disney saves money while you pay the same, but get a lessened experience).

There are other plans afoot. One of them is to maybe offer the Free Dining program to Disney hotel guests even beyond the usual autumn time slot, perhaps even into the start of the winter months and the hallowed Christmas season. That's unheard of. Offering Free Dining is one of Disney's big guns, and usually brings stampedes of visitors to Disney's hotels (and to its parks). Will it work this time? Even if airline flights cost so darn much? (Not to mention the minivan fill-up!)

The hope is that it works to bring a rush of visitors. Because otherwise, another contingency plan may be enacted - brace yourself - to close down one Disney World theme park at least one day per week. The Magic Kingdom (MK) appears safe (it's such a big draw) as Epcot (E) (it has so many corporate sponsors that would demand otherwise), but Disney's Animal Kingdom (DAK) and Disney's Hollywood Studios (DHS) may well be dark, locked, and inaccessible one day a week, starting in early 2009 if attendance levels get bad enough. Obviously, the plan would be to take turns. Perhaps Monday would see DAK go dark, and more people would rush into MK, E, and DHS as a result. Then, on Tuesday, DHS would stay locked, and MK, E, and DAK would get increased traffic.
There are positives, to be sure. Disney could use this time to paint and refurbish the parks. I have not one doubt in my mind that they say they will do that anyway, but it will only be beneficial if they REALLY do that. If they do seize the chance, patrons might actually benefit. The parks would be spotless, well-painted, and well-maintained. Besides, the argument goes, the same thing used to happen at Disneyland. During its first years, the Anaheim park was closed on Mondays and Tuesdays during the off season, and this down time was used to paint and refresh the park (and let the employees have a "weekend"). No doubt the WDW Press and Publicity department will latch onto this Walt factoid as justification for doing it in Orlando too.

If the parks do close on a rotating basis, the Cast Members would likely be rotated around and put to work cross-training. Since this isn't a simple one-park operation like Walt's Disneyland, they can't all be just given the day off (and some presumably wouldn't want that). The effect of a rotational schedule would be pretty significant even on the parks that don't close. Have you ever seen how the crowds at SeaWorld just move in unison, from one show to another? That's what would happen on a macro scale at Disney World. The parks left open would be more crowded on a Monday because the visitors, lessened in total number though they may be, will be squeezed into three parks instead of four. Disney likely saves money, but will the customers understand?

A competing school of thought within Disney wonders if the problem might be self-correcting. If the downturn continues, as most are expecting for this fall and beyond, it will probably drive a whole bunch of Orlando-area businesses right out of the marketplace. The smaller ones, that is. The midways, the dinner-theaters, and the like may not be able to compete. Disney has deeper pockets, and can endure more before crying uncle, so it's likely the smaller attractions around here might buckle long before Disney has to, even if fewer people fly to Orlando this year. They may not have to close Disney parks to make up for it, since folks will simply stay with Disney and not venture off to the dinner theaters and small attractions. So goes the theory, anyway. My answer is: "Maybe." I suspect the smaller operators really will feel the pain first, and I suppose this effect may delay the pain Disney feels. But I don't think it will be a pronounced enough counter-effect to stave off the need to conserve money on Disney's end, and that probably does mean closed parks.

Clearly, the idea is that this would be temporary, until attendance bounces back. But it's at this point when I'm inclined to consider the worst-case scenario. What if oil, gas, and jet fuel prices never really come back down?
Several months ago, I used this space to muse about "peak oil," a phenomenon of the world starting to run out of petroleum and the effect on prices in general and Disney World in particular. Disney had commissioned a study, and if oil stays above $160/barrel, Disney was advised to sell off the WDW parks and just collect a licensing fee. The parks would still eke out a profit, but not as much of a profit margin as Disney wants and the parks would be a drag on the company's bottom line. Here's what I wrote about this, when breaking the story back in September of 2007:

There are wildly different accounts and interpretations of what kind of future we might be facing regarding oil. There are prognosticators who confidently predict that not only has the world used up less than half of the 'proven reserves' out there, but that we're finding more all the time (indeed, that's almost a direct quote from Bill Nye in Epcot's Energy pavilion). But at the other end of the spectrum, people are making more and more noise about 'peak oil', also called Hubbert's Peak, named after a Shell geologist who predicted, correctly, that US production of oil would peak and then decline in the 1970s, and predicted a world peak in 1995. Hubbert was obviously off about world production, which is still climbing, but some experts warn that the 1970s oil instability caused the delay, and that the peak will be reached any day now (indeed, some claim it's happened already).

Big deal, you may be thinking, we still have half the oil left! Not so fast. China, India, and the emerging countries now gobble oil, whereas before they only sipped. Much worse is the fact that the remaining oil is much harder to obtain and much, MUCH more costly. The result, these folks claim, is that oil prices could rise sharply higher, and the entire economy take a turn for the worst. On a dime. Permanently. We're talking $200 barrels of oil (it's around $70 now, and was at $40 only a few years ago, and an incredible $10 in the late 1990s). The news only gets worse--as inventories shrink and demand STILL goes up, remembering that other countries will continue to need more energy, the prices will soar ever more. The really bad predictions say all this could occur in the span of just a year or two, once it starts. Remember, experts vary wildly on whether this event will even occur.

SUITE:

But Disney, understandably, is nervous. Shortly after 9/11 rocked the economy and put a very sizeable dent in airline travel, Disney re-examined its assumptions about the business it was in, and commissioned an internal study in the past couple of years, hiring a major investment banking and consulting firm to help them drum up scenarios. Not wanting to repeat the tourist shock of 9/11, Disney wanted to know what the future might bring. What's the worst-case scenario, they asked?

Turns out there are some pretty bad scenarios. The hired accountants brought back a picture of Disney World that no one wanted to hear. As you might suspect, there does come a time at which point oil is so expensive that Disney World ceases to make money. That part is intuitive enough--just imagine oil costing a hypothetical $2,000 per barrel, and a flight from Los Angeles costing $40,000. No one would fly to Disney World, right? To bring the numbers back to reality, the breaking point at which Disney World would no longer make [enough] money is much closer than we think: something less than $200/barrel of oil, perhaps as low as $160/barrel. True, that's more than twice the current level. But if you'd told me in 1999 that oil would vault from $10 to $70 in less than a decade, a seven-fold increase, and people would simply accept it, then I wouldn't have believed that either.
Since posting that about nine months ago, the price for a barrel of oil has moved from $70 to $130 (and above). I took some heat in the discussion boards and emails as being a bit alarmist, and yet oil has risen substantially. I think that kind of trend, even a micro trend, means it might be worthwhile thinking about what happens if it continues. And it's just not a pretty picture.

Here in Orlando, Universal Studios may actually be better positioned than Walt Disney World. They don't pay as much in gas and transportation. At Uni, there are a couple of boats, but mostly, people walk from their cars to the parks, and they walk from park to park. At Disney, the scale hurts. No one can walk from park to park, and few can walk from hotel to park. Instead, Disney has to pay enormous fortunes in gas money every day. Every single hotel has a fleet of busses to take those patrons to their desired parks using 17,000 gallons of diesel a week. And Disney has all that space filled with asphalt that must be maintained, or concrete that must be painted, or grass that must be mowed. The upkeep costs are enormous at Disney.

The costs are such, in fact, that some folks internally are beginning to wonder if there's any possible way to start charging for riding the hotel busses. They know that's an uphill battle as they are already not universally popular, as they can be noisy, overcrowded, and often late.

No, Disney World is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The real winners in an environment like this are the regional parks: Dollywood, Kennywood, and Hersheypark. All of them are near a large population base that will keep coming even with high gasoline prices. To that list we must responsibly add Anaheim's Disneyland. The SoCal market is sprawling, sure, but by and large it's just one big city, and people will still come to Disneyland. There's even a railroad connecting the area to Northern California.

None of the same demographics apply to Central Florida. The parks are way too large to be filled up by locals (heck, we all work there, or did once). WDW is stuck.

Not so, I hear you say. The international and overseas visitors will still pour into WDW. They will do it even more than before, in fact, because the dollar is so low! To that I answer: not in the numbers needed to maintain Disney's profit margin. Don't forget that Homeland Security and its procedures aren't welcoming to a lot of foreign visitors, and many tell their friends not to bother as it can be so difficult. Meanwhile other opportunities beckon elsewhere. (Dubai, anyone??)

The situation makes you appreciate that Disney does have overseas parks of its own: Disneyland Paris (DLP) and Hong Kong Disneyland (HKD). Hmm. Suddenly, the propensity for duplicating ride experiences exactly at international locations doesn't seem so stupid. This move was done to save development money, and many (including me) decried it as cannibalizing Orlando's business. If people can easily afford to visit the Paris park, they will just do without Orlando. This strategy is possibly going to pay off for Disney, even though they weren't trying to make it happen that way. Now Europeans really may go to DLP rather than WDW.

I might even draw a connection out to the Location-Based-Entertainment (LBE) concept that Jay Rasulo wants to spread across the globe. Think of these as hotels plus a single ride. Jay wanted to save money and take the cheap direction to getting Disney's name everywhere, but his mismanagement may actually end up, ironically, saving Disney by accident. If "peak oil" occurs and people only travel locally from then on, Disney may still be a leader. But the concept of a destination resort, like Walt Disney World, definitely depends on the presence of affordable airline tickets. If that changes, watch out WDW; they may have to call in Wall·E to clean it all up and cart it away.

Another thought here: WDW's big sales lately have also been built on the destination concept. I'm thinking here about Disney Vacation Club (DVC), the timeshares in Disney hotels. Will these folks have buyer's remorse if airline tickets spiral toward infinity and flying becomes a luxury item? Will they feel cheated for spending tens of thousands of dollars on something they now can't afford to visit? Or if they do come, what will these frequent visitors think about DAK being closed on a Monday to save Disney some costs? Could those DVC folks sue, arguing that they bought into the contract with the understanding that parks would remain open?

I'm only a local, and I only visit on weekends, so these one-day closures won't affect me personally. I won't see a surge of visitors on the "remaining three" parks because I won't be there on a day when one is closed. In theory, this closing of parks is great news for me. The parks may be more spruced up.

But what about the tourists Disney makes its money on? What will they think?

http://miceage.micechat.com/kevinyee/ky061008a.htm

qu'est-ce qu'il y a de neuf dans ces nouveaux articles ?
Désolé, ... :$

Je pense qu'il y a dramatisation.

Après le 11/09, les compagnies aériennes ont subi de plein fouet une crise bien plus importante qu'aujourd'hui.

Pourtant, WDW, qui a connu un ralentissement (qui n'est pas visible à l'heure actuelle), n'a adopté aucune des mesures drastiques envisagées par Kevin Yee (fermeture des parcs un jour par semaine, bus du Resort payants etc.).

Chaque crise connaît par la suite un rebond. Au delà de problèmes conjoncturels, le tourisme de masse et les voyages à l'étranger connaissent un nouvel essor depuis les attentats de 2001. Mais comme il dit, seuls les acteurs de qualité de ce marché s'en sortiront, car les gens devront faire des choix.

Et je pense qu'il y a de grandes chances que le choix se porte vers Disney, qui garantit à ses clients une certaine qualité de vacances (sous réserve qu'ils investissent régulièrement dans des nouveautés), quitte à partir moins souvent dans l'année. Enfin bref, je pense que ce n'est pas parce que les prix augmentent que les gens arrêteront de voyager.

C'est vraiment du n'importe quoi cet article, du sensationalisme à bon marché d'un pauvre type en manque d'infos à fournir sur le net. Jusqu'ici, les effets de la récession ne se sont pas fait ressentir sur les parcs. Et même si ça arrivait, comment imaginer un scénario aussi grotesque ? Il faudrait vraiment une chute vertigineuse des réservations pour imaginer ça.

Vous ne connaissez pas Google ? il y a un outil linguistique !!

k93200 a écrit:

Vous ne connaissez pas Google ? il y a un outil linguistique !!

Copie-colle le texte dans google traduction : tu va être mort de rire !
Il traduit mot à mot en ne tenant pas compte des règles grammaticales de langue, en fait tu dois tout de même refaire une traduction dans ta tête...pratique en effet.

Mr.Freddy a écrit:

C'est vraiment du n'importe quoi cet article, du sensationalisme à bon marché d'un pauvre type en manque d'infos à fournir sur le net. Jusqu'ici, les effets de la récession ne se sont pas fait ressentir sur les parcs. Et même si ça arrivait, comment imaginer un scénario aussi grotesque ? Il faudrait vraiment une chute vertigineuse des réservations pour imaginer ça.

Cet article est sans doute excessif... Ceci dit, il y a à WDW un vrai problème concernant les transports et un vrai manque de vision à long terme.
Depuis l'ouverture d'Epcot (et de la dernière ligne de Monorail à ce jour) il y a 26 ans, Disney a toujours accompagné ses développements (parcs, hôtels, ...) par des bus, toujours plus de bus!!
Il y a pourtant eu des projets de nouvelles lignes de Monorail, mais Oncle "Eisner" Picsou n'a jamais voulu mettre la main à la poche! J'espère simplement qu'avec la crise pétrolière actuelle, qui n'est d'ailleurs qu'un commencement, Disney va se mettre à penser sur le long terme et à développer des transports en commun propres et efficaces...

oui et puis aux etats-unis ils developpent de plus en plus les voitures electriques qui peuvent parcourir 400km sans avoir a etre rechargées.
Il faut juste que Disney commence des a present à s'y mettre.

Mais jamais ils ne les revendront. Vous connaissez un géant plus grand que disney en matière de parcs d'attrations et de cinéma ainsi que tout les produits dérivés ??? Jamais il ne revendront quoi que ce soit qui appartient a disney.

perry001 a écrit:

Mais jamais ils ne les revendront. Vous connaissez un géant plus grand que disney en matière de parcs d'attrations et de cinéma ainsi que tout les produits dérivés ??? Jamais il ne revendront quoi que ce soit qui appartient a disney.

Certe pour Disney world je te rejoint sur ce point mais pour le reste Disney c'es déjà, à mon très grand regret, séparé d'actifs tel que Celebration, les Mighty Ducks d'anaheim, les Angels d'Anaheim, le queen Mary et le Spruce goose , entre autre .Tout ceci pour des raisons strategiques .

Citation :

Celebration, les Mighty Ducks d'anaheim, les Angels d'Anaheim, le queen Mary et le Spruce goose , entre autre .Tout ceci pour des raisons strategiques

En même temps, tout ce qui tu cites constituait des acquisitions qui n'avaient pas grand-chose avec le métier de base de la Walt Disney Company. Celebration était un projet immobilier, les Mighty Ducks une équipe de sport comme je suppose les Angels d'Anaheim, le Queen Mary avait été acquis dans la perspective de faire partie d'un DisneySea à Los Angeles... Bref, qu'ils aient revendu tout ça me paraît logique.

Bon pour résumer, il est vrai que certains responsables s'inquiètent pour Disney World... dont les visiteurs viennent pour plus de 85% par avion... Mais de là a fermer le complexe il y a un pas que je ne franchirai pas.
Pour les ventes de tel que Celebration, les Mighty Ducks d'anaheim, les Angels d'Anaheim, le queen Mary et le Spruce goose... chacune a son histoire et sa raison...

Celebration posait un problème juridique pour que Disney gére tranquillement Disney World... les habitants auraient eu le droit de voter contre Disney pour la gestion du complexe... après on dit que c'est plus simple de laisser la gestion à un spécialiste... et ca passe comme une lettre à la poste.

les Mighty Ducks (Hockey) et le Angels (Baseball) lancé par Eisner et Pressler ont bien marchaient au débuit mais à partir de 2000 ils ne "faisaient que perdre leurs match"s, de plus il n'y a plus autant d'engouement pour les équipes comme à l'époque des combats Lakers/Bulls... De toute façon Disney gagne de l'argent sur les produits dérivés sans en perdre avec la gestion de l'équipe... pourquoi les garder.

Pour le Queen Mary/Spruce Goose ce sont des achats fait à l'origine pour agrandi Disneyland Resort avec aussi l'optique de Port Disney/DisneySea... mais il est arrivé ce qui arriva, DCA... donc dès 2001 Disney revend le Queen Mary sachant que le Spruce Goose avait été offert à un musée de l'aviation...

La vente de tous cela a permis d'avoir du "liquide" pour des achats comme Fox Family Worldwide (Jetix/ABC Family/Power Rangers), les Muppets, ou de boucler le budget de WDS et DCA... en autre bien sur...

Mr.Freddy a écrit:

Citation :

Celebration, les Mighty Ducks d'anaheim, les Angels d'Anaheim, le queen Mary et le Spruce goose , entre autre .Tout ceci pour des raisons strategiques

En même temps, tout ce qui tu cites constituait des acquisitions qui n'avaient pas grand-chose avec le métier de base de la Walt Disney Company. Celebration était un projet immobilier, les Mighty Ducks une équipe de sport comme je suppose les Angels d'Anaheim, le Queen Mary avait été acquis dans la perspective de faire partie d'un DisneySea à Los Angeles... Bref, qu'ils aient revendu tout ça me paraît logique.

logique pour le spruce goose et le queen mary certe , bien que regrétable , par contre pour les équipes sportives Disney étant propriétaire des principales chaines sportives ils auraient pu poursuivre en ce sens .
Mais bon je regrète ces choix mais ne les critiques pas si ça leur a permis de se développer dans leur principaux domaines (je pense notamment à la cruise line avec leur 2 nouveaux bateaux en court de construction , l'aquisition des muppets etc)