New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[lazyboy97o]

What is this based on?

Please provide a case in state or federal court where any company was required to provide unlimited access to an unlimited number of people.

As one example, please explain how Disney is violating any law by not having an unlimited amount of accessible seating during every performance of the American Adventure in EPCOT.

Please explain how Disney would be prohibited by improving the guest experience for everyone by limiting the amount of people who could use DAS on a given day. Please provide a court case, not just your opinion. I certainly respect your opinion, but random opinions are not law.

It’s the very basics of the laws. You can’t discriminate based on disability. Refusing entry to a person in a wheelchair is discriminating based on their disability, even if all of the accessible parking spaces are full.

 

[Chi84]

Why don't they want to? Has anyone provided an internal document that shows their justification?

I get it. They don't want to use a third party. That's a huge mistake, in my opinion. What they are doing now is inconsistent. It makes no sense.

They don’t want to because it won’t solve the problem, for the reasons expressed in many prior posts.

 

[WDWTrojan]

What is this based on?

Please provide a case in state or federal court where any company was required to provide unlimited access to an unlimited number of people.

As one example, please explain how Disney is violating any law by not having an unlimited amount of accessible seating during every performance of the American Adventure in EPCOT.

Please explain how Disney would be prohibited by improving the guest experience for everyone by limiting the amount of people who could use DAS on a given day. Please provide a court case, not just your opinion. I certainly respect your opinion, but random opinions are not law.

If you can't find a disabled parking space at the grocery store, you can simply park in a regular space and still use the wheelchair ramp to enter the store. Under no circumstance would the store say "sorry we've reached our limit with how many people can use the ramp for today but if you want to try to make it up the steps in your wheelchair, feel free!" Come on.

The whole point of DAS is that it's one type of accommodation offered to people who need it. It's their wheelchair ramp. You are asking for Disney to pick and choose which disabled people get to visit for the day and that's just wrong.

They were previously offering a one size fits all policy for all non-mobility related disabilities and that didn't work. Now they are providing a number of accommodations based on your specific needs.

 

[photomatt]

So... rather than make their accommodations better fit guests needs and allow the 'one size fits all' model to be retired.. you want to protect that 'one size fits all' model and instead force guests to compete against each other for limited capacity.

This reeks of people just wanting to be selfish and not care that others are excluded as long as they get theirs... A common thing... until they are the ones who find themselves on the outside and their tune will change.

You are correct a company doesn't have to provide unlimited capacity for a service - but giving DAS reservations capacity guaranteed to on-property folks would likely invite scrutiny under discrimination claims. That scenario that people can't get access to the service unless they buy other bundled products would draw scrutiny. That bundling would likely get torn up in court.

Such a cap strategy would also open the company to a court interpretation of how much capacity is reasonable for them to allocate.. without any prior guidance.. that is a risky proposition. Lawyers and policy makers don't like untested waters...

Guests already compete for limited capacity. That's the reservation system. It already exists. The genie is out of the bottle.

I don't have DAS, so I don't have a horse in this race. Although I do occasionally go to the parks with people who do have DAS, I never use it with them. I rarely ride rides at the parks. Strange? Sure. But it's the truth.

Disney already guarantees park access to people staying in the resorts. Disney could easily cite operational reasons for giving hotel guests DAS reservations if they qualified for DAS. This would not be a problem. Disney is NOT requiring anyone to pay for a hotel reservation. You could still get DAS reservations if they were available, so this is hardly requiring anyone to pay a fee. It would simply be a perk to those who stay on property.

Disney could easily justify what was reasonable. It's their operations. They have the right to determine what is a good guest experience vs a bad one. If a guest with DAS used to have to wait 60 minutes for a return time but now has to wait 30 minutes for a return time, how is that a bad experience? If a person who paid for Genie+ could only make two or three reservations in a day but now can make 4 or 5, how is that a bad experience? It's not.

 

[photomatt]

They don’t want to because it won’t solve the problem, for the reasons expressed in many prior posts.

Why won't it solve their problem? Why did two theme park companies choose IBBCES? Why are they wrong? Please point me to a post that answers this, or provide a brief summary.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Why won't it solve their problem? Why did two theme park companies choose IBBCES? Why are they wrong? Please point me to a post that answers this, or provide a brief summary.

Well, six flags is currently being sued over their use of IBBCES - so that's one thing.

Also, IBCCES is a marketing company. To call what they are doing verifying disability is...generous, to say the least. And yes, we've gone through the IBCCES process. One more hurdle that, for those of us that actually follow rules, is just one more headache - that cheaters will jump over in a heartbeat. It's the equivalent of security theatre.

 

[flynnibus]

I get it. They don't want to use a third party. That's a huge mistake, in my opinion

The use of the 3rd party as others are doing now is untested as well. It provides a lot of issues too - and untested in court yet, so Disney may not want to bet the farm on that yet.

Honestly the use of a 3rd party to make the determination of 'disability present' really doesn't add much value - it's more hand waving than anything and hiding culpability under the guise of 'experts'. But the liability to the business is still the same. A court isn't going to respect the 3rd party's determination of if a person has a covered disability. And the business is still obligated to provide equal participation if that person is deemed to have a covered disability. They can't hide behind 'well that guy said they weren't disabled'.. same way a company can't just blame an individual employee's determination as an escape for their liability in the matter.

The whole contracting of those disability 'experts' is just a shell game the business has been sold on and will likely fold up the first time they get burned by it.

 

[Chi84]

Why won't it solve their problem? Why did two theme park companies choose IBBCES? Why are they wrong? Please point me to a post that answers this, or provide a brief summary.

The answer, in brief, is that Disney needed to restrict DAS usage to a greater extent than the theme parks using IBBCES. And I’m still waiting to hear how IBBCES is going to give Disney information on whether a disability is mobility-related when they can’t require an applicant to state their disability.

 

[flynnibus]

It’s the very basics of the laws. You can’t discriminate based on disability. Refusing entry to a person in a wheelchair is discriminating based on their disability, even if all of the accessible parking spaces are full.

He's not barring them from the park - he's saying that person wouldn't be able to use a DAS reservation and would be demoted to a regular entry..

Just like a person who wants a handicap parking spot, but when full, can opt to use a regular spot.

 

[photomatt]

Well, six flags is currently being sued over their use of IBBCES - so that's one thing.

Also, IBCCES is a marketing company. To call what they are doing verifying disability is...generous, to say the least. And yes, we've gone through the IBCCES process. One more hurdle that, for those of us that actually follow rules, is just one more headache - that cheaters will jump over in a heartbeat. It's the equivalent of security theatre.

Please provide a link to the court case where Six Flags is being sued.

What is your source for the claim that IBBCES is a marketing company?

I agree that cheaters will find a way to cheat no matter what. That does not mean that IBBCES should not be used.

 

[photomatt]

The answer, in brief, is that Disney needed to restrict DAS usage to a greater extent than the theme parks using IBBCES. And I’m still waiting to hear how IBBCES is going to give Disney information on whether a disability is mobility-related when they can’t require an applicant to state their disability.

I provided a link to the website. The information you are looking for is there.

It's also in many articles you can find discussing how it's used at various theme parks.

 

[Chi84]

He's not barring them from the park - he's saying that person wouldn't be able to use a DAS reservation and would be demoted to a regular entry..

Just like a person who wants a handicap parking spot, but when full, can opt to use a regular spot.

Kind of like virtual queues but for disabled persons - like a disability lottery. That wouldn’t be distasteful at all.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Please provide a link to the court case where Six Flags is being sued.

What is your source for the claim that IBBCES is a marketing company?

I agree that cheaters will find a way to cheat no matter what. That does not mean that IBBCES should not be used.

I'm not doing work for you. Google is your friend.

 

[Chi84]

I provided a link to the website. The information you are looking for is there.

It's also in many articles you can find discussing how it's used at various theme parks.

I read it and the information says an applicant does not have to provide a diagnosis- just verification of the need for a specific accommodation. So how would this tell Disney that a disability is mobility related?

 

[photomatt]

Kind of like virtual queues but for disabled persons - like a disability lottery. That wouldn’t be distasteful at all.

The current reservation system is not a lottery. Reservations are available months in advance. Walt Disney World REQUIRES months of advance planning if you want to experience many of the table service restaurants.

DAS reservations would not be a virtual queue. They would be nothing like a lottery. Instead, they would guarantee a better experience for everyone in the park on a given day. Everyone.

 

[photomatt]

I read it and the information says an applicant does not have to provide a diagnosis- just verification of the need for a specific accommodation. So how would this tell Disney that a disability is mobility related?

This is right on the first page:

Please Note:​

• The purpose of the IAC is to pre-register you as an individual who may need accommodations or assistance.
• This is NOT a ticket and does NOT grant you access to any attraction. You will still need to purchase a ticket for admission
• The IAC does NOT guarantee you any benefits or accommodations. All accommodations afforded to individuals with a need are at the sole discretion of the attraction
• Please present your IAC upon arrival at the park for details about what accommodations may be available
• All posted rules and regulations for the attraction you are visiting still apply

And -

The IAC is for anyone who is requesting accommodations – including but not limited to individuals who are autistic, use a wheelchair, are blind/low vision, deaf/hard of hearing, have mobility support needs, are accompanied by a service animal, have sensory sensitivities, cognitive disabilities, or have other needs and concerns.

The IAC helps identify accommodations needed and expedite the process at parks and attractions. Please read the below information very carefully and note that the IAC does NOT guarantee entry to an attraction and any special accommodations or benefits provided are at the sole discretion of that attraction.

The card verifies that the person claiming the disability has had a doctor verify it. This is vastly better than having a person go to the park and make a claim without any proof. The person requesting the accommodation can present the card, prove that their disability has been verified, and then explain what accommodations they need and why. All I am suggesting is that Disney not change their policy as it existed prior to a few weeks ago.

 

[lazyboy97o]

He's not barring them from the park - he's saying that person wouldn't be able to use a DAS reservation and would be demoted to a regular entry..

Just like a person who wants a handicap parking spot, but when full, can opt to use a regular spot.

Minimums are not a maximum. The design guidelines are not a maximum threshold of service and accommodation. You can’t limit other accommodations because one minimum prescribed accommodation is being fully used at a particular moment. The minimum design criteria aren’t even consistent across different requirements to define a minimum threshold.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney already guarantees park access to people staying in the resorts. Disney could easily cite operational reasons for giving hotel guests DAS reservations if they qualified for DAS. This would not be a problem. Disney is NOT requiring anyone to pay for a hotel reservation. You could still get DAS reservations if they were available, so this is hardly requiring anyone to pay a fee. It would simply be a perk to those who stay on property.

I stand by my assessment. "not required" isn't enough, especially when you've setup a system that guarantee use if you are in a certain pool of customers

Someone would argue 'well if you have capacity you can guarantee 100k onsite guests DAS access - you have capacity for 100k DAS users.. and that means you must make at least 100k DAS slots open.. you can't exclude people from using those 100k slots just because they didn't buy your hotel room. So if you only have 20k onsite users using DAS, you must free up that other 80k to everyone'. The problem is the onsite hotel capacity is so large, you're hitching your horse to a number you probably can never sustain. And by making such a promise of availability.. you've also admitted you have a number you are willing to support. So that number becomes a piece of evidence in arguing what is 'reasonable' for the parks to do while avoiding having to fundamentally alter their product.

Your model would be better to tie to a number based on the operations of the parks - not tied to this hotel room thing that has nothing to do with the operational capabilities of the parks. Not only does it set yourself up for a number you probably don't want to accept... it sets yourself up for the commercial exploitation/discrimination issues because you can't really argue how the relatively static hotel capacity maps to the park's operations.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Nowhere did I say that anyone would be refused entry.

People with DAS could make regular reservations and access the park any time a regular reservation was available.

This sounds just as bad as the new system we have now, one more “maybe you can get this accommodation” isn’t going to make the parks any more appealing to DAS guests than what we have now.

Bottom line is Disney underbuilt the parks over the last couple decades, construction is the only solution to this problem, there’s no workaround or line scheme that’s going to overcome the fact that 20 million guests are now visiting parks designed for 10-15 million guests... the non-DAS guests thinking the DAS changes are going to magically make the lines disappear are going to be just as disappointed as the DAS guests are now.

The only way the DAS changes are going to work is if millions of former DAS guests simply stop going to the parks, and if that does happen Disney will be backpeddling so fast to get those guests back our heads will spin.

 

[photomatt]

You seem not to understand that Disney has already decided not to give DAS to everyone who has a disability because it would place too much strain on the system. Having a third party verify something that Disney doesn’t need to know won’t help anything.

Also, the information you provided does not require an applicant to disclose their disability.

You clearly have not made any attempt to understand what the card is or the process required to obtain one. That's your choice and your right, but in doing so, you pretty much tell everyone that you're willing to post whatever you feel but you won't do even the simplest research to make sure that your opinions are based on fact.

I'm not telling you that you are wrong to do this, but I also have a right to respectfully and politely point out what's happening.