New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[NotTheOne]

*please don’t read this as argumentative - it’s not meant that way.*

But if that is the case, then no guests need DAS in order to access and experience the attraction the same way as other, non-disabled guests.

I think that's probably true, although I certainly wouldn't be in favor of them getting rid of DAS altogether.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't believe Disney is required to provide "DAS," in and of itself, to anyone. DAS is Disney's own program and may be limited if it fundamentally alters the nature of the services offered. That's what Disney is doing, while still attempting to provide alternative accommodations for everyone who needs them.

The subject matter being raised now is why Disney can't just limit the number of DAS passes based on its own calculations of its business need and then say "sorry" to the next guest, no matter how great the need.

Well let's not dance around terms here... We were both saying 'accommodations' - and that's what matters. DAS in this context of number of tickets/admissions/whatever you want to label is just an extension of a person consuming the accommodation in question here (which was defined to be the previously used DAS model of return times to the LL lane).

So for all intents we are talking about the accomodation of someone using return times to the LL as structured by the prior DAS model. That was the proposed 'solution'.

As you stated earlier, the DOJ sets out regulations regarding defined accommodations such as number of accessible seats, entrances, etc. Presumably, they did not pull these numbers out of their collective ***, but based them on information as to what would be reasonable to accommodate the anticipated number of disabled persons in each circumstance. Because it's a government entity, we have given them authority (through a whole number of processes) to make those determinations and impose them on businesses.

The DOJ works through transparent processes, and if they do a bad job (there are numerous disabled persons being denied accommodations in hotels, etc.,) the DOJ takes the heat for it and the business is off the hook for not providing an accessible room to someone who clearly needs it. The regulations may need to be amended, but the business does not have to worry about picking and choosing who gets the accessible rooms as long as they make sure the guests in the rooms asserted they needed it.

I think you give way too much credit to the government process It's a process that can't possibly be right for all - it just sets expectations for those who win the lobbying cause. Unlike a politician, the DOJ has no direct accountability to the public. You could sue them... but now you're really swimming upstream with lead shoes They don't take heat.. they sit in an ivory tower until a president or congress pesters them enough.

We're talking about law that is decades old... with concepts that aren't new... and they still are not codified. The law is setup to allow the civil courts to decide the standard. The law did not limit the scope of possible accommodations to what the DOJ has put into accessibility standards. It's a 'good intention' law that is very loose vs tightly defined. That has consequences.

It's different where a business is "stuck in interpretation land," yet required to provide accommodations. In that case, arbitrarily denying an accommodation based on its own numbers rather than the need of the individual is going to result in a lawsuit against the business, not a clamor for DOJ amendments. Plus, Disney would have to deal with the optics of denying a severely disabled child simply on the basis that their own numbers convinced them they were on the right side of the law.

Obviously such a story would gain eyeballs because it is Disney... but having to make judgement calls outside of the accessibility guidelines is something everyone has to do all the time. They can't simply NOT do it because it's not in the accessibility guidelines. They are making such interpretations NOW and defended them in court. They are damned if they do.. damned if they don't.

The only difference here will be is how likable the person's claims are to the mob public.

Maybe it's what it takes to be the bad guy... to get the issue actually addressed by the DOJ as part of a accessibility standard.

 

[Chi84]

*please don’t read this as argumentative - it’s not meant that way.*

But if that is the case, then no guests need DAS in order to access and experience the attraction the same way as other, non-disabled guests.

No I meant DAS the way it’s currently set up, which includes re-rides, no expiration, etc. I meant to distinguish it from any other program that might allow not waiting in a conventional line.

 

[Chi84]

Well let's not dance around terms here... We were both saying 'accommodations' - and that's what matters. DAS in this context of number of tickets/admissions/whatever you want to label is just an extension of a person consuming the accommodation in question here (which was defined to be the previously used DAS model of return times to the LL lane).

So for all intents we are talking about the accomodation of someone using return times to the LL as structured by the prior DAS model. That was the proposed 'solution'.


I think you give way too much credit to the government process It's a process that can't possibly be right for all - it just sets expectations for those who win the lobbying cause. Unlike a politician, the DOJ has no direct accountability to the public. You could sue them... but now you're really swimming upstream with lead shoes They don't take heat.. they sit in an ivory tower until a president or congress pesters them enough.

We're talking about law that is decades old... with concepts that aren't new... and they still are not codified. The law is setup to allow the civil courts to decide the standard. The law did not limit the scope of possible accommodations to what the DOJ has put into accessibility standards. It's a 'good intention' law that is very loose vs tightly defined. That has consequences.


Obviously such a story would gain eyeballs because it is Disney... but having to make judgement calls outside of the accessibility guidelines is something everyone has to do all the time. They can't simply NOT do it because it's not in the accessibility guidelines. They are making such interpretations NOW and defended them in court. They are damned if they do.. damned if they don't.

The only difference here will be is how likable the person's claims are to the mob public.

Maybe it's what it takes to be the bad guy... to get the issue actually addressed by the DOJ as part of an accessibility standard.

I’m perfectly fine with the system they’ve decided to adopt, since they’re the ones who will have to defend it.

I was addressing the proposal of an arbitrary limit on the number of DAS passes without basing the determination on need.

 

[flynnibus]

I’m perfectly fine with the system they’ve decided to adopt, since they’re the ones who will have to defend it.

I was addressing the proposal of an arbitrary limit on the number of DAS passes without basing the determination on need.

I think that's a slight misrepresentation tho... it's not a 'limit on the number of DAS passes without basing the determination on need'

It was just a capacity limit on the number of people who could access the service. Eligiblilty was still to be determined as as before - there is just a limit on the number of passes to go around. Eligible is eligible, 'space'/capacity is in addition. Just like having a handicap placard makes you eligible, but didn't garuntee you a spot. No one said you weren't eligible when they didn't have a space for you.

 

[Chi84]

I think that's a slight misrepresentation tho... it's not a 'limit on the number of DAS passes without basing the determination on need'

It was just a capacity limit on the number of people who could access the service. Eligiblilty was still to be determined as as before - there is just a limit on the number of passes to go around. Eligible is eligible, 'space'/capacity is in addition. Just like having a handicap placard makes you eligible, but didn't garuntee you a spot. No one said you weren't eligible when they didn't have a space for you.

Why would that be better than what they’re doing now?

Do you mean they would tell people they qualify for DAS accommodations but Disney ran out?

 

[flynnibus]

Why would that be better than what they’re doing now?

Do you mean they would tell people they qualify for DAS accommodations but Disney ran out?

That's what he proposed... I'm not suggesting it to be the be-all-end-all.. but I'm not discounting it as an option because of a belief that they can't risk not serving someone.

Personally I think the proposal is a selfish view of people with the old DAS.. a view of 'I'm gonna get mine...'. and not wanting any change, thinking they would just always be included... and others would be the ones who would be excluded.

Personally I'm anti-"one size fits all" and always have been for accommodations. I think it's that "one size" model that created the problem as Disney just wanted to minimize the effort to put into the thing. Same thing happened when they used to have stamps on the cards.. they just got lazy and resorted to giving everyone the max access.

I'm all for tailoring to patterns of needs and no obligation to 'maintain' what people had before.

 

[Chi84]

That's what he proposed... I'm not suggesting it to be the be-all-end-all.. but I'm not discounting it as an option because of a belief that they can't risk not serving someone.

Personally I think the proposal is a selfish view of people with the old DAS.. a view of 'I'm gonna get mine...'. and not wanting any change, thinking they would just always be included... and others would be the ones who would be excluded.

Personally I'm anti-"one size fits all" and always have been for accommodations. I think it's that "one size" model that created the problem as Disney just wanted to minimize the effort to put into the thing. Same thing happened when they used to have stamps on the cards.. they just got lazy and resorted to giving everyone the max access.

I'm all for tailoring to patterns of needs and no obligation to 'maintain' what people had before.

We agree - we just like to talk a lot.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

At the risk of this being an unpopular take, the notion that Disney should ration DAS and make it first come first serve instead of giving to everyone who cannot be accommodated in some other way can come off as very self serving. Why else would anybody advocate for a model where the most in need of the accommodations could be shut out?

I just don’t understand how we have 425 pages of back and forth with a large portion of it surrounding how Disney has a responsibility to accommodate everyone even at the expensive of their operations, just to land on the opinion that actually its totally cool to not accommodate the people most in need of the accommodations if they were too slow to book.

Unfortunately, resources are rationed because they’re limited. Not everyone can get special treatment. Better that the few who need it most are taken care of than everyone jockeying for more and then leaving everyone worse off.

 

[C33Mom]

First, LL capacity is absolutely a finite resource— there have been dozens of reports of people who generally cannot ride certain rides (Test Track and Peter Pan are the most common culprits, but it happens at many other rides on a less predictable basis) even with DAS because lightening lanes stretch 30+ minutes. Total ride capacity is limited as well but harder to explain to people who don’t want to understand it.

I (think I am) agreeing with @Chi84 and @flynnibus (but I also like to talk)— I think the current DAS overhaul focusing primarily on children who cannot handle waits at all, along with AQR for prior users (presumably including me), is far better than the hypothetical alternative of saying “all disabilities qualify but we can only allow 5-10% of LL capacity to go to DAS and we will distribute it first come first serve” (or even worse, randomly such that you don’t know you have it until the week/day of)—but there is a non-trivial chance it won’t ultimately work for Disney.

If even half of the outright fakers (and the prior users who believe they are still entitled to it become fakers) all mysteriously start having at least 25% of their family/group becoming severely autistic and knowing exactly what to say to get it, Disney is going to be back to having an unworkable system. Even if Disney could legally ask for documentation (which is far far from certain, and would likely benefit their wealthy guests at the expense of the less privileged), they don’t want to be in the game of determining if one kid with autism is really “autistic enough” to qualify more than another, or trying to weed out which doctors notes are coming from medical mills, etc. At that point, they might say “we tried our best to cut back to focus on families who truly most needed DAS but we still don’t have adequate capacity, so starting [in a month or two, knowing Disney] we will be offering [some number of] individuals with a qualifying disability the ability to request DAS system accommodations each day” or they might not limit DAS access but suddenly it would start to look more like Genie+, with per ride capacity limited and return times that vanish before noon, or they might just get rid of it entirely and use more flexible AQR instead.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Disney and Universal are both currently lobbying to try to get clarification for what percentage of attraction fast pass capacity they must give to disabled guests, now that they have a friendly state government.

 

[Angel Ariel]

note - this is specific to live entertainment. Fully recorded shows like philharmonic could offer devices / written script.

the captioning devices I referenced earlier work for live shows as well, I believe.

 

[Splash4eva]

In regards to comments about LL being long as well. I dont think we waited more than roughly 10 minutes on any of them even on some of the bigger culprit rides…

 

[NotTheOne]

First, LL capacity is absolutely a finite resource— there have been dozens of reports of people who generally cannot ride certain rides (Test Track and Peter Pan are the most common culprits, but it happens at many other rides on a less predictable basis) even with DAS because lightening lanes stretch 30+ minutes. Total ride capacity is limited as well but harder to explain to people who don’t want to understand it.

I (think I am) agreeing with @Chi84 and @flynnibus (but I also like to talk)— I think the current DAS overhaul focusing primarily on children who cannot handle waits at all, along with AQR for prior users (presumably including me), is far better than the hypothetical alternative of saying “all disabilities qualify but we can only allow 5-10% of LL capacity to go to DAS and we will distribute it first come first serve” (or even worse, randomly such that you don’t know you have it until the week/day of)—but there is a non-trivial chance it won’t ultimately work for Disney.

If even half of the outright fakers (and the prior users who believe they are still entitled to it become fakers) all mysteriously start having at least 25% of their family/group becoming severely autistic and knowing exactly what to say to get it, Disney is going to be back to having an unworkable system. Even if Disney could legally ask for documentation (which is far far from certain, and would likely benefit their wealthy guests at the expense of the less privileged), they don’t want to be in the game of determining if one kid with autism is really “autistic enough” to qualify more than another, or trying to weed out which doctors notes are coming from medical mills, etc. At that point, they might say “we tried our best to cut back to focus on families who truly most needed DAS but we still don’t have adequate capacity, so starting [in a month or two, knowing Disney] we will be offering [some number of] individuals with a qualifying disability the ability to request DAS system accommodations each day” or they might not limit DAS access but suddenly it would start to look more like Genie+, with per ride capacity limited and return times that vanish before noon, or they might just get rid of it entirely and use more flexible AQR instead.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Disney and Universal are both currently lobbying to try to get clarification for what percentage of attraction fast pass capacity they must give to disabled guests, now that they have a friendly state government.

This is where I see Disney going, if the current changes either don't reduce LL enough or if, as has happened in the past, over a period of years it grows to an unmanageable level again. No DAS issued in advance, you go to the ride and are given either AQR, or if a solo traveler on a duo who needs a caretaker, you're provided a return time.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

I can't say we ever had that problem in the 2000s when my kids were small. Even at attractions like Soarin' with very low thresholds of height requirements... or HM. It was never questioned at all - just we spoke to the CM, and some of our party didn't enter... and two people came back on the RS pass to the FP return late.


Then maybe this was a later iteration as they tried to curb some behavior.. because it wasn't always like that. RS was a god send and just one of those tips/secrets you learned about and made your trip all that much more enjoyable.

There was a 'crack down' period. I want to say it was around 2009ish. As another poster reported, just as DAS fakery is the concern now, the concern back then was Rider Swap fakery.

 

[Splash4eva]

There was a 'crack down' period. I want to say it was around 2009ish. As another poster reported, just as DAS fakery is the concern now, the concern back then was Rider Swap fakery.

How did people fake rider swap? My daughter was born in 2014 and anytime we went and needed it. They basically asked us to “prove” we had a child like there were times i would go myself and my wife at the time was not with me they would have them come over or at least i would have to get their attention of close by. So im egenuinely curious what people were doing for ride swaps

 

[Chip Chipperson]

How did people fake rider swap? My daughter was born in 2014 and anytime we went and needed it. They basically asked us to “prove” we had a child like there were times i would go myself and my wife at the time was not with me they would have them come over or at least i would have to get their attention of close by. So im egenuinely curious what people were doing for ride swaps

I think it was abuse/overuse moreso than faking having a kid at all (maybe fakingthe fact that the kid was too small to ride, however). At one time, Rider Swap allowed the person waiting to bring up to 3 other guests with them through the FP+ line, so people could essentially get 2 FP+ rides back-to-back for a good portion of their travel party (or 1 Standby and 1 FP+ without using one of their 3 pre-selections). Even used legitimately, that was a big impact on both FP+ and Standby wait times and made for an attractive "Disney hack" for people wanting to ride things multiple times and no conscience about lying to get what they want.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

the captioning devices I referenced earlier work for live shows as well, I believe.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean an interpreter does not need to be provided if requested.

I think in general, Disney is able to accommodate with CC devices, written scripts, etc. - but if guests are unable to plan around Disneys published schedule for an interpreter, I believe Disney is still required to provide an interpreter when requested legally.

 

[Splash4eva]

I think it was abuse/overuse moreso than faking having a kid at all (maybe fakingthe fact that the kid was too small to ride, however). At one time, Rider Swap allowed the person waiting to bring up to 3 other guests with them through the FP+ line, so people could essentially get 2 FP+ rides back-to-back for a good portion of their travel party (or 1 Standby and 1 FP+ without using one of their 3 pre-selections). Even used legitimately, that was a big impact on both FP+ and Standby wait times and made for an attractive "Disney hack" for people wanting to ride things multiple times and no conscience about lying to get what they want.

Yes they did and off memory i believe they were dated by the “month” so in theory you could hold it back for another day… i recall this vividly the holy grail as i called it hahaha

 

[NotTheOne]

Yes, but that doesn’t mean an interpreter does not need to be provided if requested.

I think in general, Disney is able to accommodate with CC devices, written scripts, etc. - but if guests are unable to plan around Disneys published schedule for an interpreter, I believe Disney is still required to provide an interpreter when requested legally.

I highly doubt they are legally required to provide an interpreter, although it appears they will try to do so when possible. So long as they can accommodate the need, they aren't legally required to provide it in the manner that someone requests.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I highly doubt they are legally required to provide an interpreter

The way that I read the law on the ADA site, they do, but I’m thankfully not a lawyer. Haha.