How To Gain 2 Inches by October 27th

[figment27]

Hello to All,

Ethical, safety and other related issues aside, as mother of two college aged children, who is now suffering the real pangs of an empty nester-

PLEASE enjoy the moment you are in now! Carpe Diem!

In a blink of an eye, your precious child/children will be not only tall enough to ride every attraction at WDW, but out the door making their own memories as YOUNG ADULTS!

Figment

 

[tjkraz]

Originally posted by chipnwendy
While we're on the subject of ethics, I was told by a friend that we should just say our girls are still two when we go, so that they could get in for free.

I have chosen not to take their advice, but I am curious as to what those of you who chimed in on the ethical decisions have to say about this.

Would you ever consider doing this, and if so, what would be the justifications behind your actions?

Nope. Wouldn't consider it.

But, as stated, if you look hard enough, you're bound to find pleanty of folks who will pat you on the back and tell you that it's OK. Morally, you know that it's inappropriate. The question is whether you are strong enough to maintain your current convictions or let someone convince you that it's just another rule that was made to be broken.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by chipnwendy
Here's my justification for asking this question to begin with. I figure if I have to pay the kind of money that Disney asks of me, I ought to be able to cheat a little bit when it comes to a major attraction like Splash Mountain.

Going to Disney is a choice, not a requirement of life. You don't HAVE to pay the kind of money Disney is asking. You're choosing to. If there was a rule somewhere that said, "One time in your life you MUST go to WDW or we'll take your house away" or something, and this was the only possible year you could go, then that would make sense. Kind of. You could say, "Look ... I'm required to go, and I have to go, and so if I'm going to be forced to spend the money, my kids are riding everything." But no one is saying you have to spend the money. You're choosing to spend the money.

And the flipside of your logic is, if you have a problem with the amount of money you're paying and think you're not getting your money's worth if your kids can't ride Splash Mountain, then maybe you should wait until your kids are tall enough to ride everything and go then.

Otherwise, isn't it kind of like saying, "Well, as long as I have to spend all this money on my education, I ought to be able to cheat on a big test or two"? I'm thinking if your kids came to you with that logic some day, it wouldn't be very popular!

 

[heidica]

bethbuchall - I agree When I first saw the title of the post, I was thinking why would you want to do that?? Made a lot more sense once I read the post

 

[tjmw2727]

Originally posted by Brian Noble
My kids are both adrenaline junkies who go to Big Steel parks to ride whatever they can. Their parents are adrenaline junkies too. Even so, our family has three ironclad rules whenever we visit amusement/theme parks.

1) Take a break in the afternoon and get out of the park. If it's a day trip, we head home by 4 or 5. If it's an overnight trip, we're out of the parks for at least 2 hours midafternoon. We "miss out", but everyone is much happier.

2) No one rides anything they genuinely don't want to ride. If you're freaked out, even if you've made it to the loading platform after a two hour wait, you don't have to get on, and at least one parent will skip with you so you don't have to wait alone.

3) No one rides anything that they don't qualify for without assistance. No "special shoes", no big hairstyles, nothing.

I don't expect (or even suggest) that other families follow these rules, but they work for us. We insist on Rule 3 for the same reason we never considered passing off our just-turned-three-year-old as a two year old the weekend of his birthday when we visited a park. It's important *to me* that my kids follow the rules in a park, and that means I have to do so, too. It's especially important to me that my kids don't lie, and that means I can't lie about my child's age in front of him to save $40.

If someone misses out on a ride because they're too short, we'll be back some other time, and we can ride it again.

A corollary to Rule 3 is that I almost never go on a ride without at least one kid (DS3 and DD6). That means I often don't get to ride the big ones. As far as I'm concerned, that's great. The day will come all too soon when my kids are too cool to ride with Dad, and until then I'd rather ride Small World with them than RnR without.

Great post Brian - so I had to quote you! Our family follows similar rules. DH and I have decided that if I we want our girls behave a certain way and follow the rules of "life" they need to learn it from us. I don't want them going places in a few years when they are teens and skirting the rules as they see fit. I hope that by not teaching it and explaining why they can't ride and how the rules are set they will understand and learn.

FWIW, I did pay for my girls when they turned three. It was my choice to visit or not knowing what admission prices were and which rides they were tall enough to ride. If I disagreed with WDW policy about either admission prices or ride requirements I could have gone before they were 3 or waited until they were taller. We have enjoyed every visit and fine plenty to do at every age - free or three!

Its none of my business if people pass three year olds off for two but I certainly can't say I think its right, or would do it.

I don't think that the 7-9 rides out of hundreds are worth skipping a great vacation like WDW.

TJ

 

[Laurabearz]

I was where the OP wwas 2 months ago.... My youngest DD (who will be 4 in November) was 39 inches without shoes.... she is now just above 40 and with shoes she is 41.5.

Thank Goodness she grew!

The rack at night helped.....

Cocobutter helps with the stretch marks.

 

[phamton]

If a child were allowed to ride that was injured and later determined to be under the height requirement, the cast member would be fired and the parents would probably win in any lawsuit.

I don't know about Disney guidelines on heights or if they add in a safety margin or not but do know a quite a bit about another major theme park in Orlando.

When a new ride is built, they are given height stats from the manufacturer of the ride. The manufacturer guidelines would state that "this ride is only recommended for those 44 inches or taller." If the theme park follows the manufacturer's recommendation, it protects the theme park somewhat in the case of an accident. If someone fell out or was hurt that was under 44 inches, the theme park would be held responsible for not following the guidelines recommended by the company that built the ride. So although a child may be perfectly safe being an inch too short, the theme park must follow the guidelines set for the ride to protect themselves from negligence.

 

[Figment1964]

Originally posted by tjmw2727
I have also seen some dissapointed kids who scooted past the initial CM only to be measured and turned away at boarding.

Be careful folks - we don't want dissapointed kids and more importantly lets keep them safe to ride next time.
sorry /rant

This is exactly what happened to us a few weeks ago at AK. My 6½ year old had waited 2 years to be able to go on Primeval Whirl and passed, just barely, the first CM's spot. When we got to the boarding area he thought he needed to walk over to the measuring stick to be measured again and the CM said he was too short. I think that if he hadn't volunteered to stand next to it that he would have been fine. My older son and I got on the ride (he still wanted to go and ended up HATING it!) and I cried the whole time knowing how much my little one was hurting!

 

[CatLady]

Originally posted by chipnwendy
I figure if I have to pay the kind of money that Disney asks of me, I ought to be able to cheat a little bit when it comes to a major attraction like Splash Mountain.

I live in a household of Orlando-area CMs, and I can tell you that this is frustrating for them to have to enforce. People yell at them, scream at them, are totally nasty to them when they enforce rules that they didn't put into place. But the fact is, that's the rule. The fact that you have to use the word cheat to get around the rule is generally a good tip-off that you might not be doing the right thing. You're putting any CM who you cheat on at risk of termination if it's caught. But, hey, you paid your money to get into Disney. It doesn't matter if someone loses their job, their income, and ends up ineligible for unemployment (you don't get unemployment in Florida if you are fired for cause, and allowing kids too small on a ride when you're specifically told not to do so would be cause). What's important is that you get your way. After all, you paid the entrance fee to the park.

The discussion further up the thread about whether or not this is selfish applies.

Obviously if Disney doesn't think a ride is dangerous enough to put seat belts in, should it even have a height requirement to begin with?

The literal answer to this question is a combination of the manufacturer's height guidelines, insurance and possibly additional Florida regulations on theme park/amusement rides. But the other thing is this... some people have no common sense (this isn't an attack on you, chipnwendy, please read on!)... If you didn't tell them that they can't take their toddler on Splash Mountain, they would do it because the child swap is inconvenient. The line has to be drawn someplace to protect people from themselves as well as to protect Disney from lawsuits and bad press.

Disney has become more and more safety conscious over the past couple years. Who would have thought that someone would have gotten out of the ride in the middle of Splash Mountain back in 2000 and would then have been killed by being hit by another boat? You or your family wouldn't do that... but now Disney has signs that say "stay in your boat" because someone didn't show common sense.

 

[alloyd1170]

After reading the post about the boy on Splash Mountain who just fit the height req was lifted out of his seat on the last drop I wondered about this: Has anyone thought that maybe they use height to judge whether a child can ride or not vs weight, which in our country is a big issue? Couldnt height and weight be proportional when it comes to little kids, though the spectrum varies. Ie, a child that is a certain height at the 50 percentile should weigh around x pounds. People might take more offense to having to step on a scale at each ride vs having a stick held up to them. My 2.5 yr old is very tall for his age, but is so skinny even if he did reach the height req, Id be worried that he didnt have enough weight on him to help hold him down! Just a thought....

alison

 

[kkleiner]

Had to chime in on this one - my 6 year old
was about 39.5 inch's in April 04 and couldn't
get on to Splash Mountain, but got onto
Star Tours even though it was 40".

He had been on a watch for growth hormone deficiency since Feb 2003, and started nightly growth hormone shots this past July. When we started we told him when he gets right over
40", he will be 'Splash Mountain' material - now he IS over 40", and time to plan for a trip
in 2005! He keeps reminding us that he can
now ride SM!

His bigger brother doesn't like the wild rides, but my little guy sure does!