Don't fly over Disneyland

So for a solid week, NBC was airing commercials about a news story coming up about Disneyland. I quote, because I have it recorded when they played the commercial during my soap opera:

"(Picture of castle) Disneyland: (video of teacups spinning) a place (Minnie Mouse taking a picture with some teenage girls) where millions escape (boy with mouse ears on his dad's shoulders, dissolves into video of people on Astro Orbitor) into the world of fantasy, (page curls up into aerial shot of the plaza at the north end of main street) but is the magic kingdom (black and white closeup on a datebook someone's flipping pages in) receiving (black and white closeup of a male hand writing in the datebook) special privileges to (back to color, mouse ear balloons) maintain that fantasy? (Chuck Henry standing across the street from a Disney building in Burbank, NBC had to drive almost half a mile to get that shot!) Chuck Henry (small plane banking right over a residential area) uncovers what's happening (NBC ad) above (back to a castle shot, flanked by blue and logos as are all future images) the Happiest (the castle shot changes to a shot of a crowd with a monorail track in the background) Place on Earth. (Same plane as before, flying toward the camera from a hilly background) Thursday on the Channel (Mickey in flowers in front of the Main Street train station) 4 news at 11."

That's 16 images in 15 seconds, with at least three different transition techniques between them.

Well, they said that there was something going on above Disneyland. Another commercial, which I deleted without thinking about it, says that this privilege is not given to any other place, including a nuclear power plant or LAX (the Los Angeles International Airport, never did figure out where they got X from International, but that's a subject for another post).

So, I'm thinking, what could Disneyland get that other people don't? A no fly zone was my first thought, but then I thought, "what would LAX doooo if it had a no fly zone around it???" Become a new NASCAR venue?

My next thought was maybe they can keep their nightly fireworks display even though it's illegal (I'm not sure if it's illegal there or not, this is just my train of thought). Why would a nuclear power plant want to have fireworks, though? Or LAX for that matter?

So I bit. I watched the show. (Well, technically, I had MythTV record it, fast forwarded until I saw Disneyland, and watched just that segment. I fooled them!)

So what was this thing that no one else can have? It's a no fly zone after all. You can't go closer than 3 miles to the center of the parks unless you're above 3,000 feet. It's supposed to be for security, but the newscasters say it's probably to keep people from flying banner advertisements above the millions of park guests and keep sightseeing helicopters away. (I'd like to point out that they say that Disney "won't talk about it," but they display on screen a statement from the Parks and Resorts spokesman.)

There seems to be some debate over whether there is a credible threat to the parks. The internet tells me that "Counterterrorism officials said the Disney parks have come up in interviews with al Qaeda operatives. Pictures and information about the parks have been found during some terror sweeps overseas, they say." but yet other sources say that there is no credible threat. (Source) Lack of communication here? I can totally see the theme parks being targets, though. On Halloween night of 2001, Knott's Scary Farm was nearly empty because of a threat against it, even though the tickets were sold out in pre-sale.

Of course, with a draw like Disneyland, I can't blame them for not wanting advertisers over their parks either. The internet claims that, "At its height, the Orlando air wars daily featured biplanes towing banners, blimps and single-wing skywriters competing for attention." (Source)

Now, the internet tells me that there are other places that have no fly zones, "including President Bush's Texas ranch, nuclear submarine bases and stockpiles of sarin gas and other weapons of mass destruction." Also, "While the bill had originally offered flight protections only to some sports stadiums during games, it now forced the FAA to put the no-fly zones over the entertainment giant's parks as well." So that means that we can add stadiums during games to the list. Also add the Valdez terminal of the Alaska oil pipeline. (Source for all)
The internet also tells me that since the no fly zone came into effect, it's been challenged by conservatives who want to fly anti-homosexuality banners over the park. (Source) I can't say I'm disappointed that those efforts were blocked, that's the last thing I'd want my school-aged child to see while at Disneyland.

My conclusions:
1. No one's being hurt except for the aerial equivalent of pop-up window advertisers.
2. I believe that there has been and continues to be a credible threat to the parks.
3. The idea that LAX should have a 3-mile radius under-3k no-fly zone is ridiculous.
4. The idea that the Las Vegas strip should have a 3-mile radius under-3k no-fly zone (the news story says, "not even the Las Vegas Strip, which has a denser concentration of people...") is also ridiculous. If you look at this map, you'll see that if you put a three-mile radius around the strip, it would nullify the McCarran Airport.
5. The idea that the San Onofre nuclear reactor should have a 3-mile radius under-3k no-fly zone is probably a good idea.
6. The claim that Disney is the only commercial operation to have a no-fly zone is a lie.
7. NBC's 11pm news ratings must be dropping.

So, that's my take on "the Magic Kingdom getting special privileges to maintain that fantasy."