The World of Disney

The answer to almost all of your ideas is no. None of Disney's theme parks and resorts outside of the United States have been very successful except Tokyo. Disneyland Paris still isn't very profitable, so building another one in Europe would be a bad idea. Brazil and South America do not have a large middle class that can afford to go Disneyland. Maybe in the coming decades that will change like it has in Asia, but as of right now there's not a large enough group of people that can afford Disney. As for Australia, you said it yourself, it's too isolated. Most people visiting Australia would not go to a park they probably have much closer to home, and would not travel to Australia just to go to Disney. Australia has roughly the same population as Southern California, and Southern California isn't an island.The demand isn't there.

I do think a park in Texas could work, someday. Dallas is the fourth largest metro area in the United States and having a Disneyland near there would appeal mostly to locals the way Disneyland in Anaheim does. I think someday Disney will finally build man park/resort in Texas, but that won't be until Disney's math department thinks it will be profitable and won't significantly affect attendance in Anaheim or Orlando. While I would love this to happen, Disney won't do it until it thinks it would be success. Today's Disney rarely makes something if they don't think it will be a guaranteed success. This is is why most of its movies today are sequels and remakes, and why most of their new rides are based on popular IP. It's a good thing Walt was much more ambitious, or else there wouldn't be any Disney park anywhere.

I agree, Texas would definitely work. I could see Disneyland near Dallas, but I could also see San Antonio working too. SeaWorld is there, as well as Six Flags. In addition, there is the Alamo, and the Riverwalk. Disney would make San Antonio a family vacation destination.

Yes, Australia is isolated, but I'm talking about people who live there, as well as people from New Zealand who would visit Disney. Why should they have to travel so far to visit Disney? I, believe, if Disney were to build a theme park in Sydney, people who live there, as well as New Zealand would go.

As far as Disneyland Paris, it's still very successful. It's the 16th most visited tourist attraction in the world. Granted, majority of those visitors are from Europe, but it still attracts many visitors each year. The weather is not always so great in France, that could be why at times it isn't as crowded. That's why I feel Spain would be more successful, as well as profitable. The weather is nice year round, like California and Florida. Do you think building a Disney park in Minnesota would be successful? Of course not, the weather is very cold there in the winter. But, Anaheim and Orlando work. I feel the weather in France definitely plays a part in Disneyland Paris' attendance. It gets cold there in the winter. Where Spain is sunny and warm.

Randy, do you see another country where a Disney theme park could work?

Short answer: No. At the moment, Disney has too many areas they need to work on to consider building another resort at this time. 20+ years from now, something could happen, but I would be stunned if Disney announced a new resort before 2030.

Long Answer:

Currently, there are six Disney resorts around the world containing a total of 12 parks. However, there are not six successful Disney resorts or 12 successful Disney parks. Let's look at this in a little more detail...

California: The Disneyland Resort is generally considered the most successful Disney resort. Not only are there two popular parks here, but the large number of locals who visit frequently results in huge profits. Yes, this resort has some limitations on future growth (mostly space constraints), but it is also the only resort that could probably sustain itself for a decade without additional development.

Florida: Despite its larger size and higher attendance, Walt Disney World is not as successful as it could be. Yes, the resort still makes huge profits, but portions of the resort are not pulling their weight. Magic Kingdom and Epcot are doing very well, but both Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom have been marginal at best from the start. There's a reason most of the investment is being dumped into those two parks right now, and it isn't because they deserve it...it's because they need it.

Tokyo: Tokyo Disney is also extremely successful, and it mirrors the California resort in a lot of ways. There are two successful parks, there are a lot of local visitors, there are limitations on future growth, but this resort could sustain itself for a bit without serious investment. The main issue here is that Disney only gets a limited amount of revenue from Tokyo due to the ownership situation of the property. While this does mean that they aren't directly financing investment (which allows Tokyo to create grand attractions that will never be duplicated), this also means that Tokyo can't be relied upon to support the rest of the chain.

Paris: Yes, Disneyland Paris has high attendance, but that doesn't mean it is particularly successful. While the resort does turn a profit now, it is much, much smaller than the US resorts. The biggest problem here is that the second gate is dead weight in its current form and needs major investment to reach a point where it breaks even, but up until recently Disney has been reluctant to invest here. I have a strong feeling that Walt Disney Studios will receive a makeover similar to what Disney California Adventure got, and then Paris may be able to join the successful category.

Hong Kong: I don't know as much about this park, but I can't possibly imagine this park is not operating at a loss. While it appeared to have a strong opening year, attendance seems to have taken a nose dive. I have rarely seen a report from this park that mentioned any line longer than 20 minutes, and seeing Gabriel Schroll's report from yesterday definitely paints the picture of failure. I have to assume this park is alive because the Chinese government is helping out as a Disney park can't survive on (what appears to be) just a few thousand visitors per day.

Shanghai: It will be a couple years before the success of this resort can be fairly judged, but from initial reports it sounds like something that probably would have been perfectly fine originally but may be hindered by budget overruns and delays in opening. That said, this park reportedly has a five year investment plan that will add 2-3 additional areas, so perhaps Disney can pull something off.

So, ignoring Shanghai for now, out of Disney's 11 theme parks, there are four that need serious work, and of the five resorts only two are functioning as well as they should be. To me, this reads as Disney has spread themselves too thin and needs to focus on strengthening the existing elements before adding new ones. Now, let's take a look at your suggestions for the future...

South America: If you just look at the numbers, a resort in Brazil makes a lot of sense. In fact, if Disney does build another resort in the future I suspect this is the most likely location. However, looking deeper it becomes apparent that while the population to support a park is there, the economy is not. While Brazil has the strongest economy in Latin America, it is still a sizable step down from any of the countries currently hosting Disney resorts. Additionally, while the middle class in Brazil is larger than it is in China, the numbers are not enough to justify a resort. A park in Brazil would likely have very limited international appeal as well, so there just isn't enough to justify it at this time.

Australia: I don't know about Sydney, but Hong Kong Disneyland was originally destined for somewhere in Australia before the project was relocated. Two main factors contributed to this: lack of international appeal, and lack of local population. Nobody is going to go to Australia just to visit a Disney park, and while it is possible those visiting for other reasons may spend a day there Disney focuses more on destination travelers than day visitors. As for population, if a Disney park were to be built in Sydney it would have about 1/4 the local population that the Disneyland Resort has. As a result, Australia is just too much of a risk. Will it happen in the future? Possibly, but I don't think it is too likely.

3rd US Resort: Between Disneyland and Walt Disney World, pretty much the entire country is covered. There is not a single place in the contiguous United States where a Disney resort could be added without adversely affecting one or both of the existing resorts. As a result, I don't think it is too likely. Remember, Disney doesn't build resorts for locals, they build resorts primarily for destination travelers but in locations where locals can support it out of season. If a resort were to be built in Texas, it would probably become the preferred destination for those within driving distance of it (essentially west to New Mexico, east to Alabama, and north to Nebraska), meaning visitations to the other resorts from these regions would be way down. With the size and appeal of the existing resorts, there just isn't enough demand in the US for a third one.

2nd European Resort: Many locations in Europe were considered before deciding to do Disneyland Paris in France, with Spain being the other finalist. Now that the resort exists, building another Disney Resort in Europe doesn't make a lot of sense as a vast majority of the continent can easily visit the one in Paris. Additionally, Europe is home to a number of destination theme parks (including Spain's PortAventura), so another Disney Resort would not only have to compete with Disneyland Paris but also with every other destination theme park in Europe. Lastly, the lackluster performance of Disneyland Paris indicates that there is not an excess of demand for Disney in Europe, and therefore there isn't much reason to invest in another resort.

While I'm not saying it is impossible, it is very unlikely we'll see another Disney resort in the near future. When one does happen, I suspect it will be either in South America or somewhere in Asia rather than in North America or Europe. However, I would expect to see additional parks added to most of the existing resorts before the construction of the next new resort. At the moment, I feel there are enough Disney parks in the world, and I have a feeling Disney feels similarly. The next step is to make sure all Disney parks are worthy of the name Disney and are actually bringing in the money they are intended to.

Great answer AJ

AJ Hummel, I agree with everything you're saying.

1) I do see a Disney resort in Brazil someday, especially near Rio.
2) I also think that Disneyland Paris will expand Walt Disney Studios park. I've been to the park, it needs more upgrades.
3) There probably won't be another Disney resort in the United States.

Some things I still have questions about:
1) I understand what you're saying regarding Disneyland Paris, however, I think Spain makes sense, mainly due to the weather. I think Paris' weather, especially in the winter hinders their attendance.
2) I know Asia is a large market, but they already have 3 resorts, why would they add another one?

Due you think Disneyland will ever add a 3rd theme park?

Disney needs to dump the Studios park. Doesn't work anywhere. California Adventure is poised to remove the Hollywood section. Paris should remake its Studios park into a more relatable park for International visitors to France. Hong Kong Disneyland is now the smaller cousin to Shanghai. It needs a major makeover including replacing the puny castle that works in Anaheim, but is out of place in HK that has lots of high rises all over. Consider a Beast castle.

Disney needs to find a country with a stable democracy and a good economy. Shanghai is a real risk with the communist government with a shaky legal system. I do think they should consider Eastern Europe like Serbia or Bulgaria

Timbo23,

1. If Disneyland Paris didn't exist, I would agree with you about building a resort in Spain. Now, however, it just doesn't make a lot of sense for similar reasons to why a 3rd US resort is a bad idea. A Spanish resort would likely just siphon visitors away from the French parks while not really increasing the Disney market in that part of the world. The two locations are simply too close to each other (in US terms, it would be like a Disneyland Virginia relative to Orlando), and due to the location of Spain most visitors would simply go to Paris if they lived outside of Spain, Portugal, or southwest France. If Disney ever builds a second European resort, my strong suspicion is that it will be somewhere in Eastern Europe.

2. While Disney does have three resorts in Asia, they are positioned to mainly draw from Eastern Asia. This makes sense now as that is where Disney is popular in Asia, but 20-30 years down the road it is possible that may no longer be the case. While I do not know if there would be enough demand, I could potentially see a Disney park built in India and/or Dubai to target different markets. Are these likely to happen? Probably not (Dubai is a huge risk and Disney probably isn't popular enough in India), but when you're talking decades into the future these seem like the most likely options.

3. Yes, there will be a third park at Disneyland. No, it is not currently in development, but it is somewhere in the resort masterplan. The focus between now and the 70th anniversary is going to be improving infrastructure of the resort to support more tourist traffic, completing many upgrade/replacement projects that are overdue for Disneyland, and adding enough to DCA that it will be considered a full day park by the masses (most currently consider it a 1/2-3/4 of a day park). Once the resort is drawing enough tourists that it is no longer entirely dependent on locals, then work on a third park will begin. My guess is that, assuming everything goes well, we'll see the third park materialize sometime in the 2030s. However, the local population cannot support three theme parks, so if the resort doesn't draw out-of-state visitors in significant numbers the third theme park wouldn't be worth the investment.

Thanks for all the information AJ Hummel. Here are two interesting articles to read:
www.news.com.au/...be.../049130b51097830cf608b736c1652b5d

related:www.smh.com.au/nsw/walt-disney-company-proposed-a-disney-resort-in-sydney-20140111-30nfk.html disneyland proposed a sydney resort

I wonder if it will ever happen?

Thanks for all the information AJ Hummel. Here are two interesting articles to read:
www.news.com.au/...be.../049130b51097830cf608b736c1652b5d

related:www.smh.com.au/nsw/walt-disney-company-proposed-a-disney-resort-in-sydney-20140111-30nfk.html disneyland proposed a sydney resort

I wonder if it will ever happen?

*In regards to Europe, I agree, if Disney were to build another theme park, it probably would be located in Eastern Europe, or possibly Italy? When I was there, I noticed that Disney was very popular. For instance, the Disney Store in Rome was very crowded when I went. Plus, the climate would work for a Disney park. Also, Disney has made movies based on Italy. As far as Eastern Europe, a Disney park would probably be located in either the Czech Republic, Hungary, or possibly Berlin (though not considered Eastern Europe).

*As far as a Disney park in Dubai or India, I don't see that happening. That part of the world is very unsettling. I feel like Disney would take a big risk in building a theme park in that part of the world. Although Dubai is relatively safe, but is located near countries that are not safe. India is not safe, which I think would cause people to think twice about visiting.

*Another place that crossed my mind was Africa. Would Disney ever consider building a theme park there? I'm not sure, like the Middle East, Africa is very unsettling. There also tends to be a high volume of crime. If they did, it would need to be located in one of Africa's safest countries, like Ethiopia, or Botswana. But since there tends to be a great deal of poverty, i'm not sure the local people would be able to afford Disneyland.

*I do feel there will be a Disney park in South America someday, especially Rio. I do believe the locals would support Disney, as well as international visitors. The climate is also ideal for a Disney resort.

*If Disney were to build another resort in Asia, I believe they would consider Thailand, South Korea (Seoul), or Beijing. To me, Beijing seems the most likely since its extremely populated, in which the locals would support Disney. It would also be Disney's second resort in China, which is the second biggest market in the world.

@timbo: Berlin is 500 miles away from Paris. Not far enough. Neither is the Czech Republic or Hungary. Italy is only one country away. Greece or Bulgaria or Serbia is far enough away at 1000 miles away although I still expect it to cannibalize attendance from Disneyland Paris.

At China, they can't have yet another Disneyland park at Beijing unless you want Disney to fail completely. Besides, Universal and Six Flags are already proceeding with projects in Beijing. Disney has major problems to keep Hong Kong from sinking. That recent financial loss was a bad sign and Hong Kong's Ocean Park is doing better in attendance than Disneyland. There is also major competition from Macau with casinos costing $4 Billion. That's more money spent than HK Disneyland's original budget.

As for Africa and South America, NO WAY.

The only new parks should be companion parks at Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Anaheim, but this is well after upgrading existing infrastructure and improved attendance. Paris is especially sad and it needs major improvements.

I think Disney wanted to build in Spain, but they had the Olympics that year.

To be honest, Barcelona would have been incredibly ideal for a Disney Park. They kind of were just forced into the "suburban Paris" location.

In reference to Disneyland Resort, AJ said "the local population cannot support three theme parks, so if the resort doesn't draw out-of-state visitors in significant numbers the third theme park wouldn't be worth the investment."

I wonder if this is true. Disneyland cutback severely on its Annual Pass Program because the park cannot support the astronomical attendance at the parks. You recall the original SoCal AP is no longer sold at the price point of $400. The only passes available is the cheaper $300 SoCal Select AP with weekend blocked out or the more expensive $599 Deluxe AP with Sunday availability.

Just recently, it offers a DCA only pass for Costco members for $329 with lots of blockout dates on Fridays and Saturdays. Why so much restrictions at this price point? The demand is certainly there. If DCA has a better pass for the general public, many more would buy it just to have their Disney fix. DCA is a fine park to visit alone.

A quality third park (not the sorry Studios Park at WDW or Paris) would have lots of attendance. Offer such an AP just for the 2nd and 3rd park and people will feel they got a good deal. Initially, offer $199 to $299 for each AP or $400 for the two minor parks. The price point of over $400 is just not attainable for most locals.

I don't expect Disneyland AP prices to change, but the minor parks should develop its own audiences if given a chance. At WDW, they have special passes for each park like EPCOT has an after 4PM pass. They should do this more, otherwise they are leaving money on the table.

Anon Mouse, in regards to another Disney park in Europe, even though Bulgaria and Serbia are further away, I don't feel people would be interested in visiting those countries. Although, outside of the theme parks, there isn't much reason to visit Orlando. However, those countries aren't the top of the list for travelers visiting Europe. If Disney was there, maybe it would?

Greece would be more enticing. There is more to visit there. Disney would make for another reason to visit the country. The economy in Greece has been shaky the past several years. Building a Disneyland could help the economy. It would provide people with jobs, and bring revenue to the country, which it desperately needs. Majority of its economy is tourism. I believe Disneyland would bring tourists to Greece. Although it might deter some of Disneyland Paris' attendance, however, France has a more stable economy, and I don't think it would take a huge hit like some people may think. Paris is the most visited city in the world, and Disneyland is only a short train ride away.

Anon Mouse, I agree, Disneyland Paris does need major improvements. Especially Walt Disney Studios Park. I've been there, the park is a mess. Other than the Ratatouille ride, they need more rides there. I do feel Disney will invest in the park. Lets face it; they need too. I think within the next five to ten years, Disneyland Paris will receive major updates.

Anon Mouse, I also agree with you that Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Anaheim should receive additional parks. Especially Hong Kong, it's not a bad park, but they need to add more attractions. I feel, someday, Anaheim will add a third theme park. AJ said probably in the 2030's?

AJ also feels that Brazil makes sense to have a Disneyland park. He feels that if Disney were to build another theme park, that would be the next likely destination. Maybe not at the moment, but down the road.

Anthony Murphy, I agree. Barcelona would have been a more ideal location for Disneyland. The weather is similar to California and Florida. Paris get very cold in the winter, and that might deter some people from visiting during the winter months. Barcelona is sunny, and mild all year long.

timbo: Perhaps Greece would be a good choice if the economics works. Greece's economy is in a horrible situation, which affects its currency. So it has a good location, but bad economy. That's why I thought a stable country in Eastern Europe would be the next best compromise. These parks are for locals, not for the international traveler.

Tokyo, Shanghai, Paris and Anaheim are developed to attract locals to the experience. The Disney parks that expect more foreign travelers are Hong Kong and Orlando. Orlando has good turnout from Great Britain and Brazilians for example. Hong Kong is the gateway for Chinese, Great Britain, and other visitors as a trading asset.

My issue with France is it's culture is not compatible with Disney as an American icon and cultural symbol. They haven't warmed up to Disney and it has been over 20 years. They should have moved it to a southern city in France where the climate is more moderate. Too late.

Australia should get an Aulani type resort. A water park might be sufficient.

Timbo23, I actually didn't know anything about the Melbourne theme park proposal, so that was interesting to read. That said, the article made it sound more like "we want a theme park and we hope it is Disney" than "we're getting a Disney theme park," so I'd consider that a long shot. I wouldn't completely rule out Sydney (or anywhere in Australia), but the fact that there was significant consideration for a park there prior to Hong Kong makes me think that conditions would have to change and become more favorable to a Disney park before one happened. If they do change, it will probably happen at some point, but if things remain roughly as they are now, it probably will never happen.

Brazil doesn't make sense yet, but of all the locations it probably is the most likely to make sense in the future (well, at least as much sense as China). As I've said repeatedly, any new park project is likely 15+ years out and a lot of change can happen by then, so it is also possible Brazil could no longer make sense and somewhere else could, hence my suggestions of India and Dubai. I wouldn't bet on either of those, but if you ask for other locations in Asia that's what I'd look at over what you suggested. South Korea is close enough to Tokyo that a resort there is unnecessary and it would probably be more economical to expand Hong Kong and Shanghai to try to draw audiences from Thailand and Beijing, respectively, than to create entire new resorts (plus I honestly don't know how much of a Disney audience Thailand would have).

As for Africa, I think we've got a better chance of Disney declaring bankruptcy and selling off all their properties than ever building a park in Africa. Disney has a very minimal presence there, most of the countries are just too poor to even support something like that, and the few people able to afford Disney would likely be able to travel to another resort, so it makes no sense whatsoever. I have family members who have visited parts of Africa, and it is a very different world where having a bus to get to school is considered an extreme luxury. There's a reason the entire continent only has one legitimate theme park...that's just not something that appeals to people in that part of the world.

As for Europe, let's try a graphical approach...

This map is centered on Marne la Vallee, France, the location of Disneyland Paris. The inner circle has a radius of 700 miles, and the outer circle is 1000. Building a Disney park anywhere within the inner circle would likely be too close to Disneyland Paris and could result in the collapse of both resorts. Building one inside the outer circle is possible, but there would likely be cannibalization issues that may adversely affect the performance of both parks. Therefore, if any second Disney Resort is to be built in Europe it most likely would need to be outside of either circle to be successful without significantly affecting Paris.

As for California, that is a whole different discussion that I don't have time to get into right now, but think about this: The majority of Disneyland's attendance comes from passholders, and a significant portion of passholders do not make more for Disney than infrequent visitors. The ideal daily attendance point for the resort with two parks is 70,000-80,000 visitors, and right now the resort is right at that range. As the passholder population is not growing, Disney needs to be confident that they'll be able to add 20,000+ visitors to their daily average before committing to a multi-billion dollar third park.

* AJ Hummel, I, too, thought the Australia article was interesting to read. Maybe it will happen someday? But, probably not. If it did, I think it would be pretty cool! Australia is a great place to visit, and Disney would only make it better.

* I agree, I could see a Disney park in Brazil someday. I feel like the locals would be able to support it, and tourists, especially from other South American countries would visit. Especially since it's a long journey from South America to other Disney parks world wide. I would say Dubai, rather than India. Dubai is a wealthy nation, and would be able to support Disneyland. India, on the other hand, is very unstable, and often the target for potential threats. I don't feel people would visit Disney in that section of the world. To me, it is to unsettled. India is a high risk for international threats. I don't think Disney would want to risk put a theme park in an area that is considered a high risk area.

* I agree with you on Africa too. It was merely just a thought. Africa is a continent that is very poor, in which majority of the countries can't afford health care and clean water. So they definitely wouldn't be able to afford Disney. Plus, Africa, like India, is another high risk area for potential threats, and targets.

* As far as Europe, there really aren't many places where they would be able to build another park. One country which could make sense is Greece? In the past several years, the economy in Greece has rapidly declined, to the point of the country filing for bankruptcy. If they did build a Disneyland, it would create jobs, and bring revenue to the already struggling country. The climate would also be able to sustain Disneyland. It's often warm, and sunny. Unlike France, which tends to be very cold during the winter months. Greece relies much on tourism, which often attributes to their economy. It's a popular destination. Disney, I feel, would bring more tourists to Greece, which in turn, would bring more revenue to the struggling country.

* Finally, my favorite, Disneyland, in California. The original. In my opinion, the best one (except possibly for Tokyo). I do feel they will build a third theme park someday. But...not anytime soon. First, they will build on California Adventure, which will be great with the addition of Marvel Land. The only thing about California is they don't have the necessary space, as they do in Florida. So unfortunately, they probably will need to close some things. Maybe they could buy more land, or knock down the Paradis Pier parking lot, and use that area someday?

"As the passholder population is not growing,". Again, that's intentional.

Timbo23, I think if Disney appears in Australia it will probably be more along the lines of what Anon suggests, with a resort similar to Aluani and/or a waterpark rather than a full theme park. Personally, if I were to visit Australia I'd be more inclined to check out the Australian theme parks than a Disney park even if one existed. In fact, when I visited Paris I would have chosen to spend a day at Parc Asterix over Disneyland Paris, but I lost that vote against my siblings. Disney does have the name, however, and that likely makes it more appealing to non-enthusiasts.

From what has been suggested here, Greece is probably the best fit for a second European Disney resort should one ever be built. Will it happen? I have no idea, but until Disneyland Paris is functioning at a level Disney is happy with I would absolutely bet against any additional European developments.

For the Disneyland Resort, there is enough space around the current parks for expanding them, and there are certainly sections in each that could be replaced with something new once space becomes a real issue. I'm not sure which lot you're referring to as the Paradise Pier lot, but if it's the one across Disneyland Drive I don't see that as being at all likely. The third park, when it happens, is supposed to be going on the site of the current Toy Story Lot, as Disney owns about 80 acres of property there that can be used.

Anon, you is correct, and that statement was an error on my part. What I meant to say was that the net population of visitors is not significantly growing, and it is more increased visits from passholders that have contributed to reported attendance gains. Therefore, a third park at this time would likely result in more of a attendance shift than attendance growth at the resort (at least long term), and Disney won't commit to a third park until they can be sure it will result in long term growth.

One other thing about passes, and this relates to your note about the Costco pass. While I don't know anything at all official, I have heard lots of rumors that Disneyland will be making some notable changes to their admission options prior to the opening of Star Wars Land. It would not surprise me at all if this Costco pass is a test before changes affecting everyone are put in place. Should it prove successful, I highly suspect that we will see both levels of So Cal passes ended completely and instead the resort will begin offering Disneyland-only and DCA-only passes as lower tier options (those wishing to visit both parks would need Deluxe or above).

"What I meant to say was that the net population of visitors is not significantly growing, and it is more increased visits from passholders that have contributed to reported attendance gains."

But I'm saying that this is the result of how expensive the AP's are priced rather than the lack of demand from the people that are willing to purchase a reasonably priced AP's. Just last year, they increased prices to $1000 for the most expensive AP. The lower tiers are expensive by any measure. This is by design including no longer offering the mid-tier SoCal AP.

AP's should be able to fill the possible third park if a low cost option is available. Otherwise, people will stay home.

Anon Mouse, you're right, the economy in Greece is appalling. I even discussed this in a previous post. However, I still feel Greece would be a more logical place, rather than countries in Eastern Europe. I, personally, don't think countries such as Bulgaria, Belarus, or the Ukraine, would attract many visitors, even if Disney was present. To be honest, i've never heard anyone say they were going to Belarus, Ukraine or Bulgaria. But, I know many people who have visited Greece.

Yes, the economy is bad in Greece, but building Disneyland would give people jobs, which will lead to economic prosperity. Look at Orlando, without Disney, Universal, SeaWorld, etc., they wouldn't have much of an economy. Building Disneyland would lead to more infrastructure, and create more jobs in the process. People who are currently unemployed would be able to get back to work. Creating more jobs leads to a better, and more stable economy. Like most parks, Disney provides a tremendous number of jobs.

Greece is a more attractive destination. Not only for the weather, but for the many attractions, and places to visit there. Building Disneyland in Greece makes more sense. The weather would be able to support the park year round. As I said, by creating jobs, the locals will also be able to support Disney. The more jobs there are created, the better the economy will be. I still don't know if this will ever happen? But if it does, i'll be the first one to go.

Timbo: Disneyland employs service jobs. They won't improve job prospects for the general population. Greece needs a proper middle class to support the park. I doubt many can afford Disney prices. Certainly, the other Eastern European countries are not well known for tourism, but some have stable governments and a strong middle class. They are in better position to support a Disney theme park. Disney is also unlikely to build without government aid and incentives. Greece is in no position to offer any financial packages. Disney just won't go there and risk its own money. They'll need another investor. Greece will pull them down. Just look at the France debacle. The French are indifferent to Disney and it shows.

I would say that for a rich country (like Australia or NZ) you would need at least 50 million people living at a maximum 2 hours flighty to justify a Disney Resort.

For a middle-income country like Brazil, Argentina or Bulgaria, you would need at least 120 million. And for a low income country like India or China, you would need to double that number to justify the investment.

That would put Australia and India out of the game. Texas and Sao Paulo are close, but still under. Eastern Europe have the numbers, but nothing will happen before Disney solves the situation in Paris.

@ Anon: As far as today Greece, currency is still the Euro.

@Timbo: “the airlines don't offer many direct flights between Orlando and Rio” but they offer more than 10 daily direct flights from Sao Paulo (plus Campinas) to Florida, besides direct flights from 6 other Brazilian cities (not necessarily daily).

@Timbo: “I know there tends to be a lot of crime in Rio, however, as they did in Orlando, they could build a theme park away from the city.” That is the opposite, criminality in Rio’s center and tourist part is similar to any other big city in the world, but it becomes astonishingly high when you go away from the center, in direction of the periphery. And there is not enough land left on Rio’s metropolitan area to make a Disney Resort.

Brazil has only two middle size theme parks and one of them is on chapter 11 (perhaps 6 flags could buy it!). The biggest amusement park in Rio closed 10 years ago the biggest inside São Paulo city closed 5 years ago.

It is not encouraging at all. But I think that Disney cloud build a new resort in Brazil, in the Amazon Jungle, somewhere near the Negro river. It is not so far from USA and Europe, and Disney cold solve a problem that Brazilians were never able to: How to explore tourism in the amazon forest.

It could have some fancy jungle hotels, a theme park like AK, a water park, some kind of safari and a port for a Disney Cruise.