Outside the Box Proposal to Assist Disabled WDW Guests

[OurBigTrip]

Not a bad discussion. Really all of the responses are well thought out.

I would clarify a few things about my proposal, though.

bedogged asked:


That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that in addition to the current accessibility programs Disney provides, guests with severe mobility or accessibility constraints can participate in a program that gives them three front of the line or near front of the line experiences per day. I'm not proposing limitting access at all nor making the program mandatory. Simply another option for people who still end up shut out under the current system.

To make this happen, the some of the rest of us wait in some lines a little longer for a couple hours a day a couple days out of a vacation.

I'm not asking Disney to review medical records. I'm suggesting only that the need for this be verified on a legally binding document, a sworn affadavit, like that which is needed to secure a handicap parking permit. There is fraud in the handicap parking permit game but mostly it is secondary (between the person issued the permit and the person using it), doctors really do not want to legally swear that a well person needs a handicap space.

I like Rusty Scuppers response. No flame proof suit needed here I hope. I held a similar view for some time myself. I had a funny sort of awakening on a trip to Korea. In Korea the people basically said that blind people should have a fair shot at working like anyone else, but there's not much a blind person can do. So they set aside a few occupations like massage therapist and declared that only blind people may legally work this job. It's so extreme of a solution, just tell everyone else who might want to do this job that they are not handicapped enough to get the job. But the program is (or was anyway) very popular. People told me, "The alternative is that some people who can work don't get to."

So I ask, if you're in line and a cancer kid behind you is fading fast. She's gonna have to go home in 3 or 4 minutes max. You're next in line to see Snow White and Rapunzel, her favorite princesses as well as your kids' favorite. Do you offer to switch place with her? Or do you enjoy getting your at your deserved time knowing that cancer girl will be going home without any such fun?

To anyone who cares, answer this please, yes or no; Are there some people with disabilities or illness that simply cannot fully enjoy WDW without special access? Special access in this case meaning above and beyond reasonable accomodation.

If the answer is yes, then what would a system designed to help those special cases look like? I agree it won't look much like what I proposed, but I covered three bases, little imposition on the rest of the guests, guarantee a reasonable level of WDW fun to someone who would otherwise not have it, and be accountable to providing this only on an as needed basis.

Maybe someone has different bases they would rather see covered, that's what I'm looking for.

The problem I see with your example is that it wouldn't be one child. One child would be no issue.

Hundreds of children would be an issue, which is what the original proposal seems to be. And no, I don't think it's reasonable to ask (as your proposal does) non-disabled families to wait additional hours for two or three days out of their vacations.

 

[bookwormde]

One problem with this idea is one if its primarily premises.

"The ADA allows for special accommodations to be offered on the condition that need for those accommodations are verifiable"

This is nowhere in ADA, and rulings have specifically stated that businesses can not ask for proof at the point of request. The law was intended to be self declarative, leaving the "business" with the right to decline accommodation if they believed that the individual does not have a disability.

It was crafted this way so the businesses has to be very sure since if they were incorrect in their assessment, then they would be in violation of ADA, even of they made the assessment in good faith.

Handicap parking passes are one of the oddities, because they serve a much larger population than would be qualified under ADA, and they were specific state laws.

 

[lost*in*cyberspace]

{FLAME PROOF SUIT IN PLACE}
1) The idea is not out-of-the-box.
2) It is out-of-the-ballpark, and maybe out-of-the-universe.
3) You are giving extra privileges to handicap persons that "normal" folks don't get
4) This is simply not right, and should never be permitted.
5) Handicapped people deserve ACCESS, not EXCESS.

NOTE: If I nor my family do not have a handicap, why should we have to wait
for someone with Golden Tickets to jump in front of us? Didn't we all pay the
going rate for admission? If so, then I have just as much rights to rides as any
other person.
{FLAME PROOF SUIT BACK INTO DRAWER}

Isn't the goal of equal access to treat everyone the same? Why should a disabled guest get better treatment?

 

[SteveMouse]

The question is really one of what is equal. For folks needing disabled-accessible ride vehicles, Disney does not currently provide equal access, in terms of wait times, to the ride. I wait in the line (either FP or standby) and them, when I get to the load zone, have to wait for the accessible vehicle, behind other folks waiting for the same car, meaning that, for, say, IASW, TSMM, Buzz, Jungle Cruise, and others I could easily be waiting an extra half hour- or more- each, based solely on Disney not having sufficient carrying capacity to handle rider flow for folks with mobility issues as those not needing accommodation.

That is not equal.

That problem is easily measured, but may not be as easily solvable. One problem in increasing concurrent challenged rider capacity is fire code for evacuations.

It's a lot harder to consider the immense variability of individual needs, in terms of endurance, etc., and implement a solution that levels that playing field- it's not as easy as determining an individual's neutral buoyancy for diving.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The question is really one of what is equal. For folks needing disabled-accessible ride vehicles, Disney does not currently provide equal access, in terms of wait times, to the ride. I wait in the line (either FP or standby) and them, when I get to the load zone, have to wait for the accessible vehicle, behind other folks waiting for the same car, meaning that, for, say, IASW, TSMM, Buzz, Jungle Cruise, and others I could easily be waiting an extra half hour- or more- each, based solely on Disney not having sufficient carrying capacity to handle rider flow for folks with mobility issues as those not needing accommodation.

That is not equal.

That problem is easily measured, but may not be as easily solvable. One problem in increasing concurrent challenged rider capacity is fire code for evacuations.

This is the one complaint I've heard about the DAS that I find to be completely valid. Like you, I'm not sure how it can be addressed, other than providing return times for the rides that require the special vehicles.

 

[Schmeck]

The question is really one of what is equal. For folks needing disabled-accessible ride vehicles, Disney does not currently provide equal access, in terms of wait times, to the ride. I wait in the line (either FP or standby) and them, when I get to the load zone, have to wait for the accessible vehicle, behind other folks waiting for the same car, meaning that, for, say, IASW, TSMM, Buzz, Jungle Cruise, and others I could easily be waiting an extra half hour- or more- each, based solely on Disney not having sufficient carrying capacity to handle rider flow for folks with mobility issues as those not needing accommodation.

That is not equal.

That problem is easily measured, but may not be as easily solvable. One problem in increasing concurrent challenged rider capacity is fire code for evacuations.

It's a lot harder to consider the immense variability of individual needs, in terms of endurance, etc., and implement a solution that levels that playing field- it's not as easy as determining an individual's neutral buoyancy for diving.

Except the ADA is about the ability for equal access, and removing reasonable obstacles that prevent the ability of that access. Having an accessible ride vehicle removes the obstacle.

One of the biggest "issues" people say is an obstacle for them is endurance and time in the parks. From what I have read of the ADA, there is nothing in there specifically addressing time. Everyone has 24 hours in a day, so there's no way the ADA is going to say someone's time is more important than someone else's.

 

[aaarcher86]

Not a bad discussion. Really all of the responses are well thought out.

I would clarify a few things about my proposal, though.

bedogged asked:


That's not what I meant at all. What I meant is that in addition to the current accessibility programs Disney provides, guests with severe mobility or accessibility constraints can participate in a program that gives them three front of the line or near front of the line experiences per day. I'm not proposing limitting access at all nor making the program mandatory. Simply another option for people who still end up shut out under the current system.

To make this happen, the some of the rest of us wait in some lines a little longer for a couple hours a day a couple days out of a vacation.

I'm not asking Disney to review medical records. I'm suggesting only that the need for this be verified on a legally binding document, a sworn affadavit, like that which is needed to secure a handicap parking permit. There is fraud in the handicap parking permit game but mostly it is secondary (between the person issued the permit and the person using it), doctors really do not want to legally swear that a well person needs a handicap space.

I like Rusty Scuppers response. No flame proof suit needed here I hope. I held a similar view for some time myself. I had a funny sort of awakening on a trip to Korea. In Korea the people basically said that blind people should have a fair shot at working like anyone else, but there's not much a blind person can do. So they set aside a few occupations like massage therapist and declared that only blind people may legally work this job. It's so extreme of a solution, just tell everyone else who might want to do this job that they are not handicapped enough to get the job. But the program is (or was anyway) very popular. People told me, "The alternative is that some people who can work don't get to."

So I ask, if you're in line and a cancer kid behind you is fading fast. She's gonna have to go home in 3 or 4 minutes max. You're next in line to see Snow White and Rapunzel, her favorite princesses as well as your kids' favorite. Do you offer to switch place with her? Or do you enjoy getting your at your deserved time knowing that cancer girl will be going home without any such fun?

To anyone who cares, answer this please, yes or no; Are there some people with disabilities or illness that simply cannot fully enjoy WDW without special access? Special access in this case meaning above and beyond reasonable accomodation.

If the answer is yes, then what would a system designed to help those special cases look like? I agree it won't look much like what I proposed, but I covered three bases, little imposition on the rest of the guests, guarantee a reasonable level of WDW fun to someone who would otherwise not have it, and be accountable to providing this only on an as needed basis.

Maybe someone has different bases they would rather see covered, that's what I'm looking for.

Isn't the 3ish near front of the line experiences something that can be achieved with the use of FP+?

I have a problem with guests needing to tack on a few extra hours of wait time a few days out of their vacation. That's not a reasonable request. Many non disabled families have limitations on their time as well. That's one of the reasons the GAC was eliminated in the first place.

 

[bedogged]

I too have not encountered anyone who proclaimed that they did not want ANY accommodations offered. However I have encountered plenty of people, on line and in person, who were willing for accommodations to be made PROVIDED -- they and their party were inconvenienced in any way whatsoever (however much the disabled people were inconvenienced), and only certain people who met the abled person's personal criteria (which almost always include being visibly disabled), and the disabled person should have to jump through multiple hoops not required of abled people, such as making their private medical information available at any time to any stranger who inquired, including sufficient evidence to rebut a presumption that they were lying. So in essence, no real accommodations, just lip service to make themselves look good.

I am not specifically accusing any person here of this, I haven't read all the comments (although I think the original proposal has definite overtones of this.) But there are plenty of them out there.

I agree with this post. Unfortunately, many of the suggestions for improvement of disability access by these people involve circumventing the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

[bedogged]

Isn't the 3ish near front of the line experiences something that can be achieved with the use of FP+?

As the system stands now, not all disabled people are eligible for FP+.

 

[aaarcher86]

As the system stands now, not all disabled people are eligible for FP+.

I was referring to the overall idea, not so much it being implemented right this second.

 

[BenbowInn]

What about people who don't use traditional medicine/doctors? How would they prove that they are disabled? I

 

[Schmeck]

As the system stands now, not all disabled people are eligible for FP+.

And not all non-disabled are eligible either, but that's a choice for everyone. You choose to stay onsite or not. So the point is?

 

[bedogged]

And not all non-disabled are eligible either, but that's a choice for everyone. You choose to stay onsite or not. So the point is?

If FP+ were to be the ONLY accommodation offered to the disabled, then the point is that a disabled person should not be required to spend more money (stay onsite) in order to receive an accommodation. If it is offered in ADDITION to DAS, then I do not have a problem with your statement.

 

[Schmeck]

If FP+ were to be the ONLY accommodation offered to the disabled, then the point is that a disabled person should not be required to spend more money (stay onsite) in order to receive an accommodation. If it is offered in ADDITION to DAS, then I do not have a problem with your statement.

FP+ isn't offered to the disabled as an accommodation at all, so it's a moot point then. The DAS is only offered as an accommodation to those who need an alternative place to wait, so it has no FP+ traits to it (one must wait, it's not the unlimited FP the GAC was) so I'm not seeing the comparison.

For all these wonky ideas on how to give superior access to those with disabilities - that's the reason the GAC ended in the first place. It gave one group of people a benefit/privilege not offered to the general public, which is in violation of the ADA. Why do people keep trying to get that illegal access back? Entitlement mentality?

 

[bedogged]

FP+ isn't offered to the disabled as an accommodation at all, so it's a moot point then. The DAS is only offered as an accommodation to those who need an alternative place to wait, so it has no FP+ traits to it (one must wait, it's not the unlimited FP the GAC was) so I'm not seeing the comparison.

For all these wonky ideas on how to give superior access to those with disabilities - that's the reason the GAC ended in the first place. It gave one group of people a benefit/privilege not offered to the general public, which is in violation of the ADA. Why do people keep trying to get that illegal access back? Entitlement mentality?

Who is trying to "to get that illegal access back?" AND just who decided that the GAC was "illegal'? IMHO the GAC was discontinued mostly because of the bad publicity caused by the disabled tour guide in DL. It had nothing at all to do with it being "illegal."

One of the "wonky ideas" here was that FP+ could be used to gain "near front of the line access" without causing any additional wait for non-disabled families. My remarks concerning FP+ were in response to that.

In my opinion, nothing is gained by an adversarial attitude or name calling. I think that the non-disabled as well the disabled need to learn to treat each other with respect.

 

[CPT Tripss]

As the system stands now, not all disabled people are eligible for FP+.

Same can be said for all people without a disability if I understand the system correctly.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Who is trying to "to get that illegal access back?" AND just who decided that the GAC was "illegal'? IMHO the GAC was discontinued mostly because of the bad publicity caused by the disabled tour guide in DL. It had nothing at all to do with it being "illegal."

It's been posted repeatedly that GAC overuse was overwhelmingly the system and that the DAS change was in the works prior to the tour guide 'scandal'. Any individual's opinion notwithstanding, that the GAC gave better access to attractions than was attained by non-GAC holders, its application violated the ADA.

 

[bedogged]

It's been posted repeatedly that GAC overuse was overwhelmingly the system and that the DAS change was in the works prior to the tour guide 'scandal'. Any individual's opinion notwithstanding, that the GAC gave better access to attractions than was attained by non-GAC holders, its application violated the ADA.

I too have read a lot of speculation by people here, however, I have never seen anything that indicates that the GAC system was "illegal" either by Disney, news reporters or the ADA. As you said, it is an opinion. Mine is as valid as anyone else's. You, of course, are free to reach your own conclusion.

 

[intheshadows]

The GAC was unsustainable as it was issued. Rumors backstage state that The Company leaked the "hiring disabled tour guides" stories to bring the reforms faster.

Front Line Employees have known GAC was an issue for a long time, but after the major problems at RSR, Corporate finally admitted it could not work long term as it was being issued/used.

 

[Schmeck]

Who is trying to "to get that illegal access back?" AND just who decided that the GAC was "illegal'? IMHO the GAC was discontinued mostly because of the bad publicity caused by the disabled tour guide in DL. It had nothing at all to do with it being "illegal."

One of the "wonky ideas" here was that FP+ could be used to gain "near front of the line access" without causing any additional wait for non-disabled families. My remarks concerning FP+ were in response to that.

In my opinion, nothing is gained by an adversarial attitude or name calling. I think that the non-disabled as well the disabled need to learn to treat each other with respect.

Disney decided, not only because it offers a privilege/benefit not given to the general public, but because it was being abused by those that qualified. The system could not handle the sheer load of FP access for everyone who had that stamp on the GAC. Sue has info/photos about this problem on the DAS sticky.

"Near Front of the Line Access" is the illegal part. Everyone gets 3 FP+ if they stay onsite (as of now). To offer that to some offsite guests due to a disability and not all offsite guests would be a big no-no.

There is no disability that requires near front of the line access on demand. The ADA does not require that, nor should it.