Prices up…profits down…

[Minnesota disney fan]

Your grandkids experienced all standby?

Some times but then fast pass came into use. There was still standby with fast pass. But our kids and us were at WDW when there was none of that. It worked very well to wait in lines, because everyone else did the same thing. No line cutters or angry people. I doubt if that can happen now with the amount of people at WDW now. Probably not feasable, but it worked very well when we had it.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

As far as credible assurance, the section says it may be satisfied by a verbal representation by the person which is not contradicted by observation. “Credible assurance” sounds like what Disney is currently using on its DAS calls in lieu of documentation.

"May be satisfied" ... for motorized scooters. The fact that it is expressly stated that way in the "motorized" vehicles section ... and not in the general public accommodation section ... suggests (under the law) that verbal representation alone is not enough to satisfy the general credible assurance standard (under 36.301 and 36.303(a))

“Reasonable proof” is an odd term. Which section uses it?

It's not an odd term. "Proof" is another word for demonstrated or assurance. "Reasonable" is the de facto legal standard for everything; what would the average person in the same circumstances reasonably believe. It is also another word for "credible." You asked me where the reasonable proof standard existed in the ADA and I pointed it out to you as you requested.

 

[Chi84]

"May be satisfied" ... for motorized scooters. The fact that it is expressly stated that way in the "motorized" vehicles section ... and not in the general public accommodation section ... suggests (under the law) that verbal representation alone is not enough to satisfy the general credible assurance standard (under 36.301 and 36.303(a))


It's not an odd term. "Proof" is another word for demonstrated or assurance. "Reasonable" is the de facto legal standard for everything; what would the average person in the same circumstances reasonably believe. It is also another word for "credible." You asked me where the reasonable proof standard existed in the ADA and I pointed it out to you as you requested.

I was asking where the ADA used the specific term “reasonable proof” because the term itself seems odd.

Proof or evidence generally refers to something verifiable; documentation is a specific type of proof. Reasonableness is more generally used in connection with interpretation or construction.

I’ve said more than once that line-skip systems likely would not be required as reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The DOJ regulations do not require them and it would not be reasonable to require a business to give away a product it’s selling to everyone.

My only point is that the ADA is vague enough that I don’t believe Disney is being completely unreasonable in not requiring documentation. I believe the requirement is being challenged in the Six Flags litigation.

In any event, I’m worried this discussion is taking the thread off-topic. I’d be happy to discuss it in a PM if you like only because I don’t think anyone else here cares.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I was asking where the ADA used the specific term “reasonable proof” because the term itself seems odd.

You've never heard the term "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" before?

Dictionary.com ...

Reasonable - "agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical"

Proof - "the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration"

Let's put them together ... That which establishes the truth of anything to one with sound judgment.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

That’s not what I said.

Then what do you think is the best option?

All standby
Legacy Fastpass
Fastpass+ (which favors resort guests and those who plan ahead)
or the current pay to skip system

 

[The Colonel]

Take the annual revenue for paid fast passes and spread it out across all tickets for a one-time price increase. Then do away with the paid fast pass. Then go back to the legacy fast pass system. No revenue lost, the majority of guests are happy. Everyone wins.

I for one would be willing to pay 20% more for the return to the good old days of three free fast passes and then additions as available.

 

[Chi84]

You've never heard the term "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" before?

Dictionary.com ...

Reasonable - "agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical"

Proof - "the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration"

Let's put them together ... That which establishes the truth of anything to one with sound judgment.

Right but I was asking whether the ADA put them together. I’m sure you just answered.

 

[Chi84]

Then what do you think is the best option?

All standby
Legacy Fastpass
Fastpass+ (which favors resort guests and those who plan ahead)
or the current pay to skip system

For me, FP+ worked best but legacy was okay too.

I’m not a fan of the current pay system but as a practical matter it’s probably here to stay. The free system was unsustainable from what I’ve been told.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Right but I was asking whether the ADA put them together. I’m sure you just answered.

Yes, only it used the term "credible assurances" instead. Different words; identical meanings.

 

[Chi84]

Yes, only it used the term "credible assurances" instead. Different words; identical meanings.

If they mean the same thing, then Disney is getting reasonable proof of a person’s need for accommodation if the person provides a credible assurance, which the ADA says may consist of a verbal representation not contradicted by observation.

I don’t think they mean the same thing at all. A credible assurance is a type of proof, same as documentation. The type of proof required relates more to the accommodation requested. For example, documentation cannot be required in the case of a service animal but “may” be submitted as proof that one is capable of handling a motorized vehicle.

If you can’t cite to a section in Title III that uses the term “reasonable proof,” I’ll take it that the term isn’t used.

 

[plutofan15]

This is another can of worms, but I’d generally agree that Disney hasn’t been “affordable” for a very long time. My parents were never poor but they made it clear that my first visit in 2008 was financially difficult to pull off. And most of my friends growing up never got to go to Disneyland until they were in their late teens.

I think relative to the rate of inflation Disney has certainly gotten more inaccessible. But I hesitate to say that it was previously affordable anytime in the last two decades.

Affordable means different things to different people. As a kid, our family wasn’t “poor” either but we certainly were not affluent. But we, like many other families, saved over the years for a trip to Disney and this was the mid 70s. In fact, my parents were able to pull off the trip because they saved money on transportation to and from Florida. We lived in western PA and drove to Washington DC to take Amtrak into Kissimmee. We able to do that only because Amtrak was running a deal that kids under 10 could ride free with a paying adult when they redeemed a certain amount of Kellogg’s box tops. Ate a lot of Frosted Flakes to afford to visit Disney.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

If they mean the same thing, then Disney is getting reasonable proof of a person’s need for accommodation if the person provides a credible assurance, which the ADA says may consist of a verbal representation not contradicted by observation.

... and according to the ADA, this "verbal representation not contradicted by observation" standard applies only to the public accommodation of motorized scooters ("power driven mobility device") and is not a rule that applies to other forms of public accommodation (like the need to not wait in an amusement park line, as an example).

I don’t think they mean the same thing at all. A credible assurance is a type of proof, same as documentation.

So you feel a credible assurance is a type of proof, but not a reasonable proof? Okay.

 

[flynnibus]

Let's put them together ...

Ah yes... the construction postulate! often the foundation of self-made lore everywhere...

 

[Chi84]

... and according to the ADA, this "verbal representation not contradicted by observation" standard applies only to the public accommodation of motorized scooters ("power driven mobility device") and is not a rule that applies to other forms of public accommodation (like the need to not wait in an amusement park line, as an example).


So you feel a credible assurance is a type of proof, but not a reasonable proof? Okay.

You’re the one who cited the motorized vehicle section in the first place!

I believe the ADA allows/requires different types of proof for different accommodations. I’ve cited service dogs as one example where a business cannot require documentation. But such documentation is allowed for motorized vehicles. In employment situations (not applicable here) documentation is certainly required for reasonable accommodation.

Evidence or proof usually is discussed in terms of weight. It’s assumed the evidence will be reasonably related (relevant) to the case. Then the standards are whether the issue is proved beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard), by clear and convincing evidence, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, etc.

If proof isn’t reasonably related or relevant to the matter then it’s just not admissible. There’s no “unreasonable proof.”

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

The free system was unsustainable from what I’ve been told.

It was sustainable from 1999 until 2021.

 

[Chi84]

It was sustainable from 1999 until 2021.

Someone’s going to make you watch a video . . .

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Someone’s going to make you watch a video . . .

I was there…. I don’t need to watch a video. Although if it’s one of Martins I’m always happy to watch haha

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, only it used the term "credible assurances" instead. Different words; identical meanings.

And either way... misapplied by jumping contexts to suit your own need.

The standard of the law is no proof required. The DOJ has written implementation guidance and standards into the FR that have allowed barriers to access to accommodations be to applied in specific circumstances where businesses have previously argued it can't be wide open or shouldn't be for safety reasons. And in nearly every scenario, the guidance has been to defer to the citizen's own attestation. The exceptions around PMDs is almost solely on safety concerns. And in those codifying actions.. the DoJ wrote it in a way the definitions and policies apply to those specific scenarios - not public accommodation in general.

And on top of that, the standard of proof the DoJ interpretations have all basically boiled down to... "I said so"... that's what the DOJ has reiterated time and time again in their interpretation of the ADA laws as passed. "reasonable proof" or "credible assurances"?? These are not policies the DoJ has codified for all public accomodations as acceptable barriers. Where barriers have spelled out, they have only been tactfully defined in very specific scenarios (like PMDs).

You can't cherry pick language from a specific exception and then apply it broadly. You can make the argument of what SHOULD be based on the earlier interpretation the DoJ had in that specific scenario... but that's simply an opinion, not the law as it stands.

 

[Jrb1979]

I was there…. I don’t need to watch a video. Although if it’s one of Martins I’m always happy to watch haha

 

[Jrb1979]

I was there…. I don’t need to watch a video. Although if it’s one of Martins I’m always happy to watch haha

As the video says FP+ worked great for those who went often and new how to play the game.

The original FP was much better as it gave those first time visitors a chance to still have short waits. Availability for the original FP was reset everyday unlike FP+ where availability for most major attractions were gone 60 days out.