Is that the argument? Is it really fully up to the individual? I doubt it. I’m not going to be able to buy concert tickets in the back row, then say due to my disability I must sit in the very front row and I won’t accept anything else. My guess is they would offer me an accommodation, but not the one I’m requesting in this case.
They haven’t been certified as a class action yet. I expect Disney will raise the waiver issue in response but who knows.
Disney mostly eliminated MOBILITY DAS accommodations with the switch to DAS by making all the lines wheelchair/ECV accessible.
In my opinion, they should have done that during the last change. Maybe then there wouldn’t be so much confusion from people on why they used to qualify and now they don’t. I think changing the name would have helped.
I guess my question is, why limit it to physical disabilities, when it seems anxiety, PTSD and other non physical disabilities are also not gaining access consistently? I know you can't answer that as you aren't the firm who moved this forward, but it's just something I've been questioning. I guess narrowing it to one subset, makes it easier to try and gain traction on the class action side of things, as that will be the first hurdle they have to clear. Just seems like in a suit where the primary argument is this subset is being discriminated against and violating unruh laws, that they are themselves discriminating against other subsets that also are not being given access.
My guess, agree with it or not, physical disabilities are treated as more "real" than mental disabilities for some people.
Disney has not actually given specific instructions about how the alternative accommodations work for anyone. That's because it varies by attraction, time of day, crowds/queue length, party-size, make-up of party, etc.
And if they did, then some people would use that to get what they want. A party of 4 who couldn’t get DAS May show up as party of 2 (adult and minor) to get a return time. Sadly if the details were posted people would find a way to work it to their advantage.
Yes im fully aware and there was a reason for that specifically for solo/single parents but if you are denied access for DAS during a call you can get some clarification or sending an email and get some type of idea on how it will be handled if you not act like a child and throw a tantrum…
I think that if anything, maybe this will force the ADA to come up a more comprehensive guideline for what businesses are required to offer. Nothing of significance has really changed with the ADA for a very long time. I think that it is past time for them to have a better outline of what is and is not required, like many other Countries do.
I for one would be curious to see how having to stop the omnimovers to load and unload has affected wait times. I think that we have all seen a dramatic increase in the amount of stops on rides like the Haunted Mansion these last few years. Those stop times DO add up to longer waits. One could argue that it has the same affect as DAS, making the wait longer for the average person.
That would be impossible to quantify. How long is "too long" for someone? Everyone will have a different amount of time that they will consider "too long".
Could be. But what i was responding to was the suggestion that if someone says, "hey, the combination of this accommodation and the frequency with which it was/is given out had/has too large an operational impact" means you're opposed to any accommodation with any operational impact.
I think that is what bothers me the most about this change. They are being so vague about accommodations. Saying "talk to the cast member at the ride" doesn't mean anything for someone wanting to plan a trip. No one wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars and use of their vacation time just to find out that whatever is offered isn't going to work for them.
I don't think that is what he meant at all. The way people on here are talking, ONLY DAS had an impact on ride wait times. But that is not true is it? It clearly does take time to load and unload those with mobility issues on most rides. The exceptions being ones like TSMM, which has a separate pull off. The omnimovers are the worst affected.
I'd be careful what you wish for, as it could very well be that such changes could result in some conditions/disabilities for which there is no viable accommodation that doesn't include undue negative operational impact.
At least we would know then and people can plan their lives accordingly. It really was not that long ago that most people with these kinds of disabilities just stayed home. I would like to think that we wouldn't go backwards, but as Angel just posted, the current political environment is unpredictable.
