New CS Seating Policy & The GAC

[Beccabunny]

Well I'm sorry but in my limited world disabled persons would like to be treated like every one else and not get first access because of there limitation.

Yes, my daughter wants be treated like everyone else in that she wants to enjoy what everyone else enjoys. And in order to do that she may need an accommodation that others may perceive to be "first access" when all it is doing is giving her the same opportunity others have. Some accommodations don't give her "first access" at all but result in longer wait times and greater difficulties but still meet certain needs. Sorry if that bothers you.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

2. I find it difficult to believe that anyone with or without wheels has never, ever been able to find a table in a counterservice restaurant anywhere on property.

I consistently have a problem unless I am going at a very slow time.

I generally do not have a problem at the Electric Umbrella as the tables are not packed together, but at a place such as Pecos Bill's I can only use tables that are near the front of a seating area as the aisles tend to be blocked by both people and strollers.

And I am trying to both carry my food as well as drive my ECV. And Bill Sears has to both carry his food (usually tray on lap) and push his wheelchair.

And as I and others have said we have seen families claim tables we were trying to get to so they could have one or two people then go for the food.

 

[clanmcculloch]

Please, read the posts again, there are many inaccuracies in this post. And I posted to provide clarification and support for someone who brought up a legitimate concern about access with the new policy. Disney historically pilots programs and then if they consider them to have worked expand them. I feel a responsibility to represent and advocate for those with disabilities even when something does not directly affect me today, it does affect someone like me today, and will affect me in the future. If you don't feel that responsibility, that's fine. I won't judge you for that. I would ask, no expect that the same courtesy be extended to me.

The problem with what you're saying is that this WON'T cause problems for others based on what you described.

Disney has no reason to change the way things work at slower times because the existing method already works well. They need more CMs with this new policy which means more cost to Disney so why would they implement this during times where things are already running smoothly? The only time this new ordering and seating method even makes sense is when it's busy. The existing method (more accurately, the method before this new policy) WASN'T working well at peak times. That's why there was a need for a change. Right now, people with problems like yours can't make these busy restaurants work for them during busy times. If anything, this policy may make it possible for more people to be able to go to the busier places. It won't interfere with those who already can't use these restaurants. I'm saying that as somebody who can't.

I do feel a responsibility. That's why I'm continuing this dialogue. I believe that your arguements demonstrate a lack of understanding and could hurt people. When advocating for others, I start by offering suggestions for how people can help themselves and I explain what services are available and how to go about making use of those services. I do NOT however smack those that are already going way above and beyond to help right in the face since all that accomplishes is to encourage these types of establishments to stop doing what they are already doing since we're saying it's never going to be enough. Don't assume to speak for others when they haven't asked you to. You don't know that even want you to, especially since IMO your approach hurts their cause rather than help it.

 

[kaytieeldr]

This thread seems to be going in the same direction as almost every other thread involving accommodations for people with autism. I don't see anyone on these boards telling those using wheelchairs or bringing a service animal or having any other need that they should go to a different restaurant, vacation at a different time, bring an extra person.

Respectfully, that's most likely because we already know these things. I know - or did, in the past - that I won't be able to eat where I want when I want because I travel solo and use an ECV. Therefore I have nobody to 'save' me a table, and once I have my food I am stuck with nowhere to eat because so many people are holding tables, even though they won't have their food until I would have finished eating - and when a table does open up, guests on foot can, as dclfun has experienced, beat me to it.
I already know - and try to schedule my vacation so - that I can't visit Disney at busy times because if I want to eat at a counter service restaurant I won't be able to get a table.
And I refuse to bring an extra person because I don't need assistance EXCEPT in finding a table at a counter service location.

Actually, up until now I haven't had a problem getting a table. We CHOOSE to eat at less busy times, usually around 10:30-11 am and dinner around 4:30-5pm I never said I had a problem,

And so, you will CONTINUE to not have a problem. The seating is only in effect at PEAK dining times, only at PEAK visiting times, and only in four locations. Even if it were to spread to all counter service locations property-wide, you would still not be affected.

 

[Beccabunny]

Respectfully, that's most likely because we already know these things. I know - or did, in the past - that I won't be able to eat where I want when I want because I travel solo and use an ECV. Therefore I have nobody to 'save' me a table, and once I have my food I am stuck with nowhere to eat because so many people are holding tables, even though they won't have their food until I would have finished eating - and when a table does open up, guests on foot can, as dclfun has experienced, beat me to it.
I already know - and try to schedule my vacation so - that I can't visit Disney at busy times because if I want to eat at a counter service restaurant I won't be able to get a table.
And I refuse to bring an extra person because I don't need assistance EXCEPT in finding a table at a counter service location.


And so, you will CONTINUE to not have a problem. The seating is only in effect at PEAK dining times, only at PEAK visiting times, and only in four locations. Even if it were to spread to all counter service locations property-wide, you would still not be affected.

And that's why I said in my earlier post that this will be helpful for some people. I can totally understand the difficulty of trying to maneuver through the restaurant in a wheelchair or ECV trying to find an empty table. This new policy, hopefully, will end that, without people having to eat at different times, vacation at different times, or find a different restaurant solely due to lack of access. However, some people need a different accommodation, and that's why I think a GAC in restaurants could alleviate this problem just as it does on attractions.

 

[blurrycat]

Thank you, Beccabunny. Your daughter is very lucky to have you as a mother.

It saddens me that so many people are taking the stance that if someone needs something that is not needed by all it is asking for special treatment.

I am sure a lot of the families who will legitimately face a hardship by not being able to sit before getting their food would love to trade the disability for the ability to have to wait the same as everyone else.

 

[clanmcculloch]

Thank you, Beccabunny. Your daughter is very lucky to have you as a mother.

It saddens me that so many people are taking the stance that if someone needs something that is not needed by all it is asking for special treatment.

I am sure a lot of the families who will legitimately face a hardship by not being able to sit before getting their food would love to trade the disability for the ability to have to wait the same as everyone else.

There already is something that works for folks who need to have a table before getting food. We go at off peak times. This new policy won't change that. Going during peak time and taking up a table before getting your food resulting in somebody with their food not getting a table is selfish and reeks of a sense of entitlment. It says that the person with the disability who does not yet have their food is more entitled to that table than the non-disabled person who does already have their food.

 

[blurrycat]

There already is something that works for folks who need to have a table before getting food. We go at off peak times. This new policy won't change that. Going during peak time and taking up a table before getting your food resulting in somebody with their food not getting a table is selfish and reeks of a sense of entitlment. It says that the person with the disability who does not yet have their food is more entitled to that table than the non-disabled person who does already have their food.

Believe me, I'm not selfish or entitled. There are some who may be there at peak times and need some accomodation. Not everyone is on the dis, or experienced with disney. I think to assume such things about them because they cannot follow your plan for how they should do things is unfair.

 

[clanmcculloch]

Believe me, I'm not selfish or entitled. There are some who may be there at peak times and need some accomodation. Not everyone is on the dis, or experienced with disney. I think to assume such things about them because they cannot follow your plan for how they should do things is unfair.

And lack of planning on their part does not make an emergency for everybody else. I'm not saying that the whole world is on the DIS. I do believe though that if you're going ANYWHERE in the world with special needs then you have a responsibility to your travel party and to yourself to research how things work and how this impacts your special needs. I knew long before I found the DIS that I could not expect to eat at peak times. I did not in any way learn this from the DIS. It is selfish and a sense of entitlement to expect others to change policy to accomodate their special needs when just a little bit of planning on their part could have prevented them from being in the situation in the first place.

 

[blurrycat]

And lack of planning on their part does not make an emergency for everybody else. I'm not saying that the whole world is on the DIS. I do believe though that if you're going ANYWHERE in the world with special needs then you have a responsibility to your travel party and to yourself to research how things work and how this impacts your special needs. I knew long before I found the DIS that I could not expect to eat at peak times. I did not in any way learn this from the DIS. It is selfish and a sense of entitlement to expect others to change policy to accomodate their special needs when just a little bit of planning on their part could have prevented them from being in the situation in the first place.

I'm more than a little perplexed about where your hostility towards those who have to do things differently than yourself comes from. I thought I was being polite? Maybe I came across as hostile without meaning to do so?

Many accomodations are made for different disabilities that involve policy changes. This one seems like it would be one of the easier to implement.

You say you have a child with autism. Nobody should know better than you that the best laid plans often go right out the window.

My own situation is one in which the best of plans may still put me in this situation. I can't control when I need to eat at all times, I can't control when I have seizures, and I certainly don't want to be pinned into a line when my anxiety is high. I think through every possible situation, and no matter how small, there is still a small chance I could encounter a restaurant like this and have it be unavoidable.

 

[Mrsjvb]

Nope



She needs to know she can sit down and eat before she buys food to eat.


The new policy sounds like nothing more than a good way to get spilled drinks.

the way i read it she WILL have seating as the CM will find it for her. so the question is.. if any accessible seating is considered sufficient under the oft overused ADA then what happens when the seating you are offered does not meet your expectations/desires?

you may want a booth in the corner against a wall, but what if the only thing open is a table with 4 chairs in the middle of the room? you are provided seating. that's all that is required of Disney. doesn't matter that it isn't what you want.

The ADA says you get to sit down to eat. doesn't say that you get to dictate the exact type or location of seating.

 

[clanmcculloch]

I'm more than a little perplexed about where your hostility towards those who have to do things differently than yourself comes from. I thought I was being polite? Maybe I came across as hostile without meaning to do so?

Many accomodations are made for different disabilities that involve policy changes. This one seems like it would be one of the easier to implement.

You say you have a child with autism. Nobody should know better than you that the best laid plans often go right out the window.

My own situation is one in which the best of plans may still put me in this situation. I can't control when I need to eat at all times, I can't control when I have seizures, and I certainly don't want to be pinned into a line when my anxiety is high. I think through every possible situation, and no matter how small, there is still a small chance I could encounter a restaurant like this and have it be unavoidable.

I don't feel I'm being hostile. I'm stating my opinion that this kind of expectation is selfish and screams of a sense of entitlement. That's my opinion because it does mean that the person with the disability gets priority over others when there are all sorts of alternatives without this accomodation.

I do know that it's impossible to know when that need to eat will hit or when a meltdown will occur or when a million other "what if" scenarios may happen. That's why I carry snacks which can tide any of us over until we can get somewhere that CAN accomodate us and why I research ahead of time what places can and can't accomodate us. I also know that I may have to toss my plan out the window and just leave. I do all of this. I've left the park in the middle of the day because a meltdown was beginning. I've had to leave lines. I've had to stop what I'm doing to pull out snacks. I've had to go out of my way to get to a place that can make food for us even though there's another CS location much closer. I take personal responsibility. I get very frustrated with those who don't. Expecting others to change what works for 99.9% of people because I don't plan and take personal responsibility is just wrong. I don't force our special needs on everybody around me.

Because you know you may have to eat very suddenly, you need to be prepared by having snacks on you or knowing where around the parks you can get something quick to eat. This is all part of planning. With special needs, we need backups to our backups. Again, this is part of personal responsibilty. Going into a high demand restaurant at peak time during peak time of year IS completely avoidable. Avoiding this is absolutely mandatory for some of us.

I'm not saying that you don't take personal responsibility because I really do believe that you do. I am saying that I don't understand why the world needs to bend over backwards for those who don't. There are options for those in need. In fact, this new policy will HELP those who are in an emergency situation since at the entrances of these high traffic CS locations there will be a CM who can help address any emergency needs. The thing is, we're not talking about emergency situations here.

 

[minimandymouse]

I think this thread should be closed because as usual the "same old" people get nasty about other peoples disabilities.
This disboard is getting more and more nasty no wonder sooo many people are leaving this forum to chat on more acceptable ones

 

[saveaquarter]

I don't feel I'm being hostile. I'm stating my opinion that this kind of expectation is selfish and screams of a sense of entitlement. That's my opinion because it does mean that the person with the disability gets priority over others when there are all sorts of alternatives without this accomodation.

I do know that it's impossible to know when that need to eat will hit or when a meltdown will occur or when a million other "what if" scenarios may happen. That's why I carry snacks which can tide any of us over until we can get somewhere that CAN accomodate us and why I research ahead of time what places can and can't accomodate us. I also know that I may have to toss my plan out the window and just leave. I do all of this. I've left the park in the middle of the day because a meltdown was beginning. I've had to leave lines. I've had to stop what I'm doing to pull out snacks. I've had to go out of my way to get to a place that can make food for us even though there's another CS location much closer. I take personal responsibility. I get very frustrated with those who don't. Expecting others to change what works for 99.9% of people because I don't plan and take personal responsibility is just wrong. I don't force our special needs on everybody around me.

Because you know you may have to eat very suddenly, you need to be prepared by having snacks on you or knowing where around the parks you can get something quick to eat. This is all part of planning. With special needs, we need backups to our backups. Again, this is part of personal responsibilty. Going into a high demand restaurant at peak time during peak time of year IS completely avoidable. Avoiding this is absolutely mandatory for some of us.

I'm not saying that you don't take personal responsibility because I really do believe that you do. I am saying that I don't understand why the world needs to bend over backwards for those who don't. There are options for those in need. In fact, this new policy will HELP those who are in an emergency situation since at the entrances of these high traffic CS locations there will be a CM who can help address any emergency needs. The thing is, we're not talking about emergency situations here.

I think you are missing the point entirely. Assuming that you can provide solutions for other people is never a good idea. Unless you have been in their shoes and know exactly their specific needs, solutions and ideas will always fall short in one way or another. Everyone needs to determine what is right for their own families, and for their own peace of mind. It doesn't matter how many backups for backups for backups someone might have, there will always be a situation that can't possibly be planned for or foreseen.

I think the point that is trying to be made by some of the comments in this thread is that while the policy may be wonderful for the majority of guests, there ought to be reasonable exceptions, as there are in other parts of the park via the GAC, for those people who may find it difficult to manage. While there are ways to avoid this specific policy now, there may not be any way to avoid it in the future should it be expanded, and the time to voice an opinion on it is before it's too late and those changes as been made. By definition "reasonable exception" is not "bending over backwards".

I am not pointing fingers, or even specifically responding to the opinions or comments stated in this thread, but there is, in general, a lot of subtle and even open hostility between people with differing opinions, and special needs, even within the community itself, is a hotbed of this.

 

[minimandymouse]

I think you are missing the point entirely. Assuming that you can provide solutions for other people is never a good idea. Unless you have been in their shoes and know exactly their specific needs, solutions and ideas will always fall short in one way or another. Everyone needs to determine what is right for their own families, and for their own peace of mind. It doesn't matter how many backups for backups for backups someone might have, there will always be a situation that can't possibly be planned for or foreseen.

I think the point that is trying to be made by some of the comments in this thread is that while the policy may be wonderful for the majority of guests, there ought to be reasonable exceptions, as there are in other parts of the park via the GAC, for those people who may find it difficult to manage. While there are ways to avoid this specific policy now, there may not be any way to avoid it in the future should it be expanded, and the time to voice an opinion on it is before it's too late and those changes as been made. By definition "reasonable exception" is not "bending over backwards".

I am not pointing fingers, or even specifically responding to the opinions or comments stated in this thread, but there is, in general, a lot of subtle and even open hostility between people with differing opinions, and special needs, even within the community itself, is a hotbed of this.

someone speaking some sense
PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF HAND

 

[Schmeck]

Schmeck, you just illustrated my point perfectly. You may have worked with some children with autism who have learned to wait in line. Does that mean all children with autism can wait in line? This is why I now homeschool. My daughter's school thought the methods they used with other children were going to work for mine. One size fits all. It didn't work. This is why the GAC is needs-specific and not based on a diagnosis. Ireland Nicole knows her children's needs, and it's not access if she's expected to bring another adult along.

Access is different from safety, and I am also aware that it takes different approaches with different students, even if they have the same diagnosis. Perhaps a parent could see how the issue is dealt with in school, and take that strategy with them to WDW. Reinforcement and continuity are wonderful tools.

Is it Disney's responsibility to keep someone safe - would you want them to ban certain people from attractions (got a pacemaker, get lost!), or remove all the ones with warnings? No, it is the guest's responsibility to keep themselves safe. WDW allows access, the guest must see to the safety (beyond mechanical issues with the attractions, etc).

 

[Beccabunny]

I believe this is primarily an access issue, rather than safety, but sometimes an accommodation is necessary so that a guest can provide for their safety or the safety of their children. A guest may not be able to safely ride on an attraction without a wheelchair or may not be able to function in the park without a service animal. Disney has to provide REASONABLE accommodation so that these guests can safely have access. It's easy to say that a particular accommodation is not reasonable, when really what I'm getting from a lot of posters here is more an attitude of "It's not fair, that's special treatment."

 

[Hannathy]

someone speaking some sense
PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF HAND

Why in heavens name should it be closed? Just cause people disagree that is what a discussion is. Not all pixie dust and smiley faces. It is good to hear both sides. No one is calling names or being personally nasty, just healthy *******.

 

[Hannathy]

I believe this is primarily an access issue, rather than safety, but sometimes an accommodation is necessary so that a guest can provide for their safety or the safety of their children. A guest may not be able to safely ride on an attraction without a wheelchair or may not be able to function in the park without a service animal. Disney has to provide REASONABLE accommodation so that these guests can safely have access. It's easy to say that a particular accommodation is not reasonable, when really what I'm getting from a lot of posters here is more an attitude of "It's not fair, that's special treatment."

And with the new policy Disney is giving everyone EQUAL access. What some are complaining about is they aren't getting special access above being treated equally. Everyone gets in line gets food and then gets the next available table, no one gets put ahead of anyone else and no one is being denied access. The trouble IMO is some are asking for Disney to go above equal and give preferential treatment rather than just make everyone the same.

 

[clanmcculloch]

I believe this is primarily an access issue, rather than safety, but sometimes an accommodation is necessary so that a guest can provide for their safety or the safety of their children. A guest may not be able to safely ride on an attraction without a wheelchair or may not be able to function in the park without a service animal. Disney has to provide REASONABLE accommodation so that these guests can safely have access. It's easy to say that a particular accommodation is not reasonable, when really what I'm getting from a lot of posters here is more an attitude of "It's not fair, that's special treatment."

At peak times, there are plenty of other locations within the parks that can meet this type of need and at non-peak times even those few can meet this need. Why is this not reasonable?