imho the only other way would have gone for something like UNI, as use data doesn't tell the whole story as even those on the spectrum can have different responses to triggers on different days, times of day, same for those still getting it for different reasons and yes I agree a bit of the baby with the bathwater
Please provide an example where I was asked to prove something and then failed to provide the proof, with the one exception of a poster who clearly refused to read the information that I provided.
I’m sure it would take some manpower but so does individually interviewing every applicant and dealing with individual needs at each line.
I get what you’re saying, but I suspect Disney decided a more drastic reduction was necessary. I’m not saying they’re right, but it seems to be their decision.
Here is my thoughts and before anyone comes at me its just thoughts … considering this process is basically arbitrary. Maybe Disney can be a little more lenient and compassionate for those that are actually taking a vacation vs locals (nothing against them but Disney will still do their best under the new rules) and supply these people with the accommodations thats seem to work when not overly abused. As ive stated the new rules not referring who now qualifies will help ease system already. No more pre books. 10 minute gap which easily will be longer on plenty of attractions reduction of party size. All of these changes make for a better experience. In regards to locals/ap’s they can analyze each case etc and determine it that way. Again just thoughts. Dont want a ton of hate coming back here but i think it would make some sense.
I think if you say locals who are coming to the parks and riding 2 headliners and leaving constantly may be a decent indicator? I dont know per say. But im sure they can sense some type of pattern that may raise a flag so to say. Again i truly dontknow. Just thinking out loud.
I might have read this the wrong way, but would this work with legal logistics? I only ask because right now everybody gets the same thing depending on the need. If any sort of differentiation is made between locals or number of visits, would that create a discrimination issue?
I just read his suggestions and honestly it does make sense and Disney can bucket it the same way they do with reservations say with certain park tickets so on and so forth. Goes back to my comment i just made about being more lenient on vacationers vs locals. They can say limit how many AP/Locals get access to DAS vs people who are traveling.
Legally im sure it be a challenge but again “arbitrary” and in theory noone would know who qualified and for what reasons etc. granted i know that be impossible to keep a secret but again just a thought and yes i do agree it could be considered “illegal”
I think it would be imprudent to introduce deliberate arbitrariness into any system of disability accommodations. Not to mention the optics.
I would be mad if I went on my annual (or less often) Disney vacation and was unable to get a DAS reservation because they were “sold out”. People who go often would be at a benefit and understand the system more than those go every once and awhile. What about those who don’t even know about DAS until they are there?
I think Disney isn’t limiting to X number of DAS users per day (or DAS days per user per year) because it is legally uncertain (and almost certainly going to get challenged as discriminatory, even if they ultimately win), whereas tightening DAS qualification but offering AQR to anybody who can’t handle lines is probably going to be seen as an acceptable accommodation level for most and something judges aren’t likely to force them to litigate all the way through trial.
What case other than the GAC case has there been?
I think the poster is referring only to a system of skipping the physical line, like DAS.
Again i would not disagree. All im saying is its something in theory noone would really know about…and something Disney can probably do semi discretely and loosen some of the restraints they have put on people now…
There was a GAC case out of Disney World that established Disney’s operational needs (and non-disabled guest wait times and satisfaction) gave them the right to curtail line skipping accommodations at the trial court level and then affirmed even more strongly on appeal. There was a similar case with similar facts and the same conclusion at Disneyland.
DAS is a form of access - I believe it is a requirement.
DAS is a Disney program with several elements. Do you mean it’s a requirement to allow disabled people to skip standing in line?
