New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Trauma]

Having just read the new terms, they seem more than fair.

What I'm seeing here and on other sites, are irate people who were clearly abusing the system and taking advantage and are now angry they have to pay for Genie+ now that their little loop hole has been closed.

I don't see why anyone who genuinely needs this service would have a problem with complying with the new terms.

Are you ok?

They have ruled out everyone except those with “developmental disorders.”

So you are saying that everyone that doesn’t fall into that category was abusing the system ?

Everyone?

 

[pdude81]

Not to sound bad but personally i dont care about the $200 loss … but the bigger issue would be the 4k ive already paid using gift cards that now will be sitting there useless for some time. I do agree the fee would be waived but again. Now im stuck finding a last minute trip to book and explain to my 10 y/o daughter that hey we cant go to Disney bc grandma and daddy are unable to handle the lines etc… not the most ideal spot to be in as a divorced Dad…

I totally understand what you're saying. Do you have reason to think you'd be denied though? If either of you get it, then you can take 3 other people with you at any time.

 

[Splash4eva]

I totally understand what you're saying. Do you have reason to think you'd be denied though? If either of you get it, then you can take 3 other people with you at any time.

Personally i cant see how they would ever deny my Mom and all her documentation she has altho they will not ask. Myself as well im pretty confident i would be approved as well. But with any new system its always something that you dont want to have to deal with especially when i believe is their ultimate reason why doing this. Either way when my window opens i will do my interview as always and will tell them specifically my conditions and concerns and let them decide ive always been transparent and will be again.

 

[the_rich]

I am curious about this also. I just found out one of my wife's friend at work and his family is taking advantage of it saying they get anxiety waiting in line. I guess they have been doing it for a while. It came up when we planned to meet at MK this weekend and my family rope drops and his doesn't because of DAS. And no they don't have anxiety issues and take full advantage of it. I was not happy when I heard about it but didn't say anything.

Literally the same thing some of my family did and I wasn't happy with them.

 

[Splash4eva]

Having just read the new terms, they seem more than fair.

What I'm seeing here and on other sites, are irate people who were clearly abusing the system and taking advantage and are now angry they have to pay for Genie+ now that their little loop hole has been closed.

I don't see why anyone who genuinely needs this service would have a problem with complying with the new terms.

So should i be grandfathered in because i pay for genie and ill each and every trip for 3-4 people daily for up to 10 day trips?

 

[Dranth]

Yea, I see lawsuit after lawsuit if this starts to get out of hand. Disney should've left this alone.

There were lawsuits last time they changed it but the courts sided with Disney on every one them because they had the actual proof of abuse. I am sure it will be the same this time so no, they shouldn't have left it alone.

What they should do is make sure they have reasonable accommodations on a case-by-case basis so that no one who actually needs it is left out. People are currently panicking and assuming that Disney isn't going to help certain groups with no proof that is going to happen. I get it because Disney has not been clear yet but they might be by design so people can't game the system.

I'd be willing to bet nearly all the examples’ people have brought up will be approved or that changes will be made so they can be approved. They aren't interested in stopping those that need help, they do want to stop the MASSIVE abuse.

 

[nickys]

I totally understand what you're saying. Do you have reason to think you'd be denied though? If either of you get it, then you can take 3 other people with you at any time.

The wording seems to say it is only for developmental disabilities.

I know some are saying that’s not the case, but that’s what it says atm.

 

[AndyS2992]

They have ruled out everyone except those with “developmental disorders.”

I don't believe that is entirely true. Would be silly given playing the 'autism' card, when no one actually has it, was the easiest way to scam the system it seems in the first place.

 

[DeadyRoosevelt]

I'd be willing to bet nearly all the examples’ people have brought up will be approved or that changes will be made so they can be approved. They aren't interested in stopping those that need help, they do want to stop the MASSIVE abuse.

You are probably right. I think this was primarily a problem with their messaging of the changes. Hopefully we'll know more soon.

 

[pdude81]

There were lawsuits last time they changed it but the courts sided with Disney on every one them because they had the actual proof of abuse. I am sure it will be the same this time so no, they shouldn't have left it alone.

What they should do is make sure they have reasonable accommodations on a case-by-case basis so that no one who actually needs it is left out. People are currently panicking and assuming that Disney isn't going to help certain groups with no proof that is going to happen. I get it because Disney has not been clear yet but they might be by design so people can't game the system.

I'd be willing to bet nearly all the examples’ people have brought up will be approved or that changes will be made so they can be approved. They aren't interested in stopping those that need help, they do want to stop the MASSIVE abuse.

This

 

[Trauma]

You are probably right. I think this was primarily a problem with their messaging of the changes. Hopefully we'll know more soon.

So the company that had an army of lawyers go over this for months before doing anything just got the messaging wrong?

I think the message is clear.

Unless you have a developmental disorder you can eat dirt.

 

[Figgy1]

I don't believe that is entirely true. Would be silly given playing the 'autism' card, when no one actually has it, was the easiest way to scam the system it seems in the first place.

I don't understand, can you please clarify thnx

 

[Disney Glimpses]

I don't have a disability so I don't know what the landscape looks like across the country/world. But it feels like as far as Disney is concerned, they are paring back to the way things used to be in the 1990s. Which is, folks with certain disabilities skipping the standby queue being exceedingly rare and reserved for extreme circumstances. Or maybe somewhere in between? Not sure, I guess we'll see.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I hear what you are saying but also, is it so bad that someone with a disability gets to experience more attractions during their trip? My son's brain tumor and treatment will affect the rest of his life. I know you are primarily concerned about abusers of the system, but it's very upsetting to me to hear someone complaining about his advantages at a theme park.

I think people with a disability should get some degree of "advantage". Someone in a wheelchair for example might not be able to do rope drop easily, takes longer to navigate the park, takes longer to do common things like use the bathroom, etc.

By all means, let them wait a bit less in line than the rest of us.

The issue however, is that when an advantage is provided, many people will cheat the system. This makes it worse for everyone. I remember hearing how the wheelchair line at the exit of Pirates in Disneyland was longer than standby wait times for example. How many people inflated that by renting a wheelchair because it was a known "hack"?

So how do you provide that advantage, which would ideally make things close to equitable on the whole, when proof cannot be required and people will cheat the system?

 

[DeadyRoosevelt]

So the company that had an army of lawyers go over this for months before doing anything just got the messaging wrong?

I think the message is clear.

Unless you have a developmental disorder you can eat dirt.

I'm not going to lie, I'm worried about the messaging too. But it just doesn't make sense to me.

What does make sense is someone, somewhere in the process said they had to word things in a certain way and that led to unclear messaging and confusion. Companies constantly get in their own way when introduce or update policies and then they have to walk things back. Even companies with lots of lawyers and lots of money.

That said, time and time again Disney has screwed things up for their customers and/or operations teams in the name of introducing new revenue streams, so maybe you are 100% right.

We can only wait for the follow up at this point.

 

[AndyS2992]

I don't understand, can you please clarify thnx

The other user is claiming the new terms of DAS is that it is for people with cognitive/mental disorders only, and not physical ones any more.

Which is odd, given Disney is implementing these changes to stop abuse, when in fact most people who were scamming the system would go to guest services, claiming someone in their party had autism, when they didn't, and would be given DAS.

Seems to me anyway, to clamp down on abuse would be to put less focus on cognitive issues, not more But it should be done on a case by case basis.

 

[pdude81]

So the company that had an army of lawyers go over this for months before doing anything just got the messaging wrong?

I think the message is clear.

Unless you have a developmental disorder you can eat dirt.

It's an FAQ though and not a policy definition. Since the language says "is intended to accommodate" and not "will only accommodate", my take is that it intentionally allows for flexibility and they just want to make sure people understand they are going to be more stringent on what qualifies moving forward. The only way people will know for sure it to contact disability services and find out what the criteria are/will be.

I really wish they hadn't figured out a way to block archive.org from showing what was on this page in prior years. Somehow it seems Stitch ate it every time.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Disney 100% allows and even encourages it. However, as a non-DAS user I am a little frustrated with the idea that a DAS user can get on more attractions that I can throughout the day (thus encouraging abuse, making standby lines longer, and reducing LL inventory). In my opinion people waiting for a DAS rides should be allowed to experience any aspect of the park that does not have a line (parades, shops, restaurants, any attraction that has no wait time), otherwise DAS will negativity affect non-DAS users.

This is an assumption based on neurotypical norms, and doesn't account for the fact that many DAS users cannot stay an entire day in the parks, or if they can they may be doing so at a significantly slower pace than typical families.

 

[Angel Ariel]

They give you the option to interview and set this up ahead of your trip though. So you would know beforehand whether or not both of you were able to have DAS on the trip, and could cancel at that point.

Currently Disney policy requires that you buy tickets prior to registering for DAS. Tickets are non-refundable, so that's a significant sunk cost if one finds out later they aren't eligible for DAS.

 

[Purduevian]

I hear what you are saying but also, is it so bad that someone with a disability gets to experience more attractions during their trip? My son's brain tumor and treatment will affect the rest of his life. I know you are primarily concerned about abusers of the system, but it's very upsetting to me to hear someone complaining about his advantages at a theme park.

Honestly I do not know where the line is of what advantages a DAS user should receive. Len previously showed a lawsuit where Disney said 3% of guests were taking 30% of a popular rides capacity (under GAC). That to me (and apparently Disney) seems unreasonable.

Legitimate DAS guests already have many disadvantages in life (and in experiencing a park day) and I'm not going to pretend to know all of them or quantify them. However, in my opinion there does need to be a limit to advantages given to DAS users in a park that disadvantage non-DAS guests.

Personally, yes in general I feel like getting in a queue for an attraction that has a line, while waiting in the standby/DAS return line is simply too much of an advantage. I have no problem with a DAS guest watching a parade, eating a snack/meal, seeing a show, riding the "transportation" rides, shopping, people watching, walk through attraction, relaxing, ect while waiting for their return time. Again personally to me, this feels like an appropriate accommodation/advantage for legitimate DAS guests.

I wish it could be taken on a case by case basis, but logistics wise there has to be at most 3 levels of accommodations at a place like Disney World.

I mean, Disney said in court - and was unchallenged in saying it - that GAC (the pre-DAS program) guests comprised 3% of park guest and accounted for 30% of ride capacity on popular attractions. Nobody has to believe anything I say.

I could be wrong, so check my math here:

• DHS averaged around 27,120 guests per day in 2012 [cite]
• 3% of 27,170 guests is 815 guests
• The hourly capacity of Toy Story Mania in 2012 was around 1,100 / hour (the third track was added in 2016 [cite])
  Here's why I think it's 1,100 in the real world - we've counted the number of people exiting the ride over time:
  View attachment 771556
  
• Let's assume DHS was open 12 hours per day in 2012.
  • That's 1,100 guests/hour x 12 hours = 13,200 guests that can ride per day
• 30% of that daily capacity for GAC use is 3,960 guests using GAC on that ride per day
• 3,960 GAC uses divided by 815 GAC guests is 4.86 uses per GAC guest

So using 2012 Toy Story Mania as an example, every GAC guest accounted for 4.86 rides on Toy Story Mania.

So it's possible to make that math work if every GAC guest had with them 3.86 people with them on average, for every ride.

How likely is that to happen just based on Florida tourism demographics?

A 2022 report from Visit Florida [link] - the state's tourism office - says that 51% of Florida tourists have no kids (the Affluent Mature at 17% + Moderate Mature at 20% + Young & Free at 14% = 51%)

View attachment 771557

Let's assume those no-kid families are all two-person families, because the numbers would look more unlikely if they were 1-person units.

And let's assume that GAC use is evenly distributed across those segments. I don' think it is - I think it's skewed older, which means ... fewer kids and smaller families. But again, let's play it safe because the math looks worse otherwise.

So if half of GAC guests are two-person units, what's the average size of the other 49% of GAC users, if the overall average is 4.86 people per GAC use?

Here's the equation to solve:

(0.51 x 2) + (X * 0.49) = 4.86
which is 1.02 + 0.49X = 4.86
which is 0.49X = (4.86 - 1.02)
which is 0.49X = 3.84
which is X = (3.84 / 0.49)
which gives X = 7.84 people per GAC group

The "soft limit" for GAC/DAS party size is 6, but it's up to the ride CM's discretion [cite].

Let's play it safe - because the numbers are more unlikely if we don't - and say that every CM approved every 7+-person group for GAC.

So it's possible for 3% of GAC guests legitimately to use 30% of a ride's capacity only if the average GAC family with kids had just under 8 people.

That seems ... unlikely. So what other explanations are there?