New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[Angel Ariel]

Good point. I had no ill intent. I was trying to state my opinion on why they might be denying some adults vs others by explaining the difference of people on the far sides of the spectrum, a low needs person and a very high needs person, but I did not mean that those are the only possible options. I definitely could have stated it better though.

I know you had no ill intent I appreciate you hearing me out!

 

[NotTheOne]

These changes were absolutely an over correction. With that said, Disney has adjusted this system several times over the last 15 years or so and it's all been fueled by overuse and/or abuse. I would certainly also categorize some of that "abuse" as retroactive outrage when many of the accommodations were 100% permissible by Disney. In other cases there was absolutely abuse.

I would argue that the previous version of DAS was the best version, but there were components to it that were absolutely unnecessary. There was no need to have the advanced DAS component. I believe (with no evidence) that this was done solely to justify the original cost of Fastpass+ which was effectively retired around the same time that benefit was added to DAS.

My biggest complaints personally with the updated system are as follows:

• Guests absolutely, undeniably must be able to have the conversation with a Disney cast member about their needs and anticipated accommodations before they spend a dime on their vacation. This conversation is currently behind a non-refundable paywall and that's abhorrent.
• The hard 4 person cap is too low. 6 is the approach at Universal Studios and Lego Land, and it has been the "soft" cap at Disney World for decades.

I've seen you say a number of times complaining that people have to spend money before they can even apply for DAS.

How is that any different than before the most recent changes?

 

[NotTheOne]

They offer quite a lot of granular alternative accommodations. ADA-compliant lines, return to queue, attraction return times, unique party size, etc. What's an example of someone who doesn't need DAS but whose needs can't be met by the above? My imagination is failing me.

eta: Or are you referring to people who don't qualify for the alternative accommodations that they want, either?

What I've seen are mostly people who don't like the alternate accommodations v. the alternatives won't work for them. But that is, of course, anecdotal.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I've seen you say a number of times complaining that people have to spend money before they can even apply for DAS.

How is that any different than before the most recent changes?

Right or wrong, many with significant disabilities didn't have to wonder in the past whether they would get DAS - especially if they weren't strictly mobility disabilities. Disney's enforcement of their policy at the time was very loose and there was little reason for people to think - especially people who had been approved prior to- to think they would be denied. Disney set up a situation where people weren't concerned about buying tickets first because they had a pretty good idea they'd qualify. (Note - I'm talking about people with legitimate disabilities not abusers).

Now Disney has made things much more strict, to the point that people even with developmental disabilities and/or autism aren't qualifying. That's their right - I'm not debating it. But now Disney has changed the situation to where people really don't know if they will qualify, and qualifying once doesn't mean they will qualify again - even for people for whom the new DAS is explicitly stated to be for. This changes the dynamic on tickets, especially with continuing to make the tickets non refundable.

People should have the right to change their mind about visiting a park if they request DAS, are denied, and they decide the accommodations Disney is providing are not workable for them - especially when we're talking about thousands of dollars.

People have the right to request accommodations. Disney has the right to decide what those accommodation offers are on their property. And the disabled person should retain the right to say whether or not those accommodations are enough for them or whether they will go elsewhere.

 

[jennab55]

People should have the right to change their mind about visiting a park if they request DAS, are denied, and they decide the accommodations Disney is providing are not workable for them - especially when we're talking about thousands of dollars.

I do agree with this. I think if someone buys tickets, gets denied DAS, and doesn’t think they can go on the trip without, they should be able to cancel with no penalty.

 

[Hockey89]

Now Disney has made things much more strict,

Thank god.. Only win for Disney in years.... People paying more so people who claim they can't wait get a free pass.... Couldn't be happier...

 

[Angel Ariel]

Thank god.. Only win for Disney in years.... People paying more so people who claim they can't wait get a free pass.... Couldn't be happier...

I'm glad the abusers are being weeded out, yes.

I am sad for those with legitimate needs - I'm talking about those with developmental disabilities and/or autism - who are now not qualifying either, despite the program being still intended for them.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

I am sad for those with legitimate needs - I'm talking about those with developmental disabilities and/or autism - who are now not qualifying either, despite the program being still intended for them.

Since qualification is not based on diagnosis alone, unless you know a specific individual who was denied, it's hard to say that those with legitimate needs are not qualifying. There's a lot of internet chatter about it, and a lot of disappointed former DAS users/families, but I don't think there are a lot improperly denied. Nothing is 100% and I'm sure there may be a few, hopefully those few can get someone to help them retry and reword the request to adequately express their needs to qualify. But I still don't think there are more than a handful of such denials.


And as for paying up front -- I can't speak for anyone else, but on our first visit with with my child back around 2011, I was very nervous as to whether they would qualify for not. There was limited information available and I really wasn't sure. It's only been a couple of years that people could apply in advance. There have definitely been reports this past year of Disney allowing a refund if someone requested it after being denied DAS; Disney has a pretty good history of working with people who need to cancel or reschedule for various reasons. I don't think I've heard of anyone denied a refund, though understandably not everyone can pivot to completely change vacation plans within 30 days so maybe folks have just made do. But those who just expected to be approved were always taking a chance -- whether they recognized that risk or not is a different story.

 

[jennab55]

Since qualification is not based on diagnosis alone, unless you know a specific individual who was denied, it's hard to say that those with legitimate needs are not qualifying. There's a lot of internet chatter about it, and a lot of disappointed former DAS users/families, but I don't think there are a lot improperly denied. Nothing is 100% and I'm sure there may be a few, hopefully those few can get someone to help them retry and reword the request to adequately express their needs to qualify. But I still don't think there are more than a handful of such denials.


And as for paying up front -- I can't speak for anyone else, but on our first visit with with my child back around 2011, I was very nervous as to whether they would qualify for not. There was limited information available and I really wasn't sure. It's only been a couple of years that people could apply in advance. There have definitely been reports this past year of Disney allowing a refund if someone requested it after being denied DAS; Disney has a pretty good history of working with people who need to cancel or reschedule for various reasons. I don't think I've heard of anyone denied a refund, though understandably not everyone can pivot to completely change vacation plans within 30 days so maybe folks have just made do. But those who just expected to be approved were always taking a chance -- whether they recognized that risk or not is a different story.

I agree with you. I don’t think there are a lot of people being denied improperly.

I also think Disney would work with someone on a refund if denied. Although, the people who do fall into a weird category are AP holders. I suppose if they have an unused AP maybe they could get a refund, but since they aren’t approving for the full AP year, I suppose someone could get approved, then denied part way through their AP. But they is a chance they take I guess since anything can change at any time and they don’t refund APs due to other reasons.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Since qualification is not based on diagnosis alone, unless you know a specific individual who was denied, it's hard to say that those with legitimate needs are not qualifying. There's a lot of internet chatter about it, and a lot of disappointed former DAS users/families, but I don't think there are a lot improperly denied. Nothing is 100% and I'm sure there may be a few, hopefully those few can get someone to help them retry and reword the request to adequately express their needs to qualify. But I still don't think there are more than a handful of such denials.

Nothing I said indicated how often it is or isn't happening. As you said, nothing is 100%, and all I did was express sadness for those that are being missed that shouldn't be. Whatever that number is.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Since qualification is not based on diagnosis alone, unless you know a specific individual who was denied, it's hard to say that those with legitimate needs are not qualifying. There's a lot of internet chatter about it, and a lot of disappointed former DAS users/families, but I don't think there are a lot improperly denied. Nothing is 100% and I'm sure there may be a few, hopefully those few can get someone to help them retry and reword the request to adequately express their needs to qualify. But I still don't think there are more than a handful of such denials.


And as for paying up front -- I can't speak for anyone else, but on our first visit with with my child back around 2011, I was very nervous as to whether they would qualify for not. There was limited information available and I really wasn't sure. It's only been a couple of years that people could apply in advance. There have definitely been reports this past year of Disney allowing a refund if someone requested it after being denied DAS; Disney has a pretty good history of working with people who need to cancel or reschedule for various reasons. I don't think I've heard of anyone denied a refund, though understandably not everyone can pivot to completely change vacation plans within 30 days so maybe folks have just made do. But those who just expected to be approved were always taking a chance -- whether they recognized that risk or not is a different story.

as for this, yes it was always a chance. It was much less of a risk in the past than it is now. It shouldn't be up to the individual discretion/pixie dust of a cast member on the phone (as it is now). There is absolutely no harm in making clear policy that if a person is denied DAS then their tickets are fully refundable. I cannot think of anywhere else we've experienced (outside of a theme park) where we've had to put non-refundable money down before knowing what accessibility accommodations we would be able to use. This includes Broadway shows, NFL games, historical places, etc.

 

[DoubleSwitchback]

People should have the right to change their mind about visiting a park if they request DAS, are denied, and they decide the accommodations Disney is providing are not workable for them - especially when we're talking about thousands of dollars.

How long do you think it would be before the "hack" that if you want to cancel your Disney plans and get a refund, just apply for a DAS for a condition that won't get approved, is everywhere and well known?

eta: That came out more flippant than I meant it! I am genuinely worried and not sure what to do about the fact that any little advantage is immediately publicized and exploited these days, not specific to DAS. It makes it really hard for organizations to be lenient, in so many ways.

 

[Angel Ariel]

How long do you think it would be before the "hack" that if you want to cancel your Disney plans and get a refund, just apply for a DAS for a condition that won't get approved, is everywhere and well known?

eta: That came out more flippant than I meant it! I am genuinely worried and not sure what to do about the fact that any little advantage is immediately publicized and exploited these days, not specific to DAS. It makes it really hard for organizations to be lenient, in so many ways.

There will always be people who try to find a way to cheat every system. Disabled people shouldn't be punished because of what others may do. Every other amusement type we have experienced in 12+ years has managed to find a way for disabled people to *know* the accommodations available to them without requiring nonrefundable purchases. Smaller companies than Disney have this functionality. There's no reason Disney can't.

 

[NotTheOne]

Right or wrong, many with significant disabilities didn't have to wonder in the past whether they would get DAS - especially if they weren't strictly mobility disabilities. Disney's enforcement of their policy at the time was very loose and there was little reason for people to think - especially people who had been approved prior to- to think they would be denied. Disney set up a situation where people weren't concerned about buying tickets first because they had a pretty good idea they'd qualify. (Note - I'm talking about people with legitimate disabilities not abusers).

Now Disney has made things much more strict, to the point that people even with developmental disabilities and/or autism aren't qualifying. That's their right - I'm not debating it. But now Disney has changed the situation to where people really don't know if they will qualify, and qualifying once doesn't mean they will qualify again - even for people for whom the new DAS is explicitly stated to be for. This changes the dynamic on tickets, especially with continuing to make the tickets non refundable.

People should have the right to change their mind about visiting a park if they request DAS, are denied, and they decide the accommodations Disney is providing are not workable for them - especially when we're talking about thousands of dollars.

People have the right to request accommodations. Disney has the right to decide what those accommodation offers are on their property. And the disabled person should retain the right to say whether or not those accommodations are enough for them or whether they will go elsewhere.

I agree 100% that Disney should offer refunds - without a fight - if DAS is denied and the guest feels that they need DAS in order to access the attractions.

But the fact that everyone just took it for granted previously just shows how badly the changes were needed.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I agree 100% that Disney should offer refunds - without a fight - if DAS is denied and the guest feels that they need DAS in order to access the attractions.

But the fact that everyone just took it for granted previously just shows how badly the changes were needed.

Is it taking it for granted for wheelchair users to assume that curb cuts be present? That ramps be available to them?

Disney created a set of accommodations that were, for many years, the *only* non-mobility related accommodations. Disney did not communicate or indicate that these accommodations would be or should be hard to get during this time. Disabled people counting on those accommodations being available to them - again, when they were the *only* non-mobility accommodations available - is not "taking them for granted."

Yes, changes were needed. Most here have agreed with that, myself included. But disabled people relying on the only advertised accommodation available to them (for non-mobility needs) at the time is not "taking it for granted".

 

[jennab55]

Is it taking it for granted for wheelchair users to assume that curb cuts be present? That ramps be available to them?

Disney created a set of accommodations that were, for many years, the *only* non-mobility related accommodations. Disney did not communicate or indicate that these accommodations would be or should be hard to get during this time. Disabled people counting on those accommodations being available to them - again, when they were the *only* non-mobility accommodations available - is not "taking them for granted."

Yes, changes were needed. Most here have agreed with that, myself included. But disabled people relying on the only advertised accommodation available to them (for non-mobility needs) at the time is not "taking it for granted".

But let’s be real, some were taking advantage at times. We’ve seen people admit that they only needed DAS to remain out of sunny lines, yet they used it in all lines because it allowed them to. There were likely many people in those situations who sometimes legitimately needed the pass, but used it for every line because they could.

 

[Angel Ariel]

But let’s be real, some were taking advantage at times. We’ve seen people admit that they only needed DAS to remain out of sunny lines, yet they used it in all lines because it allowed them to. There were likely many people in those situations who sometimes legitimately needed the pass, but used it for every line because they could.

The PP was indicating that assuming they'd qualify for accommodations at all was what was being taken for granted. That I disagree with.

Yes, once qualified, there are some who used it for more than what they needed. There were also those who didn't need it at all who lied about it. That is different than what I was responding to though.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

But let’s be real, some were taking advantage at times. We’ve seen people admit that they only needed DAS to remain out of sunny lines, yet they used it in all lines because it allowed them to. There were likely many people in those situations who sometimes legitimately needed the pass, but used it for every line because they could.

Lets not forget those who used DAS for peoplemover but had no problem waiting on the post-merge soarin line.