DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
Wait, what? That does sound like very pertinent information, can you link it? I had not seen that.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
- Thread starter AEfx
- Start date
Dranth
Well-Known Member
I believe this is where it was first hinted at:
New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
There is no way the standby queue can accomodate two wheelchairs or ECVs having to pass each other to let one user leave. Those lines are no that wide. What a dumb idea.
The assumption being this played into their thought process on why they felt they both could and should change the system. Disney will easily be able to prove that people who can't get by without DAS were being negatively impacted by those who were using it who could get by with other accommodations.
That, on it's own, seems enough to justify the changes but they could easily include any operational and revenue impact arguments they may want to make as well.
ETA: Before anyone points it out, yes, I know in that case they are talking about the ability to ask questions specifically but the point is it allows for operational changes if it is helping reduce the negative impact to legit users.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think you are reading too much into that...I believe this is where it was first hinted at:
New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
There is no way the standby queue can accomodate two wheelchairs or ECVs having to pass each other to let one user leave. Those lines are no that wide. What a dumb idea.forums.wdwmagic.com
The assumption being this played into their thought process on why they felt they both could and should change the system. Disney will easily be able to prove that people who can't get by without DAS were being negatively impacted by those who were using it who could get by with other accommodations.
That, on it's own, seems enough to justify the changes but they could easily include any operational and revenue impact arguments they may want to make as well.
And besides, conversation with the DOJ is pointless unless it's the DOJ being the one who is trying to sue you.... the court, not the DOJ would be the one that would decide if it's acceptable or not. Until the DOJ goes through it's process to codify such beliefs into the accessibility standards or other published guidance... it's a nice opinion, but not a get-out-of-jail card for a business.
And besides, the hypothethical is already in play... things like registration for DAS/GAC were already addressed as reasonable administrative allowances to make the systems functional. But what is lacking in the referenced Ticketing Guidance is... actually allowing any requirement of proof. It only allows the venues to make the customer assert it's really true... which Disney has already been dong anyway through the registration process they have.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Sure, I could be reading too much into it. I don't think so but if you also throw in that some percentage of the staff, priorities and the general direction of the DoJ can change on whatever political whims are in vogue at the moment then even if I am right, I'm not sure it matters much.
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
So if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that legitimate users being blocked out is a rationale for putting caps on DAS.I believe this is where it was first hinted at:
New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
There is no way the standby queue can accomodate two wheelchairs or ECVs having to pass each other to let one user leave. Those lines are no that wide. What a dumb idea.
The assumption being this played into their thought process on why they felt they both could and should change the system. Disney will easily be able to prove that people who can't get by without DAS were being negatively impacted by those who were using it who could get by with other accommodations.
That, on it's own, seems enough to justify the changes but they could easily include any operational and revenue impact arguments they may want to make as well.
ETA: Before anyone points it out, yes, I know in that case they are talking about the ability to ask questions specifically but the point is it allows for operational changes if it is helping reduce the negative impact to legit users.
I think that would be extremely difficult because many needs are subjective (How anxious is anxious 'enough'?, etc.), and, disability rates actually are very high in this country. Waaaay over the 8% of people that were using DAS. So you could potentially have like 30% of park goers applying for DAS and legitimately need it, depending on the demographics of who happens to be attending the park on a given day.
I am open to the idea that caps might hold up in court. Many things are capped, after all. Or if not exactly capped, they have their own line comprised of the people who need access to them (If there are people ahead of a park goer filling up all space using a braille map or wheelchair ramp, the people behind have to wait.) But I don't think legitimate need would be worth it for Disney to argue, because the legitimate need could be well over 8%, and they're struggling to deal with even 8% of users.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The stuff that matters is the DOJ composes things... that get reviewed... and eventually put into the Federal Registar. From there, they are basically 'law' (I'm not going to get into the nuances). That's what the DOJ is important for here in the case of the ADA because the ADA law basically set the DOJ on task to write and maintain the standards rather than have the mass of them explicitly in the ADA law itself. That process is slow and drawn out. It's also public once they get going.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
No, it’s not that you can place caps, but that maybe you could deviate a little from regulations if there is a demonstrable need. The problem though is that DoJ implying they won’t go after you doesn’t stop a person from going after you.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
No, not caps. More that there is some leeway allowed when dealing with situations where legit users are being impacted by abuse.
In the case of Disney we are dealing with abuse and overuse and I feel some wiggle room would be given due to the unique nature of a theme park. Using the wheelchair example again, if that is a workable accommodation for someone's disability but Disney puts everyone who uses one on DAS anyway, then they are increasing everyone's wait times in the LL. In turn, that negatively impacts the people who can ONLY experience the parks using DAS.
Hopefully that makes more sense as I'm not having the best day expressing myself.
ditzee
Well-Known Member
We do get moved further up because of my rollator however we always pay for early bird. The gate people move us, we've never asked.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Even leeway may not be the right term. It’s not something that is codified so DoJ right now choosing not to enforce doesn’t guarantee that they won’t in the future, especially when leadership priorities change with each administration. It also has absolutely no bearing on the courts or private citizens. Enforcement actions can and are brought by private citizens and if the regulations say you can’t ask, DoJ implying they will allow some asking but not codifying that doesn’t really mean much to the court deciding if the law was violated.
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
Lol, my brain is mush towards the end of the week so it’s probably me. I think if the accommodations Disney is providing are workable there’s little question about them holding up in court. I think the question is if they really are workable. If they are not, then it becomes more a question of what Disney is required to provide in terms of line accommodations. I think that’s a fairly big question mark at this point, with some people saying they will need to do more and some saying they are going above and beyond already.
I have said that legal stuff aside, I don’t think the new accommodations will work because they will probably be abused. Ironically, they sound more prone to abuse than the previous system. I think Disney would have been much better off updating their technology so that DAS is limited to specific lines for specific people. Computer programming seems to be a weak area for them however (I believe because they cut their IT department by quite a bit,) and my guess is they didn’t have the ability to roll out an updated program in the timeframe they wanted (and it probably would have cost more than they wanted as well.)
SamusAranX
Well-Known Member
No, it does not. I’m sure others can explain it better, but until you have a child or relative with autism, you don’t get to explain how that should or should not affect them
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
Just curious but what does this have to do with DAS?
As stated yesterday this is to follow wait times as legacy DAS expires to see if they change. I’m getting a bit tired of being asked this question everyday.
What? Attractions cast members are trained roughly 8LL for every 1SB. The reality is often like 7:1. At times where the LL is backed up substantially it can go oven more in the LL direction.
Chi84
Premium Member
What’s the point in posting these numbers every day, especially since most people are still using DAS?
Maybe if you’re going to post them you can give some type of analysis as to how they’re relevant.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
It was always 4:1 with legacy Fp and FP+ (with adjustments being made if FP backed up, of course). But I was never an attractions CM in the days of Genie+. Has the standard ratio changed? No wonder the SB never moves, if so!
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Because it’s junk data and everyone else knows that.