|
Changes coming on who can and who can't
ride
Restrictive new logs on Splash Mountain,
with five defined seats instead of a long
multi-person bench, have guests worrying that they may no longer be able
to ride arguably the most popular ride at Disneyland. Ride operators are
also trembling about the reaction they'll get from guests they must turn
away for being too big.
"The issue at Splash isn't just with physically
large people," says one cast member. "Anyone who may have trouble
bending their knees and contorting their body into that bucket seat for
any number of reasons won't be able to fit into the five-seat log.
"Fortunately, Disney has decided to intersperse
four specially made four-seat logs among the fleet of five-seaters. The
solution will allow certain people to ride, but won't necessarily eliminate
all embarrassment. "Larger people simply can't fit in the five-seat
logs anymore, and they are going to have to stand off to the side and
wait for the four-seater log to come into the station before they can
go," the employee relates. "Not fun, and a nightmare for the
cast member at Group."
Rockwork rehab still underway on
Splash May 5th
Ironically, smaller guests may be the ones who
are no longer allowed aboard Splash Mountain. Until the current rehab,
children at least 40 inches tall could ride. Kids typically would come
of "riding age" at just 4 or 5, because in the old seating they
basically sat in their parent's lap, like on the Matterhorn Bobsleds (height
requirement: 35 inches). With the new logs, parents and children will
sit in separate seats. So, says the cast member, "It is also looking
like a very real possibility that Splash will see its height requirement
raised before opening. 46 inches seems to be the magic number now."
The attraction with the most
severe weight requirement is the Orange Stinger at Disney's California
Adventure. Guests weighing more than 200 pounds are turned away from the
Paradise Pier attraction—but that may also be changing. "We
are about to get rid of the 200-pound limit for Orange Stinger, when Facilities
installs new WDI-designed chains for the seats," reveals a DCA employee.
"The 200-pound limit is how the ride came designed from the maker,
but now that we've had it a while we can tinker with it without putting
the manufacturer in legal jeopardy."
At least one attraction, though, may have more
restrictive standards than one might think. Reader
Wyatt notes:
A month ago I was taking my son who was 2
years and 8 months to see Honey I Shrunk the Audience. The lady handing
out glasses asked how old he was. Thinking she was just curious, I said
2. She proceeded to give me only one pair of glasses for myself. I asked
why, and she said he was too young to wear the glasses and must be 3.
I referred to the Disneyland brochure that there is no restrictions
on age to see this attraction and that he has seen the same show in
Disney World with no permanent damage. She responded that he may view
the attraction, but not use the glasses. The glasses can permanently
damage children's eyes who are under 3. I told her that I would take
full responsibility for my son's vision. She shook her head and refused
to give me the glasses.
Giving her one more chance, I said to her
that I made a mistake on my son's age, and that he was really 3, relieving
her of any responsibility that she is going against some hidden rule
that is buried deep in the Disney manual. Again, she shook her head.
This lady was too much. Before I began to argue again, a lady that decided
not to see the show was leaving and put her glasses on the counter next
to me. I grabbed the extra pair and walked into the show… and the
lady still called for me to return. I ignored her thinking she would
probably call security to stop the show because a 2-year-old was wearing
the glasses. She didn't.
After I got home, I looked on the Internet
for any information that these glasses damage eyes. I couldn't find
any. If it is so dangerous, why would the conscientious lawyers at Disney
allow the attraction to continue? Has anyone heard of 3-D glasses damaging
eyes?
An operator at
the attraction responds:
Management strongly urges us to ask
how old the child is. Although this cast member did overreact, our procedure
is to ask how old the child is, if the child is under 3, then tell the
parents or whomever that "we strongly recommend that children
under 3 do not obtain the glasses."
When I first trained at HISTA, they told
us to tell guests that it could impair the child's vision because their
eyes were not fully developed. Since then we've been updated in that
the new type of glasses we use are very easily breakable and once they
do break are very sharp (trust me, it wouldn't be the first time I've
cut myself on them). That is the reason we do not recommend them
for children under 3, but if the parent is insistent and willing to
take the chance of the child poking his/her eye out or cutting themselves,
and there is another cast member outside to be our witness, we are then
allowed to give the parent the glasses for the child.
I do strongly apologize for the way Wyatt
was treated, but unfortunately procedure is procedure and I do agree
that in the Disney Guide it should be printed that children under 3
will not be given glasses. Once again on behalf of all HISTA cast members,
I'm REALLY sorry!
A co-worker confirms:
I was trained when I first got there that
any child under three should not get the goggles. I was told originally
that it could hurt the child's eyes. We were later told not to say that.
We then mentioned that it is a safety hazard.
Last summer, management wrote a note on our
board (along with the note about not saying it hurts a child's eyes)
that if a guest insists upon their child getting goggles under 3 years
old then we should give it to them.
Of Bricks & Mailboxes…
Last Monday morning, Disneyland guest relations
staff received the following email:
Subject: Looking for your Brick?
We have a new Pathstone Finder!!! Thanks
to Rona Kay and Scott Phelps (Merch Special Projects), we have a notebook
at the Brick Cart that will help us locate a Guest's Brick for them.
One of the most frequent questions we get at the Brick Cart is, "Can
you tell me where my Brick is?" Well, now we can do it! Great Guest
Service solutions can be so simple! Thanks to everyone for the input
on the need for it, and the implementation of our new Pathstone Finder!
Reader Frank writes:
Just had to drop you a line about your latest
piece and the email about the stamp machine at DCA. I am a former Anaheim
postal employee who worked closely with many old time Disney people
throughout the '80s and early '90s. Disneyland once had those tiny,
privately owned stamp machines that have historically ripped off the
public, and City Hall used to get complaints about Disney selling stamps
for their postcards at a profit. The postal service approached Disney
and convinced them to evict the stamp vendor and install stamp machines
which dispensed postage at face value in the park and the Disneyland
Hotel.
These original machines were located in the
Camera Shop, The Hospitality House and Tomorrowland. Disney Maintenance
built themed shells for the postal machines so they would fit into the
look of the park.
During the mid-'80s Disneyland wanted to
place a turn-of-the-century post office on Main Street, and the postal
service supplied them with antique post office boxes to incorporate
into the design. Authentic turn-of-the-century collection boxes were
also found and donated to Disneyland where they were installed on the
lamp posts along Main Street for the convenience of guests mailing postcards.
The office was going to be manned by a U.S. Postal Service employee,
and many meetings were held to figure out the logistics of having a
government facility on site. Unfortunately, the need for every square
inch of space to make a buck in retail took precedence, and the idea
was canned.
It was encouraging to read that DCA also
has a stamp machine, but I am curious about it being out of order. There
was always an agreement between the Park and the USPS that if there
was ever a problem with any of the machines, one telephone call to the
postmaster would get a technician sent out immediately to fix it. There
is a whole new group of people at the Anaheim Post Office these past
10 years along with the new guard who've taken over at Disneyland. Perhaps
the lines of communication aren't the same as before, but the Disneyland
mailroom always had a close association with postal employees.
Thought you would like to hear a little more
about this association between the USPS and Disney. Perhaps someone
in the Postal Service or Disney will read this and look into it, but
hopefully that machine in DCA operational by now.
Character Counters
Reacting to speculation about why cast members
are tallying the number of guest interactions with each character, a hostess
writes:
The characters do not have a quota
to fulfill. When Mickey visits with guests in his house, the interactions
are about quality, not quantity. Now, if he does take too long
with guests every single time, I can understand where some might
get upset. The Mouse is very popular, and there is almost always
quite a line to see him. We do not like to take 45 minutes with every
single guest, you can only imagine.
The counts, as far as my knowledge, are only
to survey (a) the most popular places and times for character visits,
(b) the most popular characters, and (c) the most popular times and
places for each popular character to be. Why should Donald be hanging
out in Town Square in the mid-afternoon visiting a few people who just
happen to walk by, when he knows he'll be more appreciated at that moment
in ToonTown? That's what these surveys pretty much are calculating.
Placement and times for character greetings.
Your column regarding the counts made the
counters seem rather obvious, as if they're huge digital scoreboards.
However, the clickers are small and handheld. Only two guests have asked
me about them (one joked, "Do you get paid by the picture?");
no one else seems to even notice.
Just thought I'd throw those ideas out in
the open, so everyone doesn't think it's to completely cut out characters
from guests' experiences. The characters, unlike other entertainment,
are here to stay!
Another employee
confirms:
First of all, I have never heard of any character
cast member being punished for not meeting a specific quota. I was told
that the counts were merely for budget allocation. From what I understand,
management is attempting to determine which characters are in high demand
at specific times during the day.
However, when the counting began, many cast
members felt slightly pressured to ensure high guest interaction counts.
At no time, however, were the characters required to meet a specific
number. Almost every character takes his or her time with guests, especially
children, to ensure that everyone has a good experience.
Lost in Space
Several readers—including two Imagineers
and a Berkeley engineering student—caught inaccuracies in a recent
quote by a Disneyland Facilities crewman complaining that the Space Mountain
track was weakening due to the frequent welding necessary to repair cracks.
First, the Space Mountain track and rails are
made from low carbon steel pipe and tube, not stainless steel. "Stainless
steel pipe would be a very wrong choice for such a track design; soft,
expensive, and with the wrong modulus of elasticity," says WDI's
chief mechanical engineer, who helped build the coaster 25 years ago.
Second, as engineering student Mike
explains, "no metal or alloy shrinks when it is heated. Due to the
first law of thermodynamics, things expand when you heat them. Water is
one of the few materials that shrinks when it is heated. All metals expand
when heated."
The shrinkage, which may contribute to stress
cracks, comes from the cooling that follows the welding.
Meltdowns & Cast Member Abuse
On the subject of tantrums and mistreated cast
members, reader Kelly writes:
I am 43 years old. There has always been a
tendency for people to think the "olden" days were better.
I happen to have been around in the '60s
and '70s, and I know that kids were no more well behaved then, than
they are now. They had meltdowns just as often. Some parents back then
handled problems very well, and some were just hopeless.
Kids and parents today get a bad rap; children
are no worse now than they ever were, and most parents I see today handle
meltdowns and tantrums very, very well. If anything, parents today seem
better educated about parenting.
I think the problem here, is that so many
older people forget what age-appropriate behavior actually is. (My in-laws,
for example, expect their 2-year-old grandchildren to behave like 12-year-olds,
and it just isn't possible!)
Also, as people age, they seem to get a little
less tolerant of typical child behavior, and they also have a tendency
to see the past through rose-colored glasses. People just simply forget
the day-to-day drudgery and difficulties in raising a family, and remember
the good times. Consequently, they believe their precious children were
so much better behaved than children of today. But it's just not true.
Conversely, a cast member
argues:
There are a few things I have noticed. One
was that in the '60s and '70s people treated their trips a whole lot
differently. They showed us video clips in a training class, one of
those things the decide to do every so often. It showed adults and children
dressed as if they were going to church on Sunday. They treated it like
it was a very special occasion, which it definitely should be.
Another thing, parents brought up children
differently. Parents today spend less time with children and teaching
them how to behave and what is right and wrong. They tend to expect
everyone else to look after them but themselves, which cast members
don't have the time to do. We can't babysit everybody's children. People
tend to have a mentality that they should get something for nothing.
Lastly, most people don't listen, no matter
how hard you try. I have heard some really hilarious stories of what
has happened when people don't listen --but then I may have a bit of
a twisted sense of humor…
Scott McKenna writes:
In one of your recent columns, a writer espoused
the view (I'm paraphrasing) that since her child was of the age at which
tantrums are "normal," she did not feel the need to be apologetic
about any such tantrums he threw.
I would like to both (1) express disagreement
with this view; and (2) add another comment regarding the general issue
of the "proper" age at which children can really enjoy a theme
park. The two items are related.
If indeed it is true that tantrum-throwing
is "normal" for a child of 4 years of age, maybe 4 years of
age is a bit too young to be subjecting a child to a day of trudging
around a theme park. Since there is no law or other requirement stating
that a child must be taken to Disneyland or WDW as soon as they are
ambulatory, perhaps the solution is just not to take your kids to such
a place unless and until they have passed the tantrum phase.
This leads me to another observation regarding
the age of children and their attendance at theme parks in general.
I'm a fairly regular visitor to the Disney theme parks. I go to Disneyland
at least once a year and manage to get to Walt Disney World about every
other year. Each time I visit, I am amazed at the sheer number of stroller-bound
children who are either highly cranky or conked out entirely by dusk.
This is entirely understandable (on the part of the children), as marching
around a theme park for hours is tiring business for the young ones.
What I just don't get is "why" the parents subject their children
to such an activity when their children clearly aren't physically ready
to fully enjoy a theme park (and all of the attendant walking) for a
full day.
I believe it does a disservice both to the
children and to other guests when parents insist on visiting a theme
park before their children are ready to take on a full day's activity.
Every time I get a stroller rammed into my heels, shins or ankles, I
find myself thinking, "Wouldn't this situation be better for all
concerned if you waited until your child was about 7, and they could
really get a full day's enjoyment out of the parks without the need
for a stroller?"
Alumnus Keven writes:
Just a thought from when I used to be a cast
member: Yes, they are guests, and should be treated as such. But, cast
members are also hosts and hostesses and should be treated as such.
Good point, Keven. But just like at home, it
is possible to treat a host or hostess badly—it just makes you a
lousy guest.
A ride operator
writes:
I really want to thank you and the staff of
MousePlanet for your attention to the problems of the resort. But most
importantly, to thank you for your defense of cast members like myself
who are left to the front lines, taking the brunt of our company's shortcomings
on a daily basis.
I understand that Mr. Nash's letter was most
likely trying to voice a simple question about a cast member's costume,
but the letter came across to me as a bit strange. The guest had a very
matter-of-fact tone and frankly annoyed me. He says he only visits the
park a few times from out of state and cracks on a general lead because
he thinks he knows more about Disneyland costumes than the general lead
does. If this guest knew as much as he thought he did, he'd have realized
that strange shirt (which my guess was a flannel red or blue shirt)
was the area costume for Critter Country.
Some might still ask why that costume would
be out in front of the Haunted Mansion, seeming possibly out of theme.
The answer isn't really that complicated: Critter Country attractions
and New Orleans Square attractions are in the same business unit and
therefore run by the same management team. (Known as Critter Country
attractions, the unit covers Splash, Canoes, Mansion, Pirates and others.)
I can understand the guest concern if the general lead was inside the
Mansion in rotation, but he wasn't. He was outside in his area interacting
with guests. His outfit interfered with no part of the show itself.
If you wanted to get technical, you'd have seen a lot of "Critter
folk" around the rivers of old New Orleans. Critter Country greeters,
whose sole purpose is guest interaction, roam the area daily helping
guests. I understand that little things like this do raise an eyebrow
from our guests from time to time. But some things are the way they
are for a reason. We're not dumb. And MousePlanet helps show that side
of it.
Great work guys, keep it up.
A co-worker
continues:
First, on the cast members' costumes. When
we are low on staffing, we can use help from other rides with cast members
who have the certain ride knowledge for breaks and lunches. The cast
member in question was most likely a manager. The attractions are broken
up into business units. Mansion is part of the Critter Country unit.
All of New Orleans and Critter Country are considered Critter Country.
Just like ToonTown is part of the Fantasyland business unit. Hell, Main
Street and Adventureland are part of Frontierland unit. Anyway, the
managers of the business units are supposed to wear any costume from
their respective unit.
So don't be surprised if one day you see a
ToonTown cast member be your guide on Storybook. Bad Show, yes, they
even know it. But some times it gets so bad, that any help is welcomed.
But trust me, they get us to do costume changes whenever possible. The
only time that happens is when it's temporary help.
Next, regarding evacuating disabled passengers
from Indiana Jones: Okay, I don't work on Indy, but here's how we do
it on Roger Rabbit and some of the Fantasyland Dark Rides. If a guest
with a disability is stuck on the ride and can't make the walk, we have
to evacuate the ride and then power up in a Maintenance Mode, so the
cars run a little differently. A cast member has to ride with the guest
to makes sure everything is okay, and when the guest is safely off,
we have to shut the ride down again and power up in the normal show
mode. It takes a little longer, but whatever it takes to get the guest
out safely.
A veteran employee
writes:
Having been a cast member at Disneyland for
nearly 12 years, I do agree that 90% of us are not interested in change.
We operated for 40 years on a principle of people coming to our park
to enjoy all aspects of it, and not to be attacked by sales people as
soon as they walk in a shop. We had just that: Souvenir Shops, not Disney
Stores.
During the last seven years, we have now changed
our operation to one of stress. We no longer operate under a lead (who,
in the past, was an experienced and respected cast member), but three
or four managers watching over us like hawks. It is hard to smile and
be happy when we are treated like 2-year-olds, who need someone to tell
them when to straighten a shelf, or pick up a discarded paper cup.
Is it any wonder why morale is so low? Just
a thought.
Gregory Tulloss
writes:
In your three-part formula you suggest "making
as much money as possible." Well, to see the front lines of the
Disney experience, I think protocol would have it that Walt's apartment
would not be on a tour spot anymore, neither should it be open to let.
Or, if they really had cajones they could force the Disney Brass to
camp out for a couple of weeks in the fire of the thousands of guests
they count money from.
I think the best case scenario would be this:
sell the TDA building as commercial real estate, sell the hotels as
a franchise to Marriott or some hotel firm, and lower the cost of admission
to $30 for adults into Disneyland, and $20 for DCA. Then, cut the management
and suit numbers by half, and leave the hourlies and the salary cast
members to their own business. Strengthen the unions, decrease the annual
passporters, and no more freebies/discounts. See where that leaves them.
Glen Halstrom writes:
I recently made a trip to California with
my wife (April 19-May 2), and we decided before we left that, from what
we've read from you and others at MousePlanet, that a trip to Disneyland
was NOT on our itinerary and we'd wait until at least MOST of the attractions
were up and running (even if it took a few years—no, I'm not holding
my breath). We went to Universal instead and had a wonderful time. I
find that sad, thinking about it.
Hey, I got a suggestion to Eisner, Harriss,
etc. The next new park they should open up should be—Disneyland!
That's right, raze the place and start over, only get the people in
Tokyo to build and run it. That way Walt's vision will be preserved
and the guests (and cast members) will once again have a place to be
proud of. I can hear them now:
Management: Tear it down and rebuild it? What
would Walt say?
Walt (from the Great Beyond): It's about time!
Yours would certainly be a novel approach. But
can you imagine the sight of thousands of annual passholders chaining
themselves to the Main Gate to block the bulldozers?
Richard A. Harris,
ride safety expert, speaks up:
I have to respond to the person who said he
could run Disneyland. There is no real approach, but it seems to me
that Vincent S. Randall thinks he could run it better. That can't be.
A. You can't base salaries on park attendance
due to the fact that it varies daily, weekly, as well as monthly on
attendance. People come to Disneyland due to the fact that it has
been in business for almost 50 years and the reputation is there and
has been there. This is called branding. This is what has kept Disney
in business all these years.
B. We all realize that there are politics
in any major corporation in America. To pay these employees in management
could never be based on a sliding scale. As to the fact you have to
many middle managers and upper managers, Payroll would have to work
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
C. Disney old management style was the best.
The old Disney magic was the old management that either (a) has retired
or (b) was let go from their position.
D. As for deducting money from the pay of
each cast member who gets a guest complaint for using profane language,
you can't do this in the state of California. The labor laws are designed
to protect employees. If they would have monies taken from their checks
this would benefit the company and not the employee. This would show
on their bottom line for financial gain on the corporation's part.
The best solution to this problem is to suspend this cast member for
three days without pay and after that offense fire the person for
using profane language on stage, as Disney says.
Finally, reader Jeff Sjoquist applauds:
I had to write in about Don Shields' letter
in today's update. Don, my hat's off to you. Not many people today
would go back and "make it right." It is even more impressive
because it was such a small item. I'm sure the reason the cast members
were so eager to let it slide was they were so caught off guard and
probably didn't know what to do. I think it's safe to say you are
a very honest person who has a great respect for other people, their
property and, of course, Disneyland. Wish there were more people like
you!!!
You can write to David atthis link..
|
