"Disney Faulted in Disability Access Complaints"

[smiths02]

I was reading the interwebs and saw an interesting statistics (maybe true, maybe not) that the average guest went on about 6-7 rides a day while a GAC card user went on 12. I also read cases where I can see the possible need for immediate access. This had me thinking two things. How is Disney to determine when the case requires immediate access or not while not infringing on the law itself? Also, could these families (and I agree immediate family only) be afforded 6 (or whatever average number) immediate entry passes per day without hurting crowd control too much? After these 6 rides, they can choose to utilize the DAS system, wait in line, or leave the park since they have had equal enjoyment at that time.

 

[buffettgirl]

I was reading the interwebs and saw an interesting statistics (maybe true, maybe not) that the average guest went on about 6-7 rides a day while a GAC card user went on 12. I also read cases where I can see the possible need for immediate access. This had me thinking two things. How is Disney to determine when the case requires immediate access or not while not infringing on the law itself? Also, could these families (and I agree immediate family only) be afforded 6 (or whatever average number) immediate entry passes per day without hurting crowd control too much? After these 6 rides, they can choose to utilize the DAS system, wait in line, or leave the park since they have had equal enjoyment at that time.

Disney does not need provide immediate access as that provides a level of access greater than what is available to the general public.

 

[aaarcher86]

From my understanding of the lawsuit (see http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2014/10/disneyland_disability_access_lawsuit.php), it would appear that back2back rides are a desired outcome.

I agree that it's not currently permitted under the DAS.

Gotcha. Yeah, I agree. It's definitely something the plaintiffs feel they have a right to.

 

[aaarcher86]

I was reading the interwebs and saw an interesting statistics (maybe true, maybe not) that the average guest went on about 6-7 rides a day while a GAC card user went on 12. I also read cases where I can see the possible need for immediate access. This had me thinking two things. How is Disney to determine when the case requires immediate access or not while not infringing on the law itself? Also, could these families (and I agree immediate family only) be afforded 6 (or whatever average number) immediate entry passes per day without hurting crowd control too much? After these 6 rides, they can choose to utilize the DAS system, wait in line, or leave the park since they have had equal enjoyment at that time.

I'd think it'd lead to more trouble picking and choosing who gets more and who doesn't.

 

[mistysue]

I was reading the interwebs and saw an interesting statistics (maybe true, maybe not) that the average guest went on about 6-7 rides a day while a GAC card user went on 12. I also read cases where I can see the possible need for immediate access. This had me thinking two things. How is Disney to determine when the case requires immediate access or not while not infringing on the law itself? Also, could these families (and I agree immediate family only) be afforded 6 (or whatever average number) immediate entry passes per day without hurting crowd control too much? After these 6 rides, they can choose to utilize the DAS system, wait in line, or leave the park since they have had equal enjoyment at that time.

It sounds like such a nice idea, but will get right back to who decides who gets them. Not only have cognitive disabilities been on the rise, people are willing to flat out lie to get an advantage. It would only be a matter of time until a significant portion of guests had access to those immediate access cards... making the entire experience unbearable for those without the cards and the cards themselves no better than the standby lines before the cards came out. If you had 6 cards everybody's goal would be to be sure all 6 got used because you had them, even if not needed.

 

[dbramer]

What I'm saying is that if it comes back for anyone, just like the old arrow stamp, it may start out rare, but it won't stay rare.
I think Disney had kind of an idealistic idea that people would ask for what they needed, but a a soon as people figured out the 'magic words' to get a GAC with an arrow, that was the one people wanted. I think the same thing would happen.

Personally, I think the plaintiffs in this lawsuit would only be happy with a DAS that allowed immediate access to whatever attraction they want, as many times as they want, without waiting.

That is exactly what some people were complaining about when DAS was first introduced. Their child couldn't ride TSMM three times in a row without getting off anymore or just getting off and getting back on. They were upset about the fact that they had to wait at all and expected that they "deserved" it because they were on vacation and that is the only place in the world that they could get this level of service.

 

[kaytieeldr]

In October of last year, the DAS at WDW did not work well for our child with developmental/cognitive disabilities. It worked rather poorly, actually. But why, is none of your business. Suffice to say, the current system did not accommodate the needs of our child. A limited attempt was made to come up with a limited work around...and yes, folks, they do have lots of powers with MB's, but, sadly, still inadequate accommodation. Disney Hong Kong, earlier in the year in June, seemed to work just fine but not so at Disney Tokyo which seems to be taking the strict application of the DAS rules to an all new level. Yes, consider this a warning. Either way, despite the great enjoyment our child has had at WDW and other parks over the last 6 years from when she was 18 months, sadly, we probably won't be back for some time. It is just becoming too hard with a place that just does not seem to have ways to truly accommodate her specific needs. Perhaps I will investigate Disney Paris for a trip to the EU we are taking this May but I think we will probably take a pass.

I don't plan on reading any of your responses unless you feel like sending me a PM.

I think this poster taking a pass on Disney Parks for some time is the ideal solution.

Guests' expectations of parks in other countries are cofounding, given that those parks aren't subject to the ADA.

 

[tinkerpea]

I think it would really help if the Das card was attached to the MB so that people could schedule there Das times where ever they are.
That way at least if your all eating you don't have to walk to a ride your child wants.
Website had to do some serious zig zagging through parks with the Das, which not only frustrated my son,it also took time out of our daybed a family since one of us was always trying to get the das time.
At least if this happened it.would relieve some of the inconvenience and pressure on the family, and help out a single parent family drastically.
Also the child with congintive issues would not feel the actual wait time of the Das, since it would just be scheduled without there knowing.

 

[Jedana]

I think it would really help if the Das card was attached to the MB so that people could schedule there Das times where ever they are.
That way at least if your all eating you don't have to walk to a ride your child wants.
Website had to do some serious zig zagging through parks with the Das, which not only frustrated my son,it also took time out of our daybed a family since one of us was always trying to get the das time.
At least if this happened it.would relieve some of the inconvenience and pressure on the family, and help out a single parent family drastically.
Also the child with congintive issues would not feel the actual wait time of the Das, since it would just be scheduled without there knowing.

I don't know if it would work, but I read this somewhere: Allowing a DAS user to schedule one ride every hour at the beginning of the day. So, you'd go in, hit a kiosk or Guest services first thing (or even allow it the night before), and schedule SM @9am, Buzz @10, Dumbo @11, etc. All at once, away from the rides; the time could be extended one hour out, if there were any open spots for DAS left for that extra hour. No more visiting rides where the DAS user would get upset about not riding immediately, and they could still stay out of the main lines, unless they chose to ride another ride in the meantime. There would need to be a hard cut off, like FPs, where they can only accept xx number of DAS users per hour. Would it be fair? I don't know how well that would work, but that while not removing the complaints about planning ahead (which Disney wants EVERYONE to do now, with FP+ and dining reservations), would remove at least some of the complaints about lost time/single parenting.

As far as scheduling taking time out from family time, well, a lot of people did that when they had FP runners. Or families like ours, where I won't/can't ride a lot of rides (no roller coasters, nothing tightly enclosed), so I send DH and kids off to ride while I sit and look pretty.

 

[aaarcher86]

I think the goal is eventually to tie it in with MBs and integrate it with MDE. They first have to get MDE working properly, IMO.

As far as the pre scheduling with expiring times - I think that's more restrictive.

I've not felt the displeasure some have of having to send someone to get a return time. It took a few minutes each time. Nothing major. And the running around is cut down by planning. It's no different than paper FP was, but I honestly don't think a lot of old GAC users utilized that system, so they have no experience with it and can't make the comparison.

 

[smiths02]

It sounds like such a nice idea, but will get right back to who decides who gets them. Not only have cognitive disabilities been on the rise, people are willing to flat out lie to get an advantage. It would only be a matter of time until a significant portion of guests had access to those immediate access cards... making the entire experience unbearable for those without the cards and the cards themselves no better than the standby lines before the cards came out. If you had 6 cards everybody's goal would be to be sure all 6 got used because you had them, even if not needed.

I'm sure you are right.

On a few of the cases I read, it definitely pulls your emotions. These families deal with a lot. I work with children with special needs. Heck, I spent several years teaching preschoolers with autism to be engaged and wait in lines, so I know many of them can do it. However, I also see some cases where there is low cognitive functioning combined with something like epilepsy and autism, and I can see where the stress of waiting would be very difficult. In those cases, though, it might be impossible for Disney to "reasonably" accommodate them just by virtue of it being an amusement park. An amusement park is by definition an overstimulating place that requires waiting for what you want. So, in other words, these families (and they would be very, very, very few) are shut out---but they are shut out because of the disability, not necessarily because of Disney. [And this happens all the time, a person with PTSD who will have an episode over loud explosions, for instance, can't ask that Disney not do fireworks while they are on property.] A legal problem I see, though, is that Disney did offer the accommodation before, so it seems that Disney needs to prove that it is not "reasonable" now when it was apparently reasonable before.

 

[buffettgirl]

I'm sure you are right.

On a few of the cases I read, it definitely pulls your emotions. These families deal with a lot. I work with children with special needs. Heck, I spent several years teaching preschoolers with autism to be engaged and wait in lines, so I know many of them can do it. However, I also see some cases where there is low cognitive functioning combined with something like epilepsy and autism, and I can see where the stress of waiting would be very difficult. In those cases, though, it might be impossible for Disney to "reasonably" accommodate them just by virtue of it being an amusement park. An amusement park is by definition an overstimulating place that requires waiting for what you want. So, in other words, these families (and they would be very, very, very few) are shut out---but they are shut out because of the disability, not necessarily because of Disney. [And this happens all the time, a person with PTSD who will have an episode over loud explosions, for instance, can't ask that Disney not do fireworks while they are on property.] A legal problem I see, though, is that Disney did offer the accommodation before, so it seems that Disney needs to prove that it is not "reasonable" now when it was apparently reasonable before.

The old GAC was never intended to provide immediate access; it says so right on the front of the card. That it became the overused system of entitlement that it did, miring down the lines, is the very reason the program was changed. It was never a reasonable accommodation from Disney's point of view.

 

[aaarcher86]

I'm sure you are right.

On a few of the cases I read, it definitely pulls your emotions. These families deal with a lot. I work with children with special needs. Heck, I spent several years teaching preschoolers with autism to be engaged and wait in lines, so I know many of them can do it. However, I also see some cases where there is low cognitive functioning combined with something like epilepsy and autism, and I can see where the stress of waiting would be very difficult. In those cases, though, it might be impossible for Disney to "reasonably" accommodate them just by virtue of it being an amusement park. An amusement park is by definition an overstimulating place that requires waiting for what you want. So, in other words, these families (and they would be very, very, very few) are shut out---but they are shut out because of the disability, not necessarily because of Disney. [And this happens all the time, a person with PTSD who will have an episode over loud explosions, for instance, can't ask that Disney not do fireworks while they are on property.] A legal problem I see, though, is that Disney did offer the accommodation before, so it seems that Disney needs to prove that it is not "reasonable" now when it was apparently reasonable before.

But you can't hold someone to the same standard as time goes on. Things change. Systems evolve. If the old card became a problem, Disney is within their right to change the system as long as it continues to be a legal system. I don't think they really need to prove anything in that regard, but I think it'd be fairly easy to show the FP line time they've tracked, the amount of GAC users in line at Carsland when it opened (I remember it being an astronomical number), and abuses.

 

[SMD]

But you can't hold someone to the same standard as time goes on. Things change. Systems evolve. If the old card became a problem, Disney is within their right to change the system as long as it continues to be a legal system. I don't think they really need to prove anything in that regard, but I think it'd be fairly easy to show the FP line time they've tracked, the amount of GAC users in line at Carsland when it opened (I remember it being an astronomical number), and abuses.

If you consider the source if that statistic reliable, it was 5,000 riders per day out of 20,000 total riders were using a GAC to pass through the FP queue, reducing the number of FPs they could distribute to 1/3 of the normal FP capacity.

Now imagine all of the rides in DL where the accommodation was you walk through the exit and are placed in the next car. The standard queue doesn't move at all while people are walking through the exit because the vehicles are already full.

 

[aaarcher86]

If you consider the source if that statistic reliable, it was 5,000 riders per day out of 20,000 total riders were using a GAC to pass through the FP queue, reducing the number of FPs they could distribute to 1/3 of the normal FP capacity.

Now imagine all of the rides in DL where the accommodation was you walk through the exit and are placed in the next car. The standard queue doesn't move at all while people are walking through the exit because the vehicles are already full.

I can't remember the actual source, but I think the numbers were pretty widely accepted. I think it said that one of the head guys saw how few FP were going out, investigated, and found out about the numbers on the GAC which sparked a discussion of change.

Even if they aren't completely accurate, I'm sure Disney has and will use the legitimate numbers.

Thinking 1/4 or so families were using a GAC is nuts.

 

[buffettgirl]

If you consider the source if that statistic reliable, it was 5,000 riders per day out of 20,000 total riders were using a GAC to pass through the FP queue, reducing the number of FPs they could distribute to 1/3 of the normal FP capacity.

Now imagine all of the rides in DL where the accommodation was you walk through the exit and are placed in the next car. The standard queue doesn't move at all while people are walking through the exit because the vehicles are already full.

yet, none of the plaintiffs believe their actions are the reasons for the change. In other words, they would say they aren't the problem, they had legitimate needs that were being met by only allowing immediate access. It was ridiculous, it was unsustainable, and it directly caused the non-GAC visitor to get shortchanged every time they entered a line. Most reasonable people know why the GAC was changed to the DAS, and most reasonable people know that the DAS provides the EXACT accommodation that most GAC users were asking for. They were handed it on a silver platter and still it's not good enough, because like was said earlier, the real accommodation that they're looking for, and always have been looking for, is immediate access to any ride, as often as they want. It just can't happen.

 

[SueM in MN]

I can't remember the actual source, but I think the numbers were pretty widely accepted. I think it said that one of the head guys saw how few FP were going out, investigated, and found out about the numbers on the GAC which sparked a discussion of change.

Even if they aren't completely accurate, I'm sure Disney has and will use the legitimate numbers.

Thinking 1/4 or so families were using a GAC is nuts.

its in this article - scroll down to The Line King

http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al091812a.htm

 

[asta]

yet, none of the plaintiffs believe their actions are the reasons for the change. In other words, they would say they aren't the problem, they had legitimate needs that were being met by only allowing immediate access. It was ridiculous, it was unsustainable, and it directly caused the non-GAC visitor to get shortchanged every time they entered a line. Most reasonable people know why the GAC was changed to the DAS, and most reasonable people know that the DAS provides the EXACT accommodation that most GAC users were asking for. They were handed it on a silver platter and still it's not good enough, because like was said earlier, the real accommodation that they're looking for, and always have been looking for, is immediate access to any ride, as often as they want. It just can't happen.

I have always said that very few if any of the people using GAC felt like they were getting something to which they were not entitled. People post about how "other" people are abusing the system making it not work for those who deserve it. Disabilities and need can't be fairly judged and compared so all of this "I need it but others don't" is ridiculous.

 

[buffettgirl]

I have always said that very few if any of the people using GAC felt like they were getting something to which they were not entitled. People post about how "other" people are abusing the system making it not work for those who deserve it. Disabilities and need can't be fairly judged and compared so all of this "I need it but others don't" is ridiculous.

Totally agree. There was a poster here on the dis who frequently wanted it noted that her child had a "REAL" disability. Implying, of course, that others didn't. The problem was, her use of GAC was just as questionable as the next.

 

[SMD]

I was the person who mentioned seeing more wheelchairs and ECVs.

That is not a recent development. We have been traveling to WDW with someone using a wheelchair since 1987, and saw a steady increase of devices during that time, so it doesn't have anything to do with DAS.

In the last 3 years, we have seen maybe a few less ECVs and a steady increase in the number of guests using rollators (wheeled walkers with fold down seats).

For se guests, those are s very good device - a seat when you need it, walking, easy to fold for bus or car.

Part of the increase in wheelchairs is probably people who use a wheelchair full time who didn't bother going to the parks 20 years ago. And there are still rides that some guests can't ride because they can't transfer or because they can't be stopped. And you don't see too many lawsuits asking Disney to add a lift system to POTC to get people on and off the boats or add an accessible vehicle to Peter Pan or HM or an alternative viewing experience for Soarin. The funny thing is, I think that those last 3 are pretty reasonable (at DL for Peter Pan, anyway) and wouldn't impact the ride operations that much. But the expectation that certain guests should be allowed to cut to the front of the line and loop the ride multiple times is much more impactful.