News New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Chip Chipperson]

I am not saying Disney should stop providing allergy friendly menus. However, yes it does affect customers that are not utilizing that aspect of the menu.

I actually think it is an interesting comparison to DAS, it's at least apples to oranges. Some of the comparisons on here are more like apples to trains.

How does listing what menu items are safe for certain allergies impact other guests??? It's not like there's some secret menu item that is only available if you have an allergy. They simply prepare the safe option in a space that is supposed to be safe from cross-contamination. We're talking about swapping out a hamburger bun or bread service with an allergy-safe bun/roll/bread. Or using a separate fryer for allergy-friendly chicken fingers. It's not like you're being denied chicken tenders because they happen to offer allergy-friendly tenders, too. So the only thing you're missing out on is being able to hold a version of the menu that lists the allergy information beneath each item. But good news! You can find that information on the online menus, too. You just have to scroll past every other menu item until you get to the bottom of the menu.

 

[flynnibus]

How does listing what menu items are safe for certain allergies impact other guests???

The argument is dealing with allergies adds a tax/burden to the kitchen performance.. and offering allergen-free menu options might be in lieu of other menu options. So the general purpose customer can face a 'lesser' experience vs a kitchen that didn't embrace offering options.

This is true - but it's a pointless reference. Disney takes on those burdens because they believe its better for their business as a whole. Guests didn't face measurable impacts that lead to real lesser experiences. It's chasing ghosts.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The argument is dealing with allergies adds a tax/burden to the kitchen performance.. and offering allergen-free menu options might be in lieu of other menu options. So the general purpose customer can face a 'lesser' experience vs a kitchen that didn't embrace offering options.

This is true - but it's a pointless reference. Disney takes on those burdens because they believe its better for their business as a whole. Guests didn't face measurable impacts that lead to real lesser experiences. It's chasing ghosts.

It's only partially true, anyway. It might add a burden to the kitchen, but my food typically takes longer than non-allergy orders because they have a manager prepare the food. That means I have to wait if there are other allergy orders ahead of me, while other guests' orders are prepared by the regular kitchen staff who would be preparing their food anyway. The regular guests impacted the most are the ones dining with me.

They also aren't removing or choosing not to add other items based on having allergy-friendly offerings. These aren't "special" items - they're just the regular menu items that might have an item substituted (like a gluten-free bun or pasta) or omitted (like a sauce made with flour) or are the exact same item prepared in a different part of the kitchen. Any real menu impact is more likely caused by the Dining Plan and peny-pinchers in the account ting department than anything guests are doing.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Other than the DOJ guidelines the only direction for businesses is to offer reasonable accommodation. Clearly there will be inconsistencies.

The consistent underlying principle is that people with disabilities should be included and businesses should offer reasonable accommodations toward that end.

The DOJ guidelines do caution businesses against inquiring into the nature and extent of a person’s disability, which can cause uncertainty in what accommodation is appropriate.

It seems like in general only a handful of accommodations are sprinkled around here and there, based mostly on what the definition of “disabled” was circa 1950.

I’m not saying that in an angry way, btw. I actually don’t know that it would be at all possible to provide reasonable accommodations for any condition. Mobility devices for people with mobility issues, quiet rooms for those with certain types of sensory issues, buzzer reminder watches for those with ADHD… the list of what could be proposed as a reasonable accommodation is nearly infinite. I’m not seeing what the selection criteria actually was for the accommodations that we do have.

Again, not a complaint, just explaining what I meant when I said I couldn’t really find the underlying rationale.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Simplifying a menu/kitchen would make it move faster, cheaper, and smaller.

100%

 

[flynnibus]

It's only partially true, anyway. It might add a burden to the kitchen, but my food typically takes longer than non-allergy orders because they have a manager prepare the food

They are still in a shared kitchen - dealing with contamination requires separate processes, space, sometimes even separate workers, etc. It's still a pull on resources because instead of 100% of resources being applied to poolA... now some percentage is being pulled away to deal with multiple workflows.

They also aren't removing or choosing not to add other items based on having allergy-friendly offerings.

You can't say that looking at the menu now - because you don't know what the alternatives were before the decisions were made. But what we do know is in general the kitchen is a finite resource and variation generally adds cost. So they have made choices on what to allocate resources to. And we know in general specialized ingredients have a tendancy to cost more due.

So I don't have any problem with the argument that offering a allergen friendly menu is a tradeoff vs other offerings.. I just think it's completely pointless to bring up when Disney is talking about addressing a degregation of services elsewhere and struggles to deal with legal requirements and customer satisfaction in a completely different part of the business.

The rationale behind menu choices really has nothing to do with the DAS topic.

 

[flynnibus]

It seems like in general only a handful of accommodations are sprinkled around here and there, based mostly on what the definition of “disabled” was circa 1950.

Another horrible take.

I’m not saying that in an angry way, btw. I actually don’t know that it would be at all possible to provide reasonable accommodations for any condition. Mobility devices for people with mobility issues, quiet rooms for those with certain types of sensory issues, buzzer reminder watches for those with ADHD… the list of what could be proposed as a reasonable accommodation is nearly infinite. I’m not seeing what the selection criteria actually was for the accommodations that we do have.

And now you know why the law didn't say "here is a list of things everyone must do" -- and instead, dictated an expectation of inclusion and in the case of physical spaces, set to define what minimal standards of accessibility for a physical space should be.

You keep searching for this master list and then are shocked no such list exists. There was never an intention to have such a list. The law is intentionally designed to be flexible. What it has done is set boundaries on what should be included, and later through guidance has spelled out boundaries where it makes sense to do so.

The problem here is simply the boundaries on expectations for dealing with topics like... waiting... haven't really been flushed out in the courts in the manner people are dealing with here in the parks.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Any idea how this was handled in the past for M&G that didn't have LL (such as Pooh, or Silly sideshow at MK).

For meets that didn't have a LL you had to wait standby. We tried it once for long waits at Pete's circus tent - it was quite challenging, and not something we chose to do frequently after. We do what we can to hit meets when lines are low.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Simplifying a menu/kitchen would make it move faster, cheaper, and smaller.

Maybe, but accommodating food allergies makes those of us who have them a little less, well, dead.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I’m not saying that in an angry way, btw. I actually don’t know that it would be at all possible to provide reasonable accommodations for any condition. Mobility devices for people with mobility issues, quiet rooms for those with certain types of sensory issues, buzzer reminder watches for those with ADHD… the list of what could be proposed as a reasonable accommodation is nearly infinite.

The law addresses things that are considered personal devices - wheelchairs, speech generating devices, the adhd buzzer watches - would all, to my understanding, already fall under a category that businesses are not required to provide.

 

[Splash4eva]

In the past there was DAS for character meets that had LLs (any you could book online). But yes, there’s always been some that can’t use DAS. My guess is most have 1 person in their party wait for everyone, but seems odd people would be ok splitting up for that, yet not ride queues

Exactly and my point is. We wanted to see Woody & Jesse but couldnt bc wait was minimum 1 hour to 2 all day long. Best “option” was the CM told me when to line up after they go on break but said it would still most likely be a solid 45 minutes. So when should i lawyer up and sue Disney ?.

 

[DisneyHead123]

The law addresses things that are considered personal devices - wheelchairs, speech generating devices, the adhd buzzer watches - would all, to my understanding, already fall under a category that businesses are not required to provide.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that the rationale behind this is not clear to me. What makes a personal device magically different than an audio tour? I believe sometimes cooling units can be required for specific people in workplaces yet those are not "personal devices"... and that doesn't get into they myriad of potential accommodations a person could potentially say they require outside of personal devices. Maybe they need cooling stations, sensory areas, anxiety decompression spaces, etc., etc.

Again, I'm not saying anyone is doing anything illegal. What I'm saying is that the laws regarding what needs to be covered come off as a bit random to me. I think they stem from a time when the word "disability" was used rather differently, to describe a few specific conditions.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Sure, but what I'm saying is that the rationale behind this is not clear to me. What makes a personal device magically different than an audio tour? I believe sometimes cooling units can be required for specific people in workplaces yet those are not "personal devices"... and that doesn't get into they myriad of potential accommodations a person could potentially say they require outside of personal devices. Maybe they need cooling stations, sensory areas, anxiety decompression spaces, etc., etc.

Again, I'm not saying anyone is doing anything illegal. What I'm saying is that the laws regarding what needs to be covered come off as a bit random to me. I think they stem from a time when the word "disability" was used rather differently, to describe a few specific conditions.

An audio tour is customized to a specific place (and possibly specific time), putting the burden on the business to provide as a customer would not be able to prepare that themselves. A hearing aid is a personal device that it is on the individual to procure, maintain, wear due to the more generalized nature of the need for it.

Not saying this is the legal distinction, but this has been my general understanding.

Much like wheelchairs/physical accessibility. Businesses are required to make their property accessible to wheelchairs because the needs are specialized to each place (the location of ramps, curb cuts, etc will vary depending on building). But the wheelchair itself is a personal device customized to the person (therefore provided by the person).

 

[flynnibus]

Sure, but what I'm saying is that the rationale behind this is not clear to me. What makes a personal device magically different than an audio tour?

You can design a hallway that all wheelchairs can pass through without any special consideration. You don't have the ability for any random person to walk up and plug their whatever-thingie into your A/V system and make it work. Nor was there a ready solution for a person to have an audio device, that worked with every place. One is uniform - the other isn't.

I believe sometimes cooling units can be required for specific people in workplaces yet those are not "personal devices"... and that doesn't get into they myriad of potential accommodations a person could potentially say they require outside of personal devices. Maybe they need cooling stations, sensory areas, anxiety decompression spaces, etc., etc.

Again, you're blurring lines.
1 - Workplace accomodations is different than public accomodations
2 - A public business doesn't have to provide people such things as you list. The ADA is not about businesses PROVIDING for the disabled, it's about allowing the disabled to participate as equally as possible.

If you need a place to sit, they don't have to provide the chair you require... but if it were reasonable for you to use your own chair, they should allow it.

This is the difference - 'allowing' vs 'providing'

Again, I'm not saying anyone is doing anything illegal. What I'm saying is that the laws regarding what needs to be covered come off as a bit random to me. I think they stem from a time when the word "disability" was used rather differently, to describe a few specific conditions.

The ADA law is from 1990. The law when first written was pretty narrowly defined in what was deemed a disability to be covered. After courts ruled that, Congress went back and updated the law to make sure their intention of wide range of disabilities, was to be included.

 

[Chi84]

The mods have been pretty clear about keeping on topic. Musing about the depths and contours of disability laws in general probably doesn’t qualify.

 

[DisneyHead123]

An audio tour is customized to a specific place (and possibly specific time), putting the burden on the business to provide as a customer would not be able to prepare that themselves. A hearing aid is a personal device that it is on the individual to procure, maintain, wear due to the more generalized nature of the need for it.

Not saying this is the legal distinction, but this has been my general understanding.

Much like wheelchairs/physical accessibility. Businesses are required to make their property accessible to wheelchairs because the needs are specialized to each place (the location of ramps, curb cuts, etc will vary depending on building). But the wheelchair itself is a personal device customized to the person (therefore provided by the person).

I guess I see the line between something like a specialized desk, computer equipment, etc., and a walker to get from point A to point B as fairly thin just because one stays in the building and one does not. A person could buy their own standing desk or adapted mouse just as easily as they could buy a walker, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that "stays in the building vs. doesn't stay in the building" makes some huge logical difference there. And that doesn't even cover the other scenarios I mentioned that are more site-based.

At any rate - these are my impressions, which are of course subjective. I'll move on from the topic now as I assume it's off topic. Originally brought it up in regard to a court case involving Disney and then wanted to answer Chi84's question, but I assume I am solidly off topic at this point, lol.

 

[Splash4eva]

The argument is dealing with allergies adds a tax/burden to the kitchen performance.. and offering allergen-free menu options might be in lieu of other menu options. So the general purpose customer can face a 'lesser' experience vs a kitchen that didn't embrace offering options.

This is true - but it's a pointless reference. Disney takes on those burdens because they believe its better for their business as a whole. Guests didn't face measurable impacts that lead to real lesser experiences. It's chasing ghosts.

Lets see. An allergy is life or death situation as we sadly saw recently as someone died bc of a careless mistake by someone…. The other is lets see possibly not having the best time at a theme park. I really hope we have not gotten to a level where we are comparing the 2. Apologies in advance as im currently in Fla and havent followed along post by post…
My mom has a severe Sesame allergy and that is 100% more important than DAS… and they made a major issue in June with me by literally putting black sesame seeds on something they were specifically told not too… sad part was they casually were like im sorry and removed item off bill.

 

[networkpro]

As the topic is DAS and not dietary hazards some guest may experience, it's not germane. Free free to grasp at whisps of ghostly moral relativistic ADA supposition some tout as to why DAS for all isn't a lethal pill for the business of Disneyworld.

 

[Alice a]

Who? What happened?

You can thank the Chef TJ’s weird af stalkers for that.

 

[DisneyHead123]

The mods have been pretty clear about keeping on topic. Musing about the depths and contours of disability laws in general probably doesn’t qualify.

Yes, and after some research I found the answer to my quandary - “reactive enforcement model” pretty much answers the questions I had about why things are set up the way they are so, curiosity satisfied.