New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[pdude81]

Yet & nothing against Len we take what he has provided to us as the Bible…. I do agree with what you are saying but again simple math. Remove 2 pre books for every guest that has DAS adds up…

If you mention pre-booking 2 or 3 more times in this thread then I think you should qualify.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

You hit the crux of my issue with limiting people that have DAS from re-riding. you CHOSE not to ride it because that was not how you wanted to spend your time.

People want to take away this choice from people with DAS.

There have been numerous suggestions on how make a DAS user a higher "cost" to make it more similar to standby, but I haven't really heard a feasible one (not allowing people in standby, having a waiting room, ect.).

I'm actually kind of sad, with epic universe I was hoping they would make the whole park VQ like Volcano bay is, but the logistics of doing that on a theme park wide scale are kind of mind boggling. However, that would have really solved this problem as basically everyone would have DAS.

Yes there's an element of choice but I think it's fair to acknowledge that the virtual "advantage" of DAS means that a DAS user may be more likely to re-ride an attraction with a particularly long queue.

The average theme park visitor isn't going to re-ride a headliner attraction with a 2+ hour wait 6 times at the expense of doing nothing else. There are no doubt exceptions, but it's not the common experience. A DAS user can do this without that same time investment, especially in a park with lots of quick-ish things to do while waiting virtually.

Hence my suggestion that providing an accommodation takes this into account. Limiting re-rides on the most popular and/or low capacity attractions should provide a comparable experience on average.

 

[John park hopper]

Sorry, but the PP was not wrong. Diagnosis alone doesn't mean that someone needs the DAS. My partner is rated 100% disabled by the VA, but diagnosis doesn't impact their ability to wait in line.

Saying they're 100% disabled per the VA means nothing when it comes to line accommodations.

Agree and diagnosis alone does not mean you require DAS accommodation what does is the resulting condition of the diagnosis.

 

[flynnibus]

The way they have it you have to make reservations and then 30 days prior or on then day you visit a CM will determine if you are covered. I 'm not going to make a reservation to find out on the day I arrive sorry not covered. Another Disney big disappointment

You already know you can do the call before you arrive.. and you know if it didn't work out to your satisfaction you can cancel. No need for the exaggeration. You know from years of visiting that Disney would deal with cancellations over this kind of conflict with reason.

If it matters to you - just go through the steps - and if it doesn't work to your needs... let Disney know and leave.

 

[Purduevian]

Yes there's an element of choice but I think it's fair to acknowledge that the virtual "advantage" of DAS means that a DAS user may be more likely to re-ride an attraction with a particularly long queue.

The average theme park visitor isn't going to re-ride a headliner attraction with a 2+ hour wait 6 times at the expense of doing nothing else. There are no doubt exceptions, but it's not the common experience. A DAS user can do this without that same time investment, especially in a park with lots of quick-ish things to do while waiting virtually.

Hence my suggestion that providing an accommodation takes this into account. Limiting re-rides on the most popular and/or low capacity attractions should provide a comparable experience on average.

I understand and respect your viewpoint, but I do disagree with it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Side note, limiting G+ re-rides is honestly my #2 issue with G+ in it's current form (#1 is ILL).

 

[Angel Ariel]

This isn't about your case or people with extreme needs in general for which this isn't realistic. It's about the DAS users who have milder conditions, or no condition, and power use it. It imbalances the system, impacts others, and attracts more and more cheaters.

Except those people are now not qualifying for DAS. The current rules for DAS are requiring more significant need, so I don't understand why the conversation is still being centered around the bolded.

 

[Angel Ariel]

if they could prove it was hurting the non-DAS users significantly.

And if re-rides were a huge culprit of this, it would be reasonable to think Disney would have addressed that in these changes, and they didn't.

 

[NotTheOne]

My new favorite complaint is that people with service dogs are being denied, but come on, having a service dog should be an automatic approval.

Indicative of how warped the concept of "needs" has become when requesting DAS.

**disclaimer: not saying that having a service dog negates the need for DAS; just saying that having a service dog doesn't mean you automatically need DAS**

 

[Chi84]

And if re-rides were a huge culprit of this, it would be reasonable to think Disney would have addressed that in these changes, and they didn't.

They did, by drastically reducing the number of people who qualify for DAS. They probably can accommodate re-rides for a much smaller population. And by limiting DAS to a population that more likely fixates on rides they are being more accommodating to those who need it.

 

[Chi84]

Agree and diagnosis alone does not mean you require DAS accommodation what does is the resulting condition of the diagnosis.

That still leaves the question of whether in-line accommodations are able to accommodate the resulting condition of the diagnosis.

Disney says it’s now limiting DAS to people who can’t stand in a conventional line due to conditions such as autism or developmental disabilities. The program is now designated to serve a specific need.

 

[Angel Ariel]

They did, by drastically reducing the number of people who qualify for DAS. They probably can accommodate re-rides for a much smaller population. And by limiting DAS to a population that more likely fixates on rides they are being more accommodating to those who need it.

I was responding to the concept of denying DAS users the opportunity to do re-rides. If that were as big of a problem as some are making it out to be, it's reasonable to expect Disney would have limited that ability *as well as* limiting the overall population as they have.

 

[Chi84]

I was responding to the concept of denying DAS users the opportunity to do re-rides. If that were as big of a problem as some are making it out to be, it's reasonable to expect Disney would have limited that ability *as well as* limiting the overall population as they have.

But if the number of people using DAS is drastically limited, there wouldn’t be nearly as many people doing re-rides so re-rides alone wouldn’t pose as big a problem as it had in the past.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Except those people are now not qualifying for DAS. The current rules for DAS are requiring more significant need, so I don't understand why the conversation is still being centered around the bolded.

That's fair, to me it's just an acknowledgement of reasons the program is being curtailed.

The challenge with Disney's accessibility policies has always been the advantage factor. People have been renting wheelchairs for decades because it resulted in lower wait times, especially at Disneyland where wheelchairs can only use the exit. Until it didn't because wheelchair lines became longer than standby.

That might be something for some users to consider. Am I using this in a way that gives me equitable access? If not, it can always become more restrictive.

 

[Angel Ariel]

That's fair, to me it's just an acknowledgement of reasons the program is being curtailed.

The challenge with Disney's accessibility policies has always been the advantage factor. People have been renting wheelchairs for decades because it resulted in lower wait times, especially at Disneyland where wheelchairs can only use the exit. Until it didn't because wheelchair lines became longer than standby.

That might be something for some users to consider. Am I using this in a way that gives me equitable access? If not, it can always become more restrictive.

To the bolded - so many in this thread have acknowleged that long ago (myself included). We're almost a month into the new call requirements - at what point do we stop needing to acknowledge why the changes were made and focus on discussing the new reality in place?

As to your second paragraph- we've been going to DLR for almost 10 years with DD, and have needed to use stroller as a wheelchair. The system in place throughout this time for wheelchairs needing to enter at the exit has been you receive a return time based on the standby time (just as with DAS, but it is a separate system from DAS), and come back and redeem at the exit. So this second paragraph is not correct information, and hasn't been for a long time.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

To the bolded - so many in this thread have acknowleged that long ago (myself included). We're almost a month into the new call requirements - at what point do we stop needing to acknowledge why the changes were made and focus on discussing the new reality in place?

As to your second paragraph- we've been going to DLR for almost 10 years with DD, and have needed to use stroller as a wheelchair. The system in place throughout this time for wheelchairs needing to enter at the exit has been you receive a return time based on the standby time (just as with DAS, but it is a separate system from DAS), and come back and redeem at the exit. So this second paragraph is not correct information, and hasn't been for a long time.

Regardless of the current approach, history is worth noting.

Disney provides an accommodation that is superior to the the standard queue, people learn about it, people lie and abuse it, Disney changes the system and the people who truly need it suffer. Rinse and repeat.

Then when it's suggested that maybe limiting re-rides on some major attractions would take away some of that impetus to cheat and/or abuse the system, the notion is objected to. It might not be an ideal solution for some people, but the alternative could be more restrictions.

 

[Splash4eva]

Regardless of the current approach, history is worth noting.

Disney provides an accommodation that is superior to the the standard queue, people learn about it, people lie and abuse it, Disney changes the system and the people who truly need it suffer. Rinse and repeat.

Then when it's suggested that maybe limiting re-rides on some major attractions would take away some of that impetus to cheat and/or abuse the system, the notion is objected to. It might not be an ideal solution for some people, but the alternative could be more restrictions.

DAS user here and honestly it would not bother me if that was something they did to ensure still being able to get DAS. Ive suggested possibly doing a 6-8 gap between re rides to allow 2 rides per day. Whether the system is an “advantage” or not people can debate all they want but ignore the fact MOST people who use DAS need it so its tough to kinda throw shade on those that do… cheaters will continue to lie and get access Disney just made it a little harder and now others who needed DAS are being cut out due to changes in policy on who Disney feels deserves access

 

[Angel Ariel]

Regardless of the current approach, history is worth noting.

Disney provides an accommodation that is superior to the the standard queue, people learn about it, people lie and abuse it, Disney changes the system and the people who truly need it suffer. Rinse and repeat.

Then when it's suggested that maybe limiting re-rides on some major attractions would take away some of that impetus to cheat and/or abuse the system, the notion is objected to. It might not be an ideal solution for some people, but the alternative could be more restrictions.

I'm not saying it's not worth noting. I'm saying it's been noted plenty in this thread. Over and over and over and over again. At what point has it been noted enough to move on to other more salient and recent points?

Disney has decided what the changes to DAS will be for now. They didn't change rules re: re-rides, and the population that now has access to DAS is significantly smaller. We are no longer talking about people with no conditions or mild conditions, so what's the point of framing the discussion about what's happening now around those people? What's being objected to are the assumptions being made about how easy it is for these families that are now the ones with more significant needs to do these massive unusual re-ride plans. It may have been that easy for many in the previous DAS population to do - but that is not the same as the current DAS population, and the assumptions shouldn't be the same.

 

[Vacationeer]

But if the number of people using DAS is drastically limited, there wouldn’t be nearly as many people doing re-rides so re-rides alone wouldn’t pose as big a problem as it had in the past.

Very possible - because all these decisions are multifaceted. If the impact is expectedly lessened enough via other changes, then specifically addressing might no longer makes sense compared to creating new litigation risk or need for keeping the package of changes seemingly reasonable.

 

[Chi84]

I'm not saying it's not worth noting. I'm saying it's been noted plenty in this thread. Over and over and over and over again. At what point has it been noted enough to move on to other more salient and recent points?

Disney has decided what the changes to DAS will be for now. They didn't change rules re: re-rides, and the population that now has access to DAS is significantly smaller. We are no longer talking about people with no conditions or mild conditions, so what's the point of framing the discussion about what's happening now around those people? What's being objected to are the assumptions being made about how easy it is for these families that are now the ones with more significant needs to do these massive unusual re-ride plans. It may have been that easy for many in the previous DAS population to do - but that is not the same as the current DAS population, and the assumptions shouldn't be the same.

I agree but it’s difficult to get everyone on the same wavelength in a long thread where new people come in and ask questions about subjects covered ad nauseam.

Not everyone wants to accept the changes and they ask why Disney is denying DAS to people with legitimate disabilities who previously qualified instead of “stopping the abuse.” Then it all starts over.

 

[Kristamouse]

Did you have a DAS interview where Disney gave you this assurance?

I had a DAS interviews and was NOT assured