First I have no idea if guests tend to re-ride headliners or not, I don’t think either one of us has data on that. Second it would depend on if the courts look at equality of outcome or equality of opportunity in regard to access, and I think we’d have to ask someone with a legal background there.
I agree with this. Whoever was in charge of the DAS rules basically said, "Throw it all out except for the ones who sued and won. It will take yrs to straighten out." In the meantime, hopefully, they'll grow a brain cell and figure it out. Dang I mean you'd think Disney could hire a team that could figure this out. If the parks begin losing money, Disney will be in bad shape because these are the company's cash cows. Maybe the company needs to lose money in order to wake up.
I doubt that this issue (changing the old DAS program) will cause the parks to lose enough money at scale to force anything. If Disney does manage to clean up the Genie+/ILL/RTQ situation then it will benefit the company.
We’re discussing access and accessibility. The answer is kind of there in the subject name. The whole purpose is having offerings available and generally not having others dictating to those with disabilities what activities are suitable for their participation.
My post was only that "it's not a given." It's not. People talk about the ADA and it's requirements at theme parks like it's settled law. It's not. And I am an attorney.
Nobody sued Disney and won over ADA accommodations. In fact, the people who have sued Disney over this have lost. Disney's legal team has lots of brain cells. They're also not going to lose money over this.
There is a lot of ways this can play out, but the ultimate answer is that either G+ users, never had DAS standby users, or a combination of the two should get more ride capacity than they previously did. However, we will have to make some assumptions:Will standby queue times increase with less people being given DAS?
They will make more money. The LLs were selling out because a large percentage were being allocated for DAS, now they have more to sell. It's probably one of their arguments with the "reasonable" accomodations. It's impacting their business negatively to have that be the accommodation, coupled with the idea that they are not responsible for making sure a guest doesn't have a melt down.
I feel if you are getting pre boarding with more than one party member due to conditions, a requirement should be they have to sit together. I have also seen one member of a party pay for priority seating then try to "hold" seats. This annoys me when people do it at school plays for their kids, and it annoys me on SW. I have told stewardess that people are doing this(as I can see it after I have my seat) and they often do nothing about it., which is why I also avoid Southwest
For what it is worth, I agree with you; I think many in this thread do. If the new accommodations are not enough to make someone comfortable, then they will remove themselves from the scenario.
It has nothing to do with what the majority of guests actually do, it is about what they CAN do.
That's a big problem on Southwest. I have to remind people on every flight, that there is no saving seats on Southwest. It is a situation where accommodations went too far and haven't (yet) changed to keep up with what people feel is acceptable public behavior.
TSA does provide accommodations:
Who said that? As far as I can remember, I am the only one that has brought up The People Mover. And I also said that I use it only if the line is over 20 minutes. I also said that I can't even go on Soarin because the line is too long after the merge. If you saw someone else post what you are saying, I have not seen it.
True this, but if I remember correctly, there is wording in the autism court ruling that states something to the effect of “DAS is an appropriate accommodation for those with this level of autism.” This is nowhere near the exact words but you get the idea. Those filing suit were asking for the old GAC to stay in place and were denied, but now there is precedent that DAS is appropriate. So maybe that would stand in court for future cases where Disney decides to take DAS away from guests with provable high-support autism?
There's a difference between saying DAS is an appropriate/sufficient accomodation and saying that anything less than or different from DAS would not be appropriate/sufficient. The court only ruled that the change from GAC to DAS was not inappropriate or insufficient. It's not Luke there were 3 or 4 accomodations presented and the court ruled that DAS is what needs to be offered.
But then offering genie as a substitute would be wrong then right? Example my kids hyperfixate on certain rides and if genie only allows it once then it would not be an appropriate accommodation.
Sure, I've always said that a lot of this is unknown territory and I think Disney's strategy is to do their thing first and see how it plays out in court later.
Your comment shows the problem with line-skip accommodations at a business where standing in line is fundamental to its nature and there are no ADA regulations.
