Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
That’s fair. I often mangle my deliveries.
Put another way, a guest’s “need” (or desired/preferred accommodation) may be valid from their perspective, but unreasonable from a more neutral, objective sense.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Rumor New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
- Thread starter AEfx
- Start date
Put another way, a guest’s “need” (or desired/preferred accommodation) may be valid from their perspective, but unreasonable from a more neutral, objective sense.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
“Medical issues” doesn’t automatically confer the guest with DAS, at least any longer. Even mobility issues didn’t necessarily get you DAS under the current situation.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Guest: “I need DAS.”
Disney CM: “Thanks friend! We’ve considered your information and while we can’t offer you DAS, there are other options where Cast Members can accommodate your situation.”
Guest: “Not good enough. I need DAS.”
Ultimately, if those alternative, non-DAS accommodations are viewed as sufficient, there’s little recourse for that guest.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
It shouldn’t
My opinion on this has really done a complete 180 in the last week.
The more discussion…the more it seems abusing this has become almost a “standard”. It’s starting to make sense.
phillip9698
Well-Known Member
How did we reach the point where accommodation for access has become equated to accommodation for equal ride experience?
People they are not the same thing.
People they are not the same thing.
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
I think we’re just going around in circles and re-rehashing points that we’ve already agreed on at this point (like being in two lines at once increasing wait time - we’ve established that we agree on that a couple of times.) I think where we fundamentally disagree is here:
I still say in your framing, you are essentially saying that “DAS users have unlimited LL’s”, or that “DAS users basically have front of the line access”. And I am saying this is not the case. The fact that DAS return times are supposed to be timed in proportion to the standby line is significant, and makes a difference, even if their point of entry is the “high priority” line.
By way of example, picture this. Say that a massive supercomputer could tally to the second exactly when each DAS user would have entered the ride, had they waited in a physical line. 9:41, 9:42, 9:43, etc. And each DAS user signed in at precisely that time and got on the ride. In theory, they would be exactly equivalent to a standby line user and would add zero time beyond what any standby user adds.
Of course that is not the case. There are plenty of things that throw those windows off. However… we are still talking about greater or lesser degrees of error around that hypothetical time that would have been an exact standby equivalent. And that is significant. DAS users are not coming out of nowhere and entering the Genie line willy nilly. There is a margin of error regarding how good their estimated return time is, but the existence of a return time should be quite significant (unless Disney’s return times are so far off that they’re basically meaningless.)
I still say in your framing, you are essentially saying that “DAS users have unlimited LL’s”, or that “DAS users basically have front of the line access”. And I am saying this is not the case. The fact that DAS return times are supposed to be timed in proportion to the standby line is significant, and makes a difference, even if their point of entry is the “high priority” line.
By way of example, picture this. Say that a massive supercomputer could tally to the second exactly when each DAS user would have entered the ride, had they waited in a physical line. 9:41, 9:42, 9:43, etc. And each DAS user signed in at precisely that time and got on the ride. In theory, they would be exactly equivalent to a standby line user and would add zero time beyond what any standby user adds.
Of course that is not the case. There are plenty of things that throw those windows off. However… we are still talking about greater or lesser degrees of error around that hypothetical time that would have been an exact standby equivalent. And that is significant. DAS users are not coming out of nowhere and entering the Genie line willy nilly. There is a margin of error regarding how good their estimated return time is, but the existence of a return time should be quite significant (unless Disney’s return times are so far off that they’re basically meaningless.)
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
It sure seems like alot of people are advocating for a system where “equal access” gets those that swing it much BETTER access.
And that - and god knows I rarely agree with park management - is where I find myself lining up with Disney.
flynnibus
Premium Member
This is everyday life in tech...
User: "I need X"
Engineer: "actually, you may not need X, you may need Y. But to be sure, I actually need to understand your PROBLEM, not your SOLUTION. Let's talk about what you are trying to achieve and your constraints... so we can figure out what solution actually addresses your needs."
This is exactly the same with accommodations, and why the strategy has always been about getting a person to describe their limitations, not the accommodation, nor their diagnosis itself.
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
My take is - if someone truly needs DAS, they absolutely shouldn’t feel bad about using it at any time of day, busy or otherwise. If they’re cheating, they should feel guilty about using it any time of day, busy or otherwise.I am starting to think that this is another reason people have differing opinions if you have never been there at peak times you may not be aware of the abuse as it is not a prevalent at those times. I know that was how I felt until I started reading the posts. Also because I know we hold up lines due to our situation I feel bad for those that have to wait for us to load and unload
Again I am here educating myself to what others are experiencing.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Apparently they lost their way…
If stories of hacks from Orlando charging people $200 worth of bitcoin to get a disability pass and do unsanctioned tour groups with it.
Last edited:
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
To clarify, there will be issues (however you want to label them) in the queue for folks who have real issues and previously qualified for DAS and do not under the new system.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I've said nothing of the sort. You're confusing my point about RATIOS with how many times a single person can do something.
A person in the high priority queue is not equivalent to someone in the standby queue because they are not given equal access to the same shared ride capacity. If 10 LL queue users are allowed on for every 1 standby user... every LL queue user looks like 10 standby users from the perspective of a standby user.
This has absolutely nothing to do with how frequently a person is allowed to use a LL queue. This is purely basic math about two groups sharing the same limited ride capacity.
Comments like "unlimited LL" or "front of the line access" have zero relation to what was just described above. I have no idea where you are getting these concepts from - not from me.
Now to your comment "unlimited LL" - you can say DAS has something that could be described as that because like a LL user, they are given access to the LL queue, but unlike a LL purchaser, they are not limited to how many times they can use that privilege. It's 'unlimited' in the sense of how many times it can be used. It's not 'unlimited' in the sense of constraints.. there are still constraints in terms of when they are allowed to enter the LL queue.
This is why I keep referring to the LL queue as the "high priority queue". From a wait and impact discussion... HOW you are entitled to be in that queue doesn't matter when talking about the impact of you in the queue and how it relates to someone in the standby queue. G+, LL, DAS... they are all equals once in the queue. So there is no point in describing them separately. What matters is there are two queues, and one is given high priority and greater ratio of access than the other.. hence a "high priority queue" and a "low priority queue"
Then you can describe LL, G+, and DAS as simply different systems to get entitlement to use high priority queue. Some are more restrictive than others.
And why it's pointless to spend any time on. What you describe is not only not how it's modeled, but not how its implemented. In your hypothetical, to put a person on a ride at a precise time would require delaying not only standby, but the LL too. It's like having a third merge point right at the ride itself. This isn't how it's done. Instead, DAS users merge with other LL and G+ users at the ride entrance.. and why DAS users impact not just standby, but all the other ride users too.
nickys
Premium Member
Here’s how I see it.
Firstly not everyone claims they, or someone else, has autism or a “developmental disability” (neurodivergent is a better term imo) will automatically get the classic DAS. That never was and won’t be the case. They will still have to explain their needs. And my guess is that some might be offered an alternative.
Secondly, I don’t think Disney are going to issue anything specific about the accommodations they might offer. Neither do I think they will publish a list of qualifying conditions. Because that would just help any would-be cheaters when they call.
I do think they need to clarify the iprocess of the virtual chats. There seem to be some(? many) people who haven’t realised that everyone who wants to request an accommodation for a disability has to call for a virtual chat; They think only those with autism etc can call.
The communication by Disney on this has definitely been poor.
DryerLintFan
Premium Member
I think the information we need more than that is what the other accommodations will be and how they will work, lol
But you’re right we won’t likely get that from the company
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
Honestly, at this point, I’m not clear on what point you want to make. Different communication styles. This might help. In 2-3 sentences, what would you say is the overall message you would like to convey to me, or opinion / statement of fact you would like me to understand?
el_super
Well-Known Member
"No one goes on rides anymore because the lines are too long."
DAS returns are pinned on the standby wait times, so as they go up, the amount of time someone with DAS has to wait goes up. They cannot receive another DAS return so the overall number of attractions they can experience goes down as wait times go up.
But this wasn't happening today was it? The changeover from GAC to DAS was always meant to correct for this, and Disney has been saying (for probably 20+ years now) that accommodation was based on questions related to accommodation rather than just requests for front of the line access.
If DAS was just being handed out to anyone that asked for it, what do you think changed and why do you think *this* current change is going to correct for that?
It still hate this.
I wonder if it would have worked if they had made these changes instead.
Remove all pre booking.
Limit DAS to three uses a day.
This ensures that all disabled people still receive accommodations and will be able to experience the attractions most important to them that day.
It also greatly reduces any reward for abusers.
It might have been a happy middle ground but maybe it runs into legal trouble ?
I wonder if it would have worked if they had made these changes instead.
Remove all pre booking.
Limit DAS to three uses a day.
This ensures that all disabled people still receive accommodations and will be able to experience the attractions most important to them that day.
It also greatly reduces any reward for abusers.
It might have been a happy middle ground but maybe it runs into legal trouble ?
nickys
Premium Member
It sounds like you are thinking that Disney will decide to reject any applications from people with certain medical conditions.
I don’t think that is the case. They may well be more stringent on the questions to determine if someone qualifies, to cut the misuse.
And many people will not get the classic DAS but will still get some kind of accommodation.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…they should go ahead and start putting that on their business cards
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
So, as I ate lunch, I attempted to read the relevant section of the ADA. I've determined that laws are worded as unclearly as possible so that the lawmakers can shirk responsibility for the laws they pass and dump it on judges to "legislate from the bench" and then complain that judges do that.
First of all, the reasonable accommodation language does not appear in the section that applies to theme parks. The similar language essentially refers specifically to physical modifications.
The applicable section basically says you can't discriminate or deny access to goods and services to somebody based on their disability. If Disney eliminated DAS completely, there is a reasonable chance that they would win a suit if it was brought against them. Based upon the (overly vague and complex wording) of the actual law, you could argue that making an autistic person wait in the standby line does not deny them access to the attraction.
In their effort to serve the target audience and make the parks enjoyable for people with and without disabilities I think that Disney should provide the program for people who legitimately need it so that they (and the other people in the queue) aren't made miserable but make it as much of a PITA as possible for people trying to use the system to get free Genie+/ILL.
First of all, the reasonable accommodation language does not appear in the section that applies to theme parks. The similar language essentially refers specifically to physical modifications.
The applicable section basically says you can't discriminate or deny access to goods and services to somebody based on their disability. If Disney eliminated DAS completely, there is a reasonable chance that they would win a suit if it was brought against them. Based upon the (overly vague and complex wording) of the actual law, you could argue that making an autistic person wait in the standby line does not deny them access to the attraction.
In their effort to serve the target audience and make the parks enjoyable for people with and without disabilities I think that Disney should provide the program for people who legitimately need it so that they (and the other people in the queue) aren't made miserable but make it as much of a PITA as possible for people trying to use the system to get free Genie+/ILL.