- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 17,547
Nothing at Disney World is "absolute" in any way - no matter what the issue, it varies from CM to CM, Coordinator to Coordinator, Manager to Manager, Shift to Shift .......... not even printed policy is adhered to. AND not sure what you mean "very incorrect" ... that implies that everyone who has experienced these denials (me included) are not telling the truth.
Not my intent, and perhaps poorly worded. Disney has, at various times, given actual Rider Switch passes at attractions without height requirements. I've actually seen in person one for Toy Story Mania. It's a matter of accommodations for guests for a variety of reasons, and which can be handled in a variety of ways. Rider Switch passes is one way they can handle things. But as I've often said, it is not a _guarantee_ that you can get one, aside from the height requirement. They may not do it as much these days without the kiosks handy to print them, so they may have cut way back on the option.
Disney website lists all the attractions that RS is available. I think the only one of the list that has no restriction is FEA and I don't know why they would offer it there as it's a similar ride to others without. It should not be offered on any other rides that have no restrictions as you open that for abuse.
Given that the web site has been wrong for the better part of a decade on a number of things, I wouldn't use it as an example.

@doconeill
The problem with the scenario you described is that is often not an accurate example of many of the wait times and also does not account for the length of the ride itself and any pre-shows.
For Soarin and Test Track, if you want to stick with two tier one rides, one has a pre-show and the other a pre-design element. Whenever I've gone, going through the FP line for either of these rides tends to take about 45 mins full circle from entering the queue to being out of the exit line. Say the standby is an hour and let's add 15 mins for the pre-activities, ride length, and exiting. Standby at 75 mins.
For a family without RS to FP one and standby the other, they're looking at 120 mins. For the rider swap family who needs everyone to have a FP for one, use RS, standby the other and use RS, it would take 45+45 for the FP ride, then 75+45 for the standby ride. That's 310 mins vs the non-RS family's 120. If the RS family didn't need FP for everybody and split it between the two rides, the length would be 45+45 for the first and 45+45 for the second. 180 mins total to ride both, or a full hour more than the non-RS family.
Let's say you can make it through FP in 30 mins, and leave standby time at 75. Non-RS family will take 30 (FP ride)+ 75 (SB)= 105 mins. RS family FP one and standby the other: 30+30 (FP) + 75+30 (SB)= 165 mins. If the RS family has FP for both, it still takes them 30+30 (1st FP ride) + 30+30 (2nd FP ride)= 120 mins... Still 15 mins longer than the non-RS family. This scenario can apply whether someone does this for tiered or non-tiered rides. It all depends on the overall time in line and on the ride when comparing how long it will take someone with RS vs someone without. Most rides simply are much longer than a 10 min posted FP queue.
The numbers were simplified to make the example easy. The time it takes entrance-to-exit (E2E) of FP varies greatly by attraction and whether there were previous maintenance issues, etc. I chose two non-pre-show attractions. Sure, you can pick two others and throw numbers that show it doesn't work, but it depends on if those numbers are realistic. In my experience at those attractions, if the FP E2E is taking 45 minutes, standby is a LOT longer than an hour.
I did something out. The number of guests that COULD take advantage in this way is low. It is affected by the group size for one, and it requires mental calculations to see if it would actually save time. The example simply shows that it CAN provide an advantage, when the times are right. Not that they are guaranteed to at any specific point in time. So those that actually could and would take advantage of it dynamically was likely very small, and likely not really the driving reason for the change.