Even then there can be limits, I was with a true VIP tour at Universal shortly after Gringotts opened and our guide couldn’t help us. (Not a paid tour, I was the guest of a very legit VIP). Now to be fair, I asked about Gringotts, not the VIP cause his kids cared more about the stuff in islands of adventure haha. If he had asked she may have been able to pull a few strings with the bank tellers haha.
I think this point is under appreciated but it’s extremely important because the potential is how it actually worked almost every time for misusers and outright abusers — and when it is such a huge advantage (I think it might actually be on par with VIP total ride count when combined with G+) and Disney is totally unwilling to commit the resources to distinguish between people who actually need it, people who probably don’t need it most of the time, and the people who were outright faking it, suddenly a huge chunk of CMs and APs and DVC members end up using it and LLs end up no longer being accessible for folks who need them.
Limits or using a shared access point don’t change how the system works where it is offered.
In this case, the potential for abuse weighs heavily on whether the accommodation would fundamentally alter the service provided to all guests. So it means a lot.
Not when you’re repeatedly exaggerating that potential by using language that describes something else. Even you keep pointing to GAC as a reference point of usage.
I’m not exaggerating or mischaracterizing anything. You can see from the posts here and on other sites that Disney was having a problem with DAS being abused/overused.
Potential for abuse can not be used as a reason to not allow disabled guests to purchase handicap seats at shows. not a direct comparison but the closest we have I think.
Repeatedly referring to the usage statistics in A.L. is exaggerating. That was a different system that operated differently. DAS does not allow that sort of usage.
It’s the only case dealing with line accommodation so it’s relevant even though the systems are not the same.
It’s not relevant to the extent of usage because it cannot be used the same.
And that case specifically mentions fast pass being an option available free of charge to all guests.
I’m not sure how helpful it is to talk in terms of fault. It seems that GAC and now DAS offered a better accommodation than what they are now offering.
Yes. All court cases are fact specific. Every case will have different facts. That doesn’t mean they have no relevance.
I meant the fact that fastpass was free was relevant to the case. Now that there isn’t a free option would likewise be relevant in a case.
That’s true. A paid option would be relevant. Now Disney’s business model is to sell access to the LLs to both disabled and non disabled guests. I don’t believe that’s going to weigh in favor of DAS like accommodations.
Well….. one of the lawyers will think that way and the other will think the opposite. Such is America! Haha
Disney’s implementation does require segregation and people were just arguing in support of that segregation.
But if it’s so critical to Disney’s business model then it can’t actually offer what is promised because the product fundamentally cannot work at such a scale.
I don’t think it does. Disney is trying to make its lines more accessible to all with AQR. But people aren’t happy with the accommodation so they want to avoid the lines and have their party wait with them outside of the line. That’s not Disney’s doing.
