New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Chi84]

Ah got it - yes, you are 100% correct. And as selling expedited access is pretty common across the theme park world, it's not like Disney could be seen as purposely doing it to cut out the disabled from the LLs.

Thankfully there has been a shift in focus from exclusion to inclusion. But with businesses, you must consider the issues on both sides of the equation.

 

[jaklgreen]

That has always been the case. Disney has been lenient on giving refunds to those who don't qualify for DaS (past the typical refund time), but they have never given responses like that over guest services emails ahead of time like that. I wouldn't expect them to start now, as it bypasses the procedures they have set up.

I also don't agree with the 30 days out approval. It is easy to say, "just get a refund", but people plan their vacations months in advance. Most have to fly and you don't get a refund for that. And once you take your vacation time off at work, it is hard if not impossible to move it. How is someone going to try to plan another last minute vacation in under 30 days?

 

[KrzyKtty]

I also don't agree with the 30 days out approval. It is easy to say, "just get a refund", but people plan their vacations months in advance. Most have to fly and you don't get a refund for that. And once you take your vacation time off at work, it is hard if not impossible to move it. How is someone going to try to plan another last minute vacation in under 30 days?

Yeah, I believe that has always been a sketchy business decision on their part, thinking then most people would be somewhat trapped and not able to cancel.

 

[Chi84]

I also don't agree with the 30 days out approval. It is easy to say, "just get a refund", but people plan their vacations months in advance. Most have to fly and you don't get a refund for that. And once you take your vacation time off at work, it is hard if not impossible to move it. How is someone going to try to plan another last minute vacation in under 30 days?

At that point, maybe a lot of people would just choose Genie+/ILLs. It might not be as good but it would help save the vacation.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, the point is, when asking for an accommodation that Disney DOES provide, they are being denied that accommodation.

Sorry for repeating but it’s equivalent of asking for an interpreter at a show and having to interview in order for Disney to establish that you are deaf enough to get an interpreter.

Your argument is flawed in the most basic sensr. A customer does not get to define their accommodation - as such they do not get to decide which is enough or not. The measure is if they are denied a resulting equal participation. They don’t goto court saying ‘i was denied DAS’ - they goto court saying they didn’t get equal participation (or suffered discrimination).

They would try to argue what accommodation is needed - but that is not what makes the case actionable. They must first demonstrate and argue that their resulting experience was insufficient.

Being given something other than you want doesn’t make it a case. The result must be found to be deficient.

 

[tonythetigerasn]

To be clear I’m not saying DAS as it was didn’t need some fixes.

But adding 5 or even 10 minutes to a standby line does not make people miserable.

I want to be clear. As a rare visitor, long wait times with 90% of ride capacity going to LL (which was heavily DAS filled, by reports) and inability to get G+ return times for top attractions were significant factors in my recent frustrating trips.

5-10 minutes less, many times a day, makes a big impact on people's trips.

 

[Chi84]

Your argument is flawed in the most basic sensr. A customer does not get to define their accommodation - as such they do not get to decide which is enough or not. The measure is if they are denied a resulting equal participation. They don’t goto court saying ‘i was denied DAS’ - they goto court saying they didn’t get equal participation (or suffered discrimination).

They would try to argue what accommodation is needed - but that is not what makes the case actionable. They must first demonstrate and argue that their resulting experience was insufficient.

Being given something other than you want doesn’t make it a case. The result must be found to be deficient.

That’s true. In court, a plaintiff would have to prove not only that they are disabled but also that the accommodation they asked for was both reasonable and necessary to afford access or participation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

gotcha - was trying to understand your position.

I think my thinking on the ADA law is how it is being decided who gets accommodated and who doesn’t.

That’s where it gets tricky. If you provide the accommodation but tell someone with a disability they aren’t disabled enough where does that fall? And I don’t know - I’m not a lawyer thankfully! Haha

I think the bigger risk is the way they’re trying to push more people down to the individual attraction level. People being accommodated one time and denied the next seems like a real problem.

 

[Chi84]

I think the bigger risk is the way they’re trying to push more people down to the individual attraction level. People being accommodated one time and denied the next seems like a real problem.

What do you mean by denied? Offered no accommodation or not the one they prefer because it’s the least difficult and uncomfortable?

 

[flynnibus]

That’s true. In court, a plaintiff would have to prove not only that they are disabled but also that the accommodation they asked for was both reasonable and necessary to afford access or participation.

Even more so… they would have to convince the court that the accommodation provided was NOT sufficient. They can’t say ‘yes they gave us enough accommodation, but we wanted our version…’..

That’s the relevance to this conversation thread. They can’t reject an accommodation that meets the their needs and claim harm — just because they wanted some other version. Well… they could… but they’re gonna defeat their own claim they weren’t accommodated.

The law is the business must PROVIDE reasonable accommodation. - not that they must accept any requested accommodations (even if reasonable). The business will have satisfied their obligation to provide an accessible experience - they are not obligated to follow customer preferences.

The shortest path in most scenarios is to listen to requests… as it normally gives a best fit and causes less grief — as long as the request can be accommodated. But for instance… a customer doesn’t get to dictate what parking should be designated a handicap spot on demand. If the business provides handicap accessible parking to a standard that has been deemed sufficient… the customer has no case just because their preference was rejected. They would have to convince a judge the offered accommodation was insufficient to their need and can request another form of accommodation be declared the necessary accommodation.

this is a tougher climb verse getting the request thrown out as unreasonable too - (like they did in the segway case)… but in effect the ada requires businesses to meet a MINIMUM- not a preference.

 

[Chi84]

Even more so… they would have to convince the court that the accommodation provided was NOT sufficient. They can’t say ‘yes they gave us enough accommodation, but we wanted our version…’..

That’s the relevance to this conversation thread. They can’t reject an accommodation that meets the their needs and claim harm — just because they wanted some other version. Well… they could… but they’re gonna defeat their own claim they weren’t accommodated.

The law is the business must PROVIDE reasonable accommodation. - not that they must accept any requested accommodations (even if reasonable). The business will have satisfied their obligation to provide an accessible experience - they are not obligated to follow customer preferences.

The shortest path in most scenarios is to listen to requests… as it normally gives a best fit and causes less grief — as long as the request can be accommodated. But for instance… a customer doesn’t get to dictate what parking should be designated a handicap spot on demand. If the business provides handicap accessible parking to a standard that has been deemed sufficient… the customer has no case just because their preference was rejected. They would have to convince a judge the offered accommodation was insufficient to their need and can request another form of accommodation be declared the necessary accommodation.

this is a tougher climb verse getting the request thrown out as unreasonable too - (like they did in the segway case)… but in effect the ada requires businesses to meet a MINIMUM- not a preference.

The one aspect I haven’t quite thought through is the fact that Disney is now selling line-skips. The access is there and I suspect most guests are using it for a better experience. The paid service is sold to everyone, so it’s not an access issue.

 

[flynnibus]

The one aspect I haven’t quite thought through is the fact that Disney is now selling line-skips. The access is there and I suspect most guests are using it.

There is still the clear argument that such a system is not without burden and not infinitely scalable. So its existence isn’t case enough to say it’s a reasonable request to have it as an accommodation.

Disney would argue they can’t do that at the scale needed for the disabled population in the park.

Having a separate system also allows disney to have different rules without too much confusion or risk creating conflicts.

 

[Chi84]

There is still the clear argument that such a system is not without burden and not infinitely scalable. So its existence isn’t case enough to say it’s a reasonable request to have it as an accommodation.

Disney would argue they can’t do that at the scale needed for the disabled population in the park.

Having a separate system also allows disney to have different rules without too much confusion or risk creating conflicts.

I agree that a separate system is needed for a specific population (Disney has now identified it), but for many disabled people who find in-line accommodations difficult or uncomfortable, the paid system exists as access. The ADA is about ensuring access, not free access or access at a reduced price.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree that a separate system is needed for a specific population (Disney has now identified it), but for many disabled people who find in-line accommodations difficult or uncomfortable, the paid system exists as access. The ADA is about ensuring access, not free access or access at a reduced price.

Choosing G+ because you prefer it over the provided form of accommodation is fine… but the provided accommodation must still pass muster. Of course the line between ’i can’t use this’ and ‘I don’t want to accept these limitations’ is very difficult for many to distinguish and at risk of interpretation too.

I don’t like bringing up that option to ‘upgrade’ in these discussions because that line between ‘need’ and ‘prefer’ is so controversial

 

[Chi84]

Choosing G+ because you prefer it over the provided form of accommodation is fine… but the provided accommodation must still pass muster. Of course the line between ’i can’t use this’ and ‘I don’t want to accept these limitations’ is very difficult for many to distinguish and at risk of interpretation too.

I don’t like bringing up that option to ‘upgrade’ in these discussions because that line between ‘need’ and ‘prefer’ is so controversial

I understand that, but if it comes to what’s required by law, that option will be considered.

And in a lawsuit, the difference between need and preference will be determined.

 

[John park hopper]

For a company that claims to be inclusive of all their new DAS policy is very non inclusive
"DAS is one of our programs offered at the Walt Disney World Resort theme parks to accommodate only those Guests who, due to a developmental disability such as autism or a similar disorder, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time."
There are many adult conditions which make waiting in lines difficult or impossible, if you are going to force adults to buy Genie + (supposed accommodation) why are they exempting children with developmental disability such as autism or a similar disorder. Isn't Genie + an accommodation for them was well ---guess it's not good PR

 

[Jrb1979]

For a company that claims to be inclusive of all their new DAS policy is very non inclusive
"DAS is one of our programs offered at the Walt Disney World Resort theme parks to accommodate only those Guests who, due to a developmental disability such as autism or a similar disorder, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time."
There are many adult conditions which make waiting in lines difficult or impossible, if you are going to force adults to buy Genie + (supposed accommodation) why are they exempting children with developmental disability such as autism or a similar disorder. Isn't Genie + an accommodation for them was well ---guess it's not good PR

DAS isn't the only accommodation though. They do have other options.

 

[John park hopper]

DAS isn't the only accommodation though. They do have other options.

Such as

 

[bwr827]

Sorry for repeating but it’s equivalent of asking for an interpreter at a show and having to interview in order for Disney to establish that you are deaf enough to get an interpreter.

Not a useful comparison.

An interpreter at a show is a clear-cut solution that provides simultaneous accommodation to many people, and with no impact to other guests.

Are there multiple types of interpreter for one type of need, with one of those types of interpretation being extra special?

To support ride access, a much less clear-cut challenge, WDW is offering multiple types of accommodation. DAS is one extra special option.

Could WDW make its rides accessible by putting one special cast member at each ride? No.

 

[Jrb1979]

Such as

They have rider Swap and the option of leaving the queue and returning to the queue when able to. You meet your party at the merge point.