First Trip for us since change to DAS

[eblondie]

The problem with the phrasing about it being for other people's comfort is that accommodations are not supposed to be about what makes a non-disabled person comfortable. I've met plenty of non-disabled people, even now, who were not comfortable with having me in the same lines as them just because I use a wheelchair. That doesn't mean I qualify (or should qualify just based on that) for a DAS. Accommodations are for disabled people for their needs and safety. As well, the phrasing suggests that the DAS is only supposed to be for when the effects of the disability impact other people in the line. There are plenty of reasons why someone might need a DAS (and qualify based on the rules) that have nothing to do with the experiences of others in the lines. There are plenty of reasons someone could qualify for the DAS that aren't sensory related, as well.

AMEN! That's exactly what I think.

 

[aaarcher86]

DAS users already have 3 fastpasses a day like everyone else. In some cases they do get other accommodations. The additional accommodations which are essentially what you are describing are very upsetting to the people who don't get them and come to the boards to complain. What you've described has happened so many times that it seems at this point that it's very deliberate on the part of Disney. Their exact words are being relayed to the very people who are the biggest complainers via the boards. JMO, they aren't going to change anything at this point unless it's some minor tweak. If you go back you should video tape it and get names so that you can appeal as an individual to the Disney company directly. I don't think they make policies based on anything they read on the internet. I think they may make decisions on how their policies are presented/worded to appease the complainers or make justifications. Enough people have complained about this that it no longer could possibly be a training issue.

WDW has policies in regards to the video taping of CMs. You probably won't get very far going that route.

 

[mom2AidanAndEli]

I will definitely agree that the CM was out of line in how they handled it and needs some retraining on customer services--and basic respect.

However, the OP has not said exactly what accommodations her husband needs or why. And she doesn't have to in a public forum if she'd rather stay private. But that means NONE of us can say whether he really should be getting the DAS or not. A lot of people are assuming that since she asked for it, she should have gotten it. And this goes for other people who have complained about not getting it as well. Could be that they were just angry or disappointed in not getting what they wanted. Doesn't mean it's justified and that the CM was completely in the wrong.

Disney used to give cards to just about anyone and people started abusing it. HUGELY! So now they've had to rethink how they do things. Maybe for now they've swung too far the other way and are too restrictive. But eventually it may just even out.

But unless a poster is going to say exactly what they wanted and why, we can't assume they should have gotten it.

 

[Mrs.Malone]

I will definitely agree that the CM was out of line in how they handled it and needs some retraining on customer services--and basic respect.

However, the OP has not said exactly what accommodations her husband needs or why. And she doesn't have to in a public forum if she'd rather stay private. But that means NONE of us can say whether he really should be getting the DAS or not. A lot of people are assuming that since she asked for it, she should have gotten it. And this goes for other people who have complained about not getting it as well. Could be that they were just angry or disappointed in not getting what they wanted. Doesn't mean it's justified and that the CM was completely in the wrong.

Disney used to give cards to just about anyone and people started abusing it. HUGELY! So now they've had to rethink how they do things. Maybe for now they've swung too far the other way and are too restrictive. But eventually it may just even out.

But unless a poster is going to say exactly what they wanted and why, we can't assume they should have gotten it.

Just to clarify my own response, I absolutely agree with you that we can't/don't know whether OP really should have been given DAS or not. Not arguing that at all.

I just feel that it CAN'T be correct under the law for Disney to have their CMs saying outright that accommodations are reserved for people with one specific dagnosis. And we've heard that line from enough posters now that I think it really is an issue, not just selective hearing. I also think it's simply inappropriate for a CM to mention that the accommodations are intended to protect guests from being bugged by people with autism. While this may be true in some cases, it's unprofessional for a CM to say it like that.

I'm speaking here as a mom of a child with autism and a child with very visible disabilities.

 

[OurBigTrip]

I don't think they make policies based on anything they read on the internet. I think they may make decisions on how their policies are presented/worded to appease the complainers or make justifications.

Enough people have complained about this that it no longer could possibly be a training issue.

First, if Disney's primary interest was in appeasing the complainers, the GAC would have been reinstated a week after it was eliminated.

Second, although I agree that what the CM said to the OP was wrong, we really have no idea how often it happens. Sure, we read about it online, but my guess is that it's happening some fractional percentage of the time.

 

[Vidia2]

The problem with the phrasing about it being for other people's comfort is that accommodations are not supposed to be about what makes a non-disabled person comfortable.

I agree that the phrasing makes it sound as if the accommodations are given primarily for the comfort of the non-disabled. It's possible that the CM miscommunicated and meant that it was both for the disabled person as well as safety for others. Maybe we'll learn more if this type of thing keeps happening.

I've met plenty of non-disabled people, even now, who were not comfortable with having me in the same lines as them just because I use a wheelchair. That doesn't mean I qualify (or should qualify just based on that) for a DAS. Accommodations are for disabled people for their needs and safety. As well, the phrasing suggests that the DAS is only supposed to be for when the effects of the disability impact other people in the line.

It's too bad that you've come across those people who seem inconvenienced by your use of a wheelchair. Though our situation is different I think I understand what you are saying. I agree that someone not wanting you in their line does not warrant accommodations but what if by the nature of the line you could not comfortably maneuver your wheelchair without running into people or running over some toes? It's part of the nature of your situation that you need more room to move around. So they give you accommodations because you need them. If the regular line is not appropriate you are directed to a line that is. It's not because it's a public safety issue but it is a public safety issue nonetheless.

Maybe the CM (if this story is accurate) said something that shouldn't have been said but was actually true.

There are plenty of reasons why someone might need a DAS (and qualify based on the rules) that have nothing to do with the experiences of others in the lines. There are plenty of reasons someone could qualify for the DAS that aren't sensory related, as well.

A lot of those people seem to be getting a DAS as they are posting online. We can't know what everyone's situation is when they are asking for a DAS.

No one needs to give any info online regarding their needs though I have been asked a time or two why my child with autism cannot wait in the regular line. In retrospect though, this is my own fault for not keeping his needs to myself as so many other vocal people have chosen to do regarding why they/their family member uses and benefits from a DAS, or in the past, a GAC.

 

[aubriee]

I posted on here about my mom being denied a DAS during our Dec 6th-16th trip. All we asked for was a quieter, less crowded place to wait our turn and to avoid the dark queues. My mom is elderly, slightly senile, gets confused easily and then totally panics. She does not deal well with others crowding and touching her and gets very agitated when it happens. She also has very poor balance and falls if bumped. Plus her arthritic knees sometimes just give out on her and she falls. She also has really bad arthritis pain. She does use an ECV down there, but sometimes has to get out of the ECV and walk for a few minutes, or else she gets stiff and can't move without alot of pain or falling. She is also a very brittle diabetic and her blood sugar drops frequently without warning and she gets very confused and may also pass out. She has also had multiple eye surgeries and her eyes do not adjust well from brightness to darkness, so the dark queues are not safe for her or others. She is also on meds that cause her to get severely sunburned if out in the sun for very long. Plus she is 80 y/o and has no endurance, so never stays in the parks past lunch. We tried to explain her issues that were not met with the ECV (senile dementia, anxiety, panic attacks, not being touched or bumped by others) and again all we asked for was a quieter place to wait our turn where she would not be as likely to get bumped or agitated, but all the CMs saw was her ECV and not just one, but two GS said all they had for the elderly was the ECV/wheelchair. They said the DAC was just for kids with autism. The one at DS really hurt my mom's feelings when she rather sarcastically said "Really what can an 80 y/o ride anyway? An ECV is all she needs and all we do for the elderly." My mom doesn't ride the coasters but there are alot of other rides she loves. As we left GS my mom made the comment, "it sounds like WDW doesn't want old people in their parks anymore". She has said she has no desire to go back again, because of the way she was treated. All she wanted was a quieter place to wait her turn and they basically said she had no business being in their parks. Two different CMs said point blank that the DAC was only given for kids with autism.

 

[aubriee]

deleted

 

[ttintagel]

-I didn't take video- I wasn't expecting a problem and doing so never really crossed my mind

That's the thing. I'm always so shocked when this sort of thing happens. I guess I'm just not cynical enough yet. I had gotten used to WDW being a place where all the CM's were reasonable, polite people who were interested in making the park accessible for everybody that it always flummoxes me when I run across one who isn't, even though it happens more and more often (especially as staffing levels keep going down and there are fewer managers available to support front-line workers).

 

[TheRustyScupper]

. . . why not use a system where you give a set number of fast passes(more then 3) to be used in a day for those with medical issues. They could be used to go on all different rides or the same one over and over at any time of day. link it to the magic band(keep the photo ID) -people would be able to go on rides in a manner that fits their needs without the unlimited use from the GAC- maybe the number of passes would depend on the park and available number of rides…just a thought

{FLAME PROOF CAPE FROM DRAWER TO SHOULDERS}
To play Devil's Advocate,
1) Which medical issues would be covered?
. . . mental, physical, both?
. . . how bad should the ailment be to qualify - mild, medium, strong?
. . . how do CM's determine the seriousness of the condition so it qualifies?
. . . should CM's take the guest's word that they qualify for special treatment?
2) Plus,
. . . do other guests get discriminated against because of no medical condition?
. . . why should a medical condition allow 3-or-more FP's when other guests can't get them?
3) ADA and Disney rules/guidelines allow ACCESS to rides, not EXCESS.
4) The new DAS is mean to stop the abuses of the old GAC, and to do just that.
5) Yes, I know the above is controversial, but one needs to look at both sides of any argument.
{FLAME PROOF CAPE BACK INTO DRAWER}

 

[bookwormde]

{FLAME PROOF CAPE FROM DRAWER TO SHOULDERS}
To play Devil's Advocate,
1) Which medical issues would be covered?
. . . mental, physical, both?
. . . how bad should the ailment be to qualify - mild, medium, strong?
. . . how do CM's determine the seriousness of the condition so it qualifies?
. . . should CM's take the guest's word that they qualify for special treatment?
2) Plus,
. . . do other guests get discriminated against because of no medical condition?
. . . why should a medical condition allow 3-or-more FP's when other guests can't get them?
3) ADA and Disney rules/guidelines allow ACCESS to rides, not EXCESS.
4) The new DAS is mean to stop the abuses of the old GAC, and to do just that.
5) Yes, I know the above is controversial, but one needs to look at both sides of any argument.
{FLAME PROOF CAPE BACK INTO DRAWER}

It is always important to differentiate between what WDW is required to do under ADA and what WDW decides to do to make the Disney experience as enjoyable as possible for all guests.

Reasons for qualifying under ADA are pretty clear, although certainly subject to interpretation in as much as how much of an impact to the qualifying major live functions is needed and to a lesser extent the duration of this impact. This is why qualification is by self declaration, not the decision of the business providing the accommodation, unless they believe they have enough evidence to defend an ADA complaint (which is rare).
Yes this does allow some people either though lack of understanding of ADA or though intent to say they qualify under ADA when they do not, but this was understood when the law was crafted as necessary to avoid denial of rights of those who do qualify. So the point is CMs are not supposed to decide who qualifies, or even specify a specific accommodation, although WDW may offer specific accommodations, but if they do not provide equal accommodation must allow other reasonable accommodations.

With GAC while not officially, provided some accommodations that provided preferred access to some individuals that were not required by ADA and that is where some of the frustration and misunderstanding has come from as these were withdrawn due to abuse.

WDW and CMs still decide at times to do above equal accommodations including MAW, which are not driven by ADA but by customer service standards and reasonable moral and ethical considerations which is commendable.

I am sure having talked with the north America disability team over the years, who are very dedicated and knowledgeable, that they have not told the managers or CMs to decide if someone who indicates they qualify under ADA for accommodation actually does. I suspect this is coming from individual "thoughts" combined with the fact that many individuals with disabilities do not express their right in a form which is consistent with ADA and do not express their need fully so GS CMs can see if they can offer any standard accommodations such as DAS to see if they will work, or if individuals need to ask for non standard accommodations at the attractions, which is the legal point of denial that creates standing for a denial of accommodation complaint. Procedure complaints are also being considered now under most discrimination laws, but are typically weaker, although in the OPs description would likely be validated.

 

[Vidia2]

OP did say in her original post that her husband received a DAS but that it didn't really help. Perhaps the condition that her husband has is something that guest services knew would not be helped by a DAS and that's why it was initially denied.

It seems that the issue is upsetting to some because of the wording used. Guest services shouldn't give a DAS to someone just because they have a condition. Who knows if this condition qualifies as being protected under the ADA anyway. An accommodation should be appropriate and it looks like a DAS was not in this case. OP is upset because of the way they were talked to which isn't a disability related issue. If there's a customer service issue I still don't see the value in posting here instead of getting names and contacting Disney directly.

As for the word autism being used instead of the needs being described, there are accommodations that are appropriate for people who are blind and we wouldn't necessarily expect everyone to not ever use that word but to use descriptors instead. Yes there are people who qualify for accommodations that are primarily used for people with blindness but it's up to them to self advocate (or their caretaker) in such a way to get accommodations. Then someone has to make a decision regarding whether or not they qualify. No one likes to be told no but everyone being told yes before was a huge problem to a lot of people who are now upset that some people are being told no.