If one reads what is being written, the only people I have seen insulting or trying to shame people, seem to be those who feel entitled to DAS and yet maybe fear losing it, and it has led them to write things...like you have been writing to me and others. We have presented facts, you have presented your narrow interpretation, based mainly on your feelings, your personal specific interpretation and seem to want to argue semantics.
You specifically, along with others, have repeatedly tried to deny agency to people with disabilities. People routinely discount the challenges people face and insinuated that they are exaggerating or faking. GI and mental health issues in particular seem to be dismissed out of hand. People have been routinely questioned about their conditions and why they even go to the parks. Just going on about people being afraid of losing DAS is itself an attempt at shame that often comes along with calling people selfish that completely misses that some of us do not use DAS.
VIP is not a line skip. Even at those extravagant prices line skip is not a given.
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.
