News New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Chi84]

It goes into great detail about how the GAC and DAS accommodations fundamentally altered Disney's services.

Thanks. I wasn’t sure what aspect you were referring to.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Yes, but it's no longer "DAS" eligibility determination at the attraction. At that point, it's not a disability-specific accommodation; it's one available to all guests for a variety of reasons. The reason doesn't matter as much as what's the current situation at the attraction as well as the party. Therefore the CM at the attraction is the most knowledgeable about how that attraction operates and is most knowledgeable about how to access the attraction without DAS.

Let's say the issue is IBS. You are now asking guests to have conversations with every front line CM that they have IBS and those front line CMs either give them a return time or the option to leave the queue and take a picture of the surroundings so they can then return to the queue later?

That seems like an over correction and over complication to me.

Having said that, I haven't traveled with anyone that has those issues, nor am I overly familiar with the complications. Is Disney's thought process here that if the individual truly needs the accommodation it will effect them less frequently than accommodating them 100% of the time? As an example, the individual with IBS gets in 5 lines during the day over 45 minutes and needs to leave 3 of them. That's better than being allowed to use DAS for all 5?

 

[Angel Ariel]

Let's say the issue is IBS. You are now asking guests to have conversations with every front line CM that they have IBS and those front line CMs either give them a return time or the option to leave the queue and take a picture of the surroundings so they can then return to the queue later?

That seems like an over correction and over complication to me.

Having said that, I haven't traveled with anyone that has those issues, nor am I overly familiar with the complications. Is Disney's thought process here that if the individual truly needs the accommodation it will effect them less frequently than accommodating them 100% of the time? As an example, the individual with IBS gets in 5 lines during the day over 45 minutes and needs to leave 3 of them. That's better than being allowed to use DAS for all 5?

Disney maintains that no one needs to identify what their disability is to a front line CM at an attraction - just that they need to ask what the procedure is if they need to leave the line. (Or that they have a disability, but not that they have to identify which one).

 

[NotTheOne]

Let's say the issue is IBS. You are now asking guests to have conversations with every front line CM that they have IBS and those front line CMs either give them a return time or the option to leave the queue and take a picture of the surroundings so they can then return to the queue later?

That seems like an over correction and over complication to me.

Having said that, I haven't traveled with anyone that has those issues, nor am I overly familiar with the complications. Is Disney's thought process here that if the individual truly needs the accommodation it will effect them less frequently than accommodating them 100% of the time? As an example, the individual with IBS gets in 5 lines during the day over 45 minutes and needs to leave 3 of them. That's better than being allowed to use DAS for all 5?

It isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) about being "better than being allowed to use DAS for all 5"...it's about are the guests being accommodated? If they're being accommodated the 3 out of 5 times they need to be, then the accommodation works, and there is no reason to have the guest and their party in the LL.

 

[Angel Ariel]

If they're being accommodated the 3 out of 5 times they need to be, then the accommodation works, and there is no reason to have the guest and their party in the LL.

I don't know that I agree with this particular logic. If 3 out of 5 intersection crosswalks have a curb cut and 2 don't, is the curb cut accommodation working? If 3 out of 5 multi floor buildings have elevators, is that access for a person in a wheelchair?

I think it's fine to say accommodations don't work all the time - curb cuts aren't always where they need to be, accessible doors break, elevators break, etc - but I wouldn't deem the times they aren't available as the accommodation "working" - just that it doesn't have to be perfect of the time.

 

[NotTheOne]

I don't know that I agree with this particular logic. If 3 out of 5 intersection crosswalks have a curb cut and 2 don't, is the curb cut accommodation working? If 3 out of 5 multi floor buildings have elevators, is that access for a person in a wheelchair?

I think it's fine to say accommodations don't work all the time - curb cuts aren't always where they need to be, accessible doors break, elevators break, etc - but I wouldn't deem the times they aren't available as the accommodation "working" - just that it doesn't have to be perfect of the time.

But in the example, the guest with IBS needed to leave the line 3 times, and the other 2 times they didn't need to leave the line. That would certainly indicate that they didn't need an accommodation the other 2 times.

That's very different than needing the accommodation 5 times and it only working 3 times.

 

[jennab55]

Disney maintains that no one needs to identify what their disability is to a front line CM at an attraction - just that they need to ask what the procedure is if they need to leave the line. (Or that they have a disability, but not that they have to identify which one).

Precisely. This seems to be getting lost on people. It has been stated no one needs to go into detail or give a diagnosis with the line CM. Some people choose to, but it is not a requirement. They can simply say they may need to leave the line, or can’t wait that long in the queue, due to a disability and ask what the options are.

 

[DoubleSwitchback]

I don't know that I agree with this particular logic. If 3 out of 5 intersection crosswalks have a curb cut and 2 don't, is the curb cut accommodation working? If 3 out of 5 multi floor buildings have elevators, is that access for a person in a wheelchair?

Not sure this is the right analogy. A better one might be -- if there's an elevator that backs up frequently, and I'm not in a wheelchair but have an ailment that sometimes means I can't handle stairs, it's reasonable for me to take the elevator when I need it but take the stairs when I can to leave the elevator open for those who always need it.

 

[Purduevian]

Please review the legal conclusions in A. L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. I wont belabor the point. Legal precedent overrides opinion.

IMHO= in my humble opinion

I wasn't stating what should legally be allowed/not allowed. Just my opinion on LLMP/LLSP and how it relates to accommodations.

From a legal standpoint, I wouldn't be surprised if Disney could get away with saying lines and paid line skipping are a fundamental part of our business, thus any virtual queue/line skipping for disabled people is an undo hardship.

 

[Angel Ariel]

But in the example, the guest with IBS needed to leave the line 3 times, and the other 2 times they didn't need to leave the line. That would certainly indicate that they didn't need an accommodation the other 2 times.

That's very different than needing the accommodation 5 times and it only working 3 times.

You're right - I'm going to blame my fuzzy 6am brain on not reading that correctly - sorry! Not enough sleep last night

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

Let's say the issue is IBS. You are now asking guests to have conversations with every front line CM that they have IBS and those front line CMs either give them a return time or the option to leave the queue and take a picture of the surroundings so they can then return to the queue later?

Again, there is no need to even mention "IBS" in discussion with the attraction CM. "I need to leave the queue for my disability what should I do when I return?" or "I need to use the restroom how do I catch up with my party?" (which dozens of families do every day). So again, there is no discussion about the disability, no qualifying the disability, no eligibility determination.

As to taking a picture... I think that's been sufficiently debunked as a nothing. It was rumored early on but actual reports of people in the parks do not involve taking a picture.

 

[NotTheOne]

You're right - I'm going to blame my fuzzy 6am brain on not reading that correctly - sorry! Not enough sleep last night

Oh, I'm right there with you until I get my first dose of strong coffee!!

 

[networkpro]

IMHO= in my humble opinion

I wasn't stating what should legally be allowed/not allowed. Just my opinion on LLMP/LLSP and how it relates to accommodations.

From a legal standpoint, I wouldn't be surprised if Disney could get away with saying lines and paid line skipping are a fundamental part of our business, thus any virtual queue/line skipping for disabled people is an undo hardship.

You mean that waiting for any attraction isn't a fundamental part of Disney or any other theme parks' operation ? ? ?

 

[Purduevian]

You mean that waiting for any attraction isn't a fundamental part of Disney or any other theme parks' operation ? ? ?

I am saying if someone took Disney to court... Disney probably could argue that having long lines at high demand attractions and selling a skip the line option is part of their business model. Thus they would not be required to provide free line skipping services as it would be an hardship to lost profits. I don't know if they would win this, but I think there is a chance.

Alternatively, Disney has a public image they need to uphold in order to keep the masses of people visiting the parks, watching their movies, ect. So from both a business perspective AND what I think is right, eliminating the RTQ or DAS would not be the right path forward... even if legally they might be able to do it.

 

[NotTheOne]

I am saying if someone took Disney to court... Disney probably could argue that having long lines at high demand attractions and selling a skip the line option is part of their business model. Thus they would not be required to provide free line skipping services as it would be an hardship to lost profits. I don't know if they would win this, but I think there is a chance.

Alternatively, Disney has a public image they need to uphold in order to keep the masses of people visiting the parks, watching their movies, ect. So from both a business perspective AND what I think is right, eliminating the RTQ or DAS would not be the right path forward... even if legally they might be able to do it.

I'm not sure that it would really harm them from a business perspective, other than with people who won't come back if DAS is eliminated and replaced with different accommodations.

 

[networkpro]

I am saying if someone took Disney to court... Disney probably could argue that having long lines at high demand attractions and selling a skip the line option is part of their business model. Thus they would not be required to provide free line skipping services as it would be an hardship to lost profits. I don't know if they would win this, but I think there is a chance.

Alternatively, Disney has a public image they need to uphold in order to keep the masses of people visiting the parks, watching their movies, ect. So from both a business perspective AND what I think is right, eliminating the RTQ or DAS would not be the right path forward... even if legally they might be able to do it.

Thats why I referenced the settled court case. In the examples it does list that fundamental alteration that GAC and the first iteration of DAS imposed on Disney's business.

 

[Purduevian]

Thats why I referenced the settled court case. In the examples it does list that fundamental alteration that GAC and the first iteration of DAS imposed on Disney's business.

I think we are in violent agreement... I'm just saying there is a difference between what they legally have to do... and what I think they should do.

 

[DisneyHead123]

It goes into great detail about how the GAC and DAS accommodations fundamentally altered Disney's services.

That is an interesting case, although to my mind this highlights how little-defined much of the ADA is in the real world. By the same logic used in that case, a company could sue not to have wheelchair ramps or handicapped parking because their snobby clientele find them ugly, don't like having to walk extra steps to go around them, and wouldn't return if they had them in place. Do I think a court actually would say that - no, but again, there aren't a lot of parameters laid out in that case other than "The customers didn't like it and it might have hurt sales". That's a really, really broad metric that would almost certainly need many additional layers of modification if it came up in regard to other real world situations, because if taken to its logical conclusion it would quickly become absurd.

 

[jennab55]

That is an interesting case, although to my mind this highlights how little-defined much of the ADA is in the real world. By the same logic used in that case, a company could sue not to have wheelchair ramps or handicapped parking because their snobby clientele find them ugly, don't like having to walk extra steps to go around them, and wouldn't return if they had them in place. Do I think a court actually would say that - no, but again, there aren't a lot of parameters laid out in that case other than "The customers didn't like it and it might have hurt sales". That's a really, really broad metric that would almost certainly need many additional layers of modification if it came up in regard to other real world situations, because if taken to its logical conclusion it would quickly become absurd.

but what you are referring to is access to the businesss itself, right? There are actual rules as far as handicap parking and accessibility. Disney is accessible as far as access to their parks, it’s the queues which is in question in which I think is different and there aren’t really requirements.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

By the same logic used in that case, a company could sue not to have wheelchair ramps or handicapped parking because their snobby clientele find them ugly, don't like having to walk extra steps to go around them, and wouldn't return if they had them in place.

First, a business doesn't sue to not be accessible. They might be sued for not being accessible but the business would then be the defendant not the complainant.

Second, these types of accommodations are already regulated by building code laws so it would be very hard to just say "nope, not at my business." Some properties may be grandfathered or may need to provide engineering reports showing that meeting accessible building codes is not feasible.