DAS changes coming WDW May 20/ DL June 18, 2024

[OurBigTrip]

It’s sad that is the solution.

If there were too many people in the LLs, the only solution is to reduce the number of people allowed there, and Disney was long overdue in doing it.

 

[AnneK]

Being approved at DL and then denied at WDW just goes to prove that it entirely depends on the CM you get. You basically have to win the lottery to get approved.

 

[jennab]

Being approved at DL and then denied at WDW just goes to prove that it entirely depends on the CM you get. You basically have to win the lottery to get approved.

Not really…. As explained previously it could have to do with accessibility of many lines being more limited at DL compared to WDW. So I think it depends the reason for why the person needed DAS and if it can be helped at WDW in other ways (but can’t at DL).

 

[AnneK]

Yeah, no. Those approved at WDW are also being denied at DL. It's happening both ways.

 

[lanejudy]

Yeah, no. Those approved at WDW are also being denied at DL. It's happening both ways.

Right...and DL has some different accommodations that are not available at WDW. So it goes both ways that there are different accommodations available at the attractions. Thus depending on a person's reason for needing DAS and whether the need can be accommodated in a different manner (that may not be offered on the other coast).

 

[lanejudy]

The difference in accommodations at each park likely explains why there are 2 separate Accessibility Teams -- one for each coast. That also helps explain why when there has been a back-log of calls for DL/DCA even though people are connecting with very short waits for WDW. They can't simply re-direct the calls if there is park-specific accommodation offerings and DAS approvals without cross-training each team. They may eventually get to the point they can cross-train, but it doesn't appear to be the case at this point in time.

 

[AnneK]

It's wild to me that you guys are making excuses for the complete inconsistancies on denials and approvals, regardless of which park it is. The truth of the fact is approval is COMPLETELY dependent on who you get for your interview. Hundreds of those with with Autism have been both denied and approved despite have the same condition and levels. There is NO CONSISTANCY.

 

[Angel Ariel]

The difference in accommodations at each park likely explains why there are 2 separate Accessibility Teams -- one for each coast. That also helps explain why when there has been a back-log of calls for DL/DCA even though people are connecting with very short waits for WDW. They can't simply re-direct the calls if there is park-specific accommodation offerings and DAS approvals without cross-training each team. They may eventually get to the point they can cross-train, but it doesn't appear to be the case at this point in time.

That discrepancy existed long before the changes. Our wait for DLR call in January was 3 hours. At WDW the year before, same time of year, both calls made at opening time for each coast, was 15 mins. WDW had long wait times when first moving to online, but they adjusted in a way that DLR never really did.

 

[lanejudy]

Hundreds of those with with Autism have been both denied and approved despite have the same condition and levels.

You are missing the basic premise. DAS is based on needs not on diagnosis. While those individuals have the same diagnosis that doesn't mean their needs present in the same manner from one individual to another.

 

[lanejudy]

WDW had long wait times when first moving to online, but they adjusted in a way that DLR never really did.

WDW has had periods of longer waits. While I didn't specifically track it, such occurences seemed to be in advance of holiday crowds, spring break crowds, etc. I do think the DL/DCA team has been short-staffed; they've posted jobs specifically for those parks. I don't know if it's been a hard position to fill or if there's been high turn-over. Considering the attitudes of many with the repeated calls to the DL team, it could be challenging to fill and keep those roles filled.

 

[Disneylover99]

It's wild to me that you guys are making excuses for the complete inconsistancies on denials and approvals, regardless of which park it is. The truth of the fact is approval is COMPLETELY dependent on who you get for your interview. Hundreds of those with with Autism have been both denied and approved despite have the same condition and levels. There is NO CONSISTANCY.

In the past, pretty much everyone got a DAS. So people were consistently told yes, based on what you have, you’re going to get DAS. And people got comfortable receiving DAS for many years without worry of not being approved.

Now it seems their mandate is to say no as much as possible. The bulk of people who had DAS in the past are probably being turned down now. So when people do report that yes, they got DAS. People want to know what their issues are, and then feel outraged/disappointed that they were turned down with the same issues. People see that as them not being consistent. I see it as more of just a crack down of true need.

 

[dbriggsq]

If there were too many people in the LLs, the only solution is to reduce the number of people allowed there, and Disney was long overdue in doing it.

Is it the only solution though? They could sell less LLs or revert to the old fast pass system which seemed to be widely accepted. The old system would work for many who now need DAS. The DAS and old GAC pass were available in the old FP times and I don’t remember any significant problems with the waits in the FP line.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Is it the only solution though? They could sell less LLs or revert to the old fast pass system which seemed to be widely accepted. The old system would work for many who now need DAS. The DAS and old GAC pass were available in the old FP times and I don’t remember any significant problems with the waits in the FP line.

There is no mandate for, nor should any company be expected to reduce their revenues in order to provide an accommodation that wasn’t necessary for many, if not the majority, of those who received it.

 

[dbriggsq]

There is no mandate for, nor should any company be expected to reduce their revenues in order to provide an accommodation that wasn’t necessary for many, if not the majority, of those who received it.

Their intention in introducing the paid LL system was to increase revenue by the obvious means but also perhaps by making people with disabilities, who could manage their trips with the old FP, spend more money to be able to visit at all. I agree that some people abused DAS but that doesn’t mean that genuine users should be punished (and I’m not sure that’s a majority)

 

[Disneylover99]

Is it the only solution though? They could sell less LLs or revert to the old fast pass system which seemed to be widely accepted. The old system would work for many who now need DAS. The DAS and old GAC pass were available in the old FP times and I don’t remember any significant problems with the waits in the FP line.

Times were different then. They are never going back to free fast pass.

Genie+ and booking DAS online with their new system came out around the same time. So now people had to pay for fast pass services as DAS got more attractive and easier to use then ever since you could apply/book rides online and actually pre-book a few rides each day you had park tickets. It’s no wonder people ditched the paid Genie and turned to DAS.

So if the solution is to limit paid lightening lanes, and allow DAS usage as before, you’ll have more people than ever trying to get DAS.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Their intention in introducing the paid LL system was to increase revenue by the obvious means but also perhaps by making people with disabilities, who could manage their trips with the old FP, spend more money to be able to visit at all. I agree that some people abused DAS but that doesn’t mean that genuine users should be punished (and I’m not sure that’s a majority)

Their intention in introducing the paid LL system was absolutely an effort to increase revenue, but I highly doubt there was a “ooh, let’s get the disabled to pay too!” element to it.

And offering a different accommodation than what guests are used to and want is not “punishment”.

 

[dbriggsq]

There is no mandate for, nor should any company be expected to reduce their revenues in order to provide an accommodation that wasn’t necessary for many, if not the majority, of those who received it.

Their intention in introducing the paid LL system was to increase revenue by the obvious means but also perhaps by making people with disabilities, who could manage their trips with the old FP, spend more money to be able to visit at all. I agree that some people abused DAS but that doesn’t mean that genuine users should be punished (and I’m not sure that’s a majority)

Their intention in introducing the paid LL system was absolutely an effort to increase revenue, but I highly doubt there was a “ooh, let’s get the disabled to pay too!” element to it.

And offering a different accommodation than what guests are used to and want is not “punishment”.

There is no mandate for, nor should any company be expected to reduce their revenues in order to provide an accommodation that wasn’t necessary for many, if not the majority, of those who received it.

Their intention in introducing the paid LL system was absolutely an effort to increase revenue, but I highly doubt there was a “ooh, let’s get the disabled to pay too!” element to it.

And offering a different accommodation than what guests are used to and want is not “punishment”.

I don’t think there is any doubt that some people (ourselves included) could manage with the old FP and now can’t and are therefore forced to pay for LL (which wouldn’t actually work for us anyway). There is an accommodation which some people NEED - should they have to pay for it?

 

[OurBigTrip]

Their intention in introducing the paid LL system was to increase revenue by the obvious means but also perhaps by making people with disabilities, who could manage their trips with the old FP, spend more money to be able to visit at all. I agree that some people abused DAS but that doesn’t mean that genuine users should be punished (and I’m not sure that’s a majority)



I don’t think there is any doubt that some people (ourselves included) could manage with the old FP and now can’t and are therefore forced to pay for LL (which wouldn’t actually work for us anyway). There is an accommodation which some people NEED - should they have to pay for it?

If the old FP+ works for you, then there is no reason the new LLMP can’t work for you.

And no one has to pay for an accommodation…

 

[dbriggsq]

If the old FP+ works for you, then there is no reason the new LLMP can’t work for you.

And no one has to pay for an accommodation…

The LLMP wouldn’t work for us - a) because we can’t book it from the UK, b) because it’s not possible to book rides within 2 - 3 hours (unlike the old FP). If we can’t get DAS ( which looks possible) then we HAVE to pay for an ‘accommodation’ - LLMP - which won’t even work

 

[jo-jo]

In the past, pretty much everyone got a DAS. So people were consistently told yes, based on what you have, you’re going to get DAS. And people got comfortable receiving DAS for many years without worry of not being approved.

Now it seems their mandate is to say no as much as possible. The bulk of people who had DAS in the past are probably being turned down now. So when people do report that yes, they got DAS. People want to know what their issues are, and then feel outraged/disappointed that they were turned down with the same issues. People see that as them not being consistent. I see it as more of just a crack down of true need.

I thought in the last few years, DAS usage had exploded. Like you said just about everyone got one. I don't understand the stories of I've gotten DAS for 20 years and now denied. Was it lax for that long?