New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[DeadyRoosevelt]

I don’t see the number changing much.

Yeah, I have no idea how much these changes will affect the number, especially until we see this new plan in action. I just meant from the previous numbers we've seen thrown around in the thread. So if Disney is saying 60ish% of LL users are DAS, what is a "reasonable" number to them? Should it be 10%? 25%? 40%? Is this number factored into operations? What's the tipping point, etc. I know we won't get real data. It was more a thought exercise.

And yes, the devil on my shoulder is whispering that they don't care about the number, they just want to sell more Genie+. But it would still be interesting.

 

[Chi84]

I have been thinking about this…. I wonder if someone who qualified in the past under something else would be red flagged if they not suddenly applied with autism.

Like they have all our previous visits in the computer. They pull them up every time you apply again for DAS. I wonder if you’ve been receiving DAS for let’s say diabetes, and then suddenly you’re asking for it for autism, if they can THEN ask for documentation?

My feeling - and it's only that - is that if Disney wanted to ask for documentation it would have followed the Six Flags/Universal model.

I have a feeling they really want to get most people with disabilities back into the regular lines, albeit with increased accommodations in the form of some kind of line return system.

I think they want to limit DAS to people who have conditions like autism, where standing in the line itself may be the problem.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

I have been thinking about this…. I wonder if someone who qualified in the past under something else would be red flagged if they not suddenly applied with autism.

Like they have all our previous visits in the computer. They pull them up every time you apply again for DAS. I wonder if you’ve been receiving DAS for let’s say diabetes, and then suddenly you’re asking for it for autism, if they can THEN ask for documentation?

Right. And that is not abuse, but I feel like it’s being characterized as abuse in this thread because it’s not a “developmental disability like autism or similar.”

Disney is making an enormous pivot in the program, but that doesn’t mean that a large number of people haven’t been using it as intended until now. My hunch is that a large number of people have been honest with Disney, and have been approved in the past for things like digestive or spinal issues etc, and now they no longer will be. That doesn’t sound like mitigating abuse to me. It comes across more like dropping support. If anything, it’s Disney’s fault for setting these expectations and approving people from the get-go. It’s not necessarily guests’ faults for being approved. What an uncomfortable about-face they’ve made.

 

[DeadyRoosevelt]

My hunch is too that a large number of people have been honest with Disney, and have been approved in the past for things like digestive or spinal issues etc, and now they no longer will be. That doesn’t sound like mitigating abuse to me. It comes across more like dropping support.

This is my fear. They will stop some of the casual cheaters, but the hardcore cheaters will still cheat. Meanwhile, a large chunk of guests who relied on the service will be negatively affected. Some might be taken care of if the "return to queue" system works. But not all.

 

[Purduevian]

Yeah, I have no idea how much these changes will affect the number, especially until we see this new plan in action. I just meant from the previous numbers we've seen thrown around in the thread. So if Disney is saying 60ish% of LL users are DAS, what is a "reasonable" number to them? Should it be 10%? 25%? 40%? Is this number factored into operations? What's the tipping point, etc. I know we won't get real data. It was more a thought exercise.

And yes, the devil on my shoulder is whispering that they don't care about the number, they just want to sell more Genie+. But it would still be interesting.

I don't have a %, but IMHO the daily ride capacity utilized by a group utilizing DAS should be approximately the same as a group not utilizing DAS (they should get the same quantity and quality of attractions in during the same time period).
Those utilizing G+ should get a few more on average than non G+ (regardless of DAS status).

The current system gives the opportunity for those on DAS to utilize more of the capacity (not that all do, but it is certainly possible). The current rule set encourages people to lie about requiring DAS in order to gain this opportunity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wonder what their expectation is for this number. I think a single digit number sounds too low, but I suck at math. Didn't someone try to crunch the (estimated) numbers here earlier in the thread? I can't seem to track that comment down.

A single digit number easily becomes a two digit number when they’re, on average, part of a party of four. Then they become an even higher percentage when they all get pushed together into only a fraction of the overall visitors.

Not my intent at all.

I'm just pointing out that the level of abuse, and laws that impede an ability to address it, makes it difficult or impossible to provide appropriate accessibility.

I don’t say it was your intent. It would be the unintended consequence.

 

[RamblinWreck]

I was going to like your comment but then it got really ignorant at the end there. Autism is a developmental disability, NOT a mental illness

I apologize!

You are absolutely correct. I am ignorant about it.

 

[shambolicdefending]

I have two kids that have qualified for DAS both in Anaheim and Orlando due to diagnosed genetic developmental disabilities. They're the "invisible" type that wouldn't be noticeable to the casual or untrained observer. I'm grateful that Disney has the program and I'm grateful for the cast members who help administer it. It's been my experience that those working with DAS have a very warm and genuine desire to help people like my kids, who just want to experience Disney like "normal" kids as much as possible.

That gratitude and appreciation is equaled by my disgust at people who game the system. It's been an obvious problem for a long time, and I'm very happy to see Disney taking steps to address it. People just trying to get something for nothing out of the program aren't commiting a victimless crime. I hope the steps being taken now help eliminate at least a good chunk of them.

If anything, I'd like to see Disney go even further in the future. Every family I know with a legitimate need for disability access would have no problem with a strict system that required extensive documentation and vetting.

 

[Doberge]

I have been thinking about this…. I wonder if someone who qualified in the past under something else would be red flagged if they not suddenly applied with autism.

Like they have all our previous visits in the computer. They pull them up every time you apply again for DAS. I wonder if you’ve been receiving DAS for let’s say diabetes, and then suddenly you’re asking for it for autism, if they can THEN ask for documentation?

No, this is unlikely even information they keep because it would be protected health information (the reported condition) linkd to a specific individual. That's exactly the kind of information they don't want to store. But Disney might have aggregate data, like X people reported autism, Z people reported a bowel condition, etc.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think they want to limit DAS to people who have conditions like autism, where standing in the line itself may be the problem.

That I’m Sure is the goal: An access system that only minimally impacts the operation as a whole.

It’s just hard. People want to scam
Disney…they’re hard to discourage.

And I think the “need” is highly questionable. Like I would question diabetes 99% of the time and ADHD probably like 85%

 

[flynnibus]

Every family I know with a legitimate need for disability access would have no problem with a strict system that required extensive documentation and vetting

Unfortunately this is everyone's view as long as they are informed and not excluded.

Many of those same people would want to flip tables if they got there, and were excluded, because they were excluded for some criteria they failed to complete... due to changes or simple lack of awareness.

It's not that people don't want to comply - but they equally don't want to be excluded either... and the reasoning for not being able to meet the screening criteria can be quite innocent too.

 

[Ayla]

I guess you must be a lawyer?

Let me guess you are a lawyer? If not then go become one because you seem to KNOW EVERYTHING.

(I can't wait to keep reading to see who tells him... )

 

[shambolicdefending]

Unfortunately this is everyone's view as long as they are informed and not excluded.

Many of those same people would want to flip tables if they got there, and were excluded, because they were excluded for some criteria they failed to complete... due to changes or simple lack of awareness.

It's not that people don't want to comply - but they equally don't want to be excluded either... and the reasoning for not being able to meet the screening criteria can be quite innocent too.

I can assure you that this would not be a common issue for those that deal with genuine, serious disabilities. Working with guest services at Disney would not be their first rodeo.

Disney is unusually lax and undemanding with their DAS program, even with the changes that they're describing now.

 

[flynnibus]

I can assure you that this would not be a common issue for those that deal with genuine, serious disabilities. Working with guest services at Disney would not be their first rodeo. Disney is unusually lax and undemanding with their DAS program, even with the changes that they're describing now.

A few problems...
1) you're already filtering people with criteria like 'genuine, serious disabilities'. You shouldn't have to be a 'pro' to be protected.
2) you missed my point about preparation. Yes, we all like to think of things like our big Disney vacations that we planned 9months in advance, and we've scheduled everything, etc. But that's not the only way people visit Disney parks.

 

[Tha Realest]

only because you're confusing terms. 'disability' is a legal term under the ADA - not a medical term. In your scenario, the Inability to walk is a 'disability' in your example - while the 'positive pressure hydrocephalus' would be your illness. The ADA isn't as concerned with the disease behind your in ability to walk... but focuses on the impact of "substantially limits one or more major life activities".

Basically what people should focus on is if a person has a condition that limits from major life activities, what can be done to not unnecessarily exclude them. That's the real intent of the law. Everything else is implementation...

It seems, as of right now, Disney’s response is, “Thank you friend for sharing! We have a few options for you. First, for our guest having issues walking, most of our queues have mobility access. Second, if you have another physical ailment that requires you to leave the line, a Cast Member will make sure you can meet back up with your group. Of course, you’re always free to skip the line altogether and purchase Genie+. Have a magical day!”

 

[Happyday]

(I can't wait to keep reading to see who tells him... )

Tells who what?

 

[shambolicdefending]

you're already filtering people with criteria like 'genuine, serious disabilities'. You shouldn't have to be a 'pro' to be protected.

This is probably where we disagree.

It's my view that those with a genuine need for accommodations at Disney parks will have inevitably needed them in other places such as school or work. That being the case, they would absolutely be "pros" in dealing with accommodation vetting processes. Even a very strict process by Disney standards would be a comparative breeze.

At the risk of being hypocritically judgemental, I would be quite suspicious of someone who claimed a need for accommodations, but was tripped up by what would be a relatively small amount of red tape compared to what they'd need nearly anywhere else.

 

[Happyday]

Tells who what?

Thanks for assuming a gender BTW

 

[wdw71fan]

After a few conversations with some 'in the know' persons.. my concerns are all but gone for my perspective on this..

Despite the 'Autism only' way the original post reads, Disney is playing the requirements close-to-the-vest as to prevent online 'get around' information for those that would abuse..

I guess that goes without saying, but it's definitely happening. they are absolutely going to enforce bans for abuse, and I'm all in on that for the abusers of the system.. Do it.

 

[shambolicdefending]

Despite the 'Autism only' way the original post reads, Disney is playing the requirements close-to-the-vest as to prevent online 'get around' information for those that would abuse.

This is exactly what I thought when I read over the changes. Those closely familiar with developmental disabilities will have a very good idea of what this means and who/what will qualify. Those that aren't will have a harder time faking it.