Exclusions ???

[Lewisc]

I am a little slow so could you explain to me what kind of people you are talking about? I am buying the dining plan so I am just wondering what kind of person I am .

I'm not one of the DIS vets who is anti-meal plan, they may have a different opinion.

At least the non-Disney restaurants are paid a fixed price for each meal. With Some restaurants customers are able to order menu items that have a dollar value of more than twice what Disney is paying the restaurant. Most restaurants aren't able to have gross profit margins that high. As more customers are MYW dining guests restaurants are forced to adjust so they can make money.

One option is to raise the price for cash customers. It's is questionable if exclusions are allowed so restaurants are making other adjustments. Reducing portion size is one option. Doesn't affect MYW Dining customers since every customer gets an appetizer and dessert but it might be enough so cash customers don't get enough to share and now have to order an appetizer for each customer. Other adjustment include deleting expensive menu items and preparing some meals in advance to reduce the labor cost.

Non-Dining guests may wind up paying more and having some of the more expensive menu items deleted altogether.

I'd say "those people" are customers that wouldn't patronize the restaurants without the dining plan and don't care if the quality has been reduced in order to profitably participate with the dining plan.

 

[gabbysmom04]

I myself am not eating anywhere new because of the plan. I don't have a problem with things being excluded. I don't think they should be taken off the menu! All they have to do it move it on the menu. For example make it a special or make a cat. for sushi or expensive seafood. I see the point you are trying to make, but I am happy that they are offering the dining plan. I am a DVC member so I miss out on many of the deals disney comes out with like the free dining they offered or the stay for 5 play for 7. I agree that people should not have to miss out on things like the slipper because of the dining plan. Why not leave it and tell people that it is not part of the plan. I just want to know what is and what is not included.

 

[Lewisc]

I myself am not eating anywhere new because of the plan. I don't have a problem with things being excluded. I don't think they should be taken off the menu! All they have to do it move it on the menu. For example make it a special or make a cat. for sushi or expensive seafood. I see the point you are trying to make, but I am happy that they are offering the dining plan. I am a DVC member so I miss out on many of the deals Disney comes out with like the free dining they offered or the stay for 5 play for 7. I agree that people should not have to miss out on things like the slipper because of the dining plan. Why not leave it and tell people that it is not part of the plan. I just want to know what is and what is not included.

Other than 2-3 non-Disney restaurants, with the one in Japan being really the only restaurant with real exclusions, there aren't any exclusions.

I agree with you, allowing a restaurant to exclude one or two menu items makes sense to me, call it something like a signature dish. The overwhelming number of posters agree with Disney and feel the plan shouldn't have any exclusions. Disney would rather water down the menu than deal with complaints from guests who think they're being "ripped off" because they have to pay extra for what they want to order. The dollar value of dinner that MYW dining guests can order at CRT went down but the restaurant went from 1 credit to 2 credits.

I like the dining plan and used it twice so you're not arguing with me. I can understand the fear that some restaurants will be downscaling their menu.

 

[Luvamouse]

I believe that Pedler is referring (tongue in cheek I'd think, from the rest of the post...) to those of us crass enough to use coupons and get the 2 for 1 offers at restaurants and stores; that sort of person. I consider myself an educated consumer. I will not go to any restaurants on the DP that I would not have patronized without the DP. Our 2 TS meal will be Hoop De Doo. I don't consider it to be a "for profit" scenario. It is unfortunate if the DP causes some to turn away from their favorite restaurants whether due to too many people or having to "dine with the riff raff" , but I feel that the DP is beneficial to Disney (of course, foremost), and to most who buy it too.

As discussed thouroughly, no one has to buy it. As long as abuse doesn't make it disappear over time, I think it is a big draw. 20 years ago my family from England was curious as to our cost for Disney..When we gave them the "component costs"--tickets, meals, airfare, room-- they were shocked . Even then their Disney trips were booked all inclusive. How could we go without having the entire cost pre-planned my cousin wanted to know? (Can't say just how the meal plan worked then, but it existed as vouchers or some such.) They'd never travel without knowing all their costs. Makes sense to me.

But back to the original question Gabbysmom04, the quote sounded like it was to be humorous in referring to us commoners.

Heidi

P.S. Looking at all the new posts since I started this... I think the idea of perhaps a small section at the bottom of the menu, or 2 or 3 starred items that are noted as "off plan " or "POP" might be an idea. As long as they don't get carried away. That is when it should become a 2 TS, when it weighs heavily on the "can't haves".

 

[Pedler]

I am a little slow so could you explain to me what kind of people you are talking about? I am buying the dining plan so I am just wondering what kind of person I am .

I apologize. My bad attempt at humor. I also used the dinning plan and fortunately it happened to coincide with the free dinning promo. It was an unexpected savings for us. Back when that was going on there were posts complaining how crowded places were because of the free dinning plan and more than one post complaining about noisy hot sweaty people and thier kids filling up what would otherwise have been quite places. Keep in mind my family was one of those hot sweaty people with kids that went to places like Alfredos. The dinning plan has also had an effect on getting ADR's as more people are eating at TS places now. That also bothers some people.

 

[Pedler]

I believe that Pedler is referring (tongue in cheek I'd think, from the rest of the post...) to those of us crass enough to use coupons and get the 2 for 1 offers at restaurants and stores; that sort of person.

....

But back to the original question Gabbysmom04, the quote sounded like it was to be humorous in referring to us commoners.

P.S. Looking at all the new posts since I started this... I think the idea of perhaps a small section at the bottom of the menu, or 2 or 3 starred items that are noted as "off plan " or "POP" might be an idea. As long as they don't get carried away. That is when it should become a 2 TS, when it weighs heavily on the "can't haves".

That is what I was lamely trying to do. (And yet I wonder why I don't have my own sitcom. )

There are some folk, a small minority, at the DIS that feel there is a certain way to do Disney and don't particularly care for they way Disney has changes it offerings to bring more people on site with thier new marketing. Just check out the postings on all the people that were not overly happy with what the DME was doing to independant transportation services.

 

[Pedler]

I I agree that people should not have to miss out on things like the slipper because of the dining plan. Why not leave it and tell people that it is not part of the plan. I just want to know what is and what is not included.

I think the problem is that it increases the complexity of the plan. Once they do that then people will start to ask Disney for a list of the excluded items. I don't think Disney even provides the menus of its restaurants. Then you run into the issue of irrate patrons complaining at the restuarant or negotiating an upcharge etc. I think they would just rather remove items. The first time patron or person that only goes once every few years wouldn't even notice the change. The only people that would really notice it would be the frequent visitors. In this case you can't please everyone so they choose an approach that keeps it simple. The whole goal of the new marketing put in place last year was to increase occupancy rates and per capita spending. To that extent it has worked. As long as it continues to achieve the financial goals why change it?

 

[Lewisc]

That's the approach Disney is taking. Virtually no exclusions at the Disney restaurants and they look the other way regarding the WS restaurants.

I think Disney could at least just say there is an up charge for lobster at most restaurants. That was the problem that Teppanaki was having. People were going there because it was one of the only 1 credit restaurants that served lobster. The CP package now specifically excludes lobster and I'm surprised MYW Dining doesn't do the same. They no longer call lobster an entrée, there has to be a more honest way to handle it. I think there is a middle ground between including everything or having a menu that excludes most of the items.

I'd just let each restaurant have 1 or 2 "signature" dishes that aren't included.

My concern is the present plan can't survive, at least for the WS, long-term. I'd hate to see them drop from the plan, have surcharge for most of the menu or switch to signature status.

I think the problem is that it increases the complexity of the plan. Once they do that then people will start to ask Disney for a list of the excluded items. I don't think Disney even provides the menus of its restaurants. Then you run into the issue of irrate patrons complaining at the restuarant or negotiating an upcharge etc. I think they would just rather remove items. The first time patron or person that only goes once every few years wouldn't even notice the change. The only people that would really notice it would be the frequent visitors. In this case you can't please everyone so they choose an approach that keeps it simple. The whole goal of the new marketing put in place last year was to increase occupancy rates and per capita spending. To that extent it has worked. As long as it continues to achieve the financial goals why change it?

 

[Luvamouse]

I think the KISS acronym is right. The more they deviate from the everything on the menu plan, the more confusing it gets. Having to make ADR's and get my act together is enough thank you. I don't need to wade through exclusions when I get to my ADR.

If the high end, but not quite worthy of 2 TS, restaurants had 1 or two items that weren't DP, and lobster was made an OOP addition, I would have no problem. Overly generous appetizers can be for two as with the fanciest of desserts. If it is a few items and clearly marked-- and also not at all the restaurants-- just those who don't have the oomph to become 2 TS, it could work.

I just want to relax when I get there and enjoy my meals. And BTW, I come from New England and am NOT getting lobster in Florida. They aren't what I'm used to-- found that out. Too expensive too. Now good ribs down South...that's another story...

Heidi

 

[Pedler]

I'd just let each restaurant have 1 or 2 "signature" dishes that aren't included.

I think if you were to limit it to one signature dish then that might work though I don't think Disney will go that route as the only places having issues with the plan are the non Disney owned ones. The problem with exclusions that are not precisely defined is that I think when most people here the term they think that the only thing allowed would be the bland chicken breast type entrees and anything they would want would be excluded. Even if that isn't the case once you go down this route it takes a simple plan and causes problems and I think Disney just doesn't see any benefit from changing things.

My concern is the present plan can't survive, at least for the WS, long-term. I'd hate to see them drop from the plan, have surcharge for most of the menu or switch to signature status.

I don't see the present plan having a survival problem for the Disney owned places. Disney is doing well with its objectives based on the dining plan and other changes made. The WS places on the other hand have serious issues. If they take the plan then they get less revenue without any of the other benefits except maybe an increase in the number of patrons but for those that were already filling up that isn't a benefit. If they don't take the plan they they miss out on a whole section of customers that Disney is agressively marketing to. At first the WS places didn't take the plan. I imagine that the loss in sales drove them to take the plan. While it is a problem for the WS places I don't think Disney probably views it as their problem. Bummers for the WS places but that appears to be the reality of the situation.

 

[DeirdreTours]

what annoys me about the DDP is that when you call disney directly they don't tell you about exclusions


And that is really the key issue for me. The brochure is clear about the lack of restrictions (except for WGP and PH). I also called and was assured in advance that no restrictions were in place.

During out trip last year there were only one or two places that attempted to create restrictions. We simply ignored them and ordered according to the plan as presented in the brochure and charged the "extras" that should have been included but were refused by the restaurant to our room (All four times I told the waiter that I disagreed but would handle it later at the hotel, twice the waiter then immediately dropped the extra charge) We then took it up with the desk manager at the Animal Kingdom Lodge. He not only took it off our room charges but apologized for the restaurant's failure to comply with the plan. We were a family of 5 staying for 9 days and we only had this problem twice, so in general the plan does work smoothly.

One other note: The language in the brochure reserving Disney's right to change the plan without notice applies to future purchasers NOT to someone who has already purchased the plan. That is, it means Disney makes no promise that the plan will be avialable tomorrow or next week or whenever. If you have already purchased the plan you are legally entiltled to what the brochure states or a refund of your purchase price.

 

[angel's momma]

During out trip last year there were only one or two places that attempted to create restrictions. We simply ignored them and ordered according to the plan as presented in the brochure and charged the "extras" that should have been included but were refused by the restaurant to our room (All four times I told the waiter that I disagreed but would handle it later at the hotel, twice the waiter then immediately dropped the extra charge) We then took it up with the desk manager at the Animal Kingdom Lodge. He not only took it off our room charges but apologized for the restaurant's failure to comply with the plan. We were a family of 5 staying for 9 days and we only had this problem twice, so in general the plan does work smoothly.

Do you mind sharing what those restrictions were?

 

[DeirdreTours]

One was the San Angel Inn, I was refused an appetizer unless we ordered it to share (not some massive appetizer, just 3 bite sized pieces). Also, she refused to bring me a cup of coffee unless I "paid" for it.

The other was a counter service place at MGM, "Starring Rolls" -- they refused to let me have a bagel and lox for breakfast.

 

[Lewisc]

One was the San Angel Inn, I was refused an appetizer unless we ordered it to share (not some massive appetizer, just 3 bite sized pieces). Also, she refused to bring me a cup of coffee unless I "paid" for it.

The other was a counter service place at MGM, "Starring Rolls" -- they refused to let me have a bagel and lox for breakfast.

Surprised about the coffee. Was it a some type of specialty coffee? Had you already ordered soda as your included drink? I found some restaurants would charge me for coffee if I had soda with my meal and other restaurants would let me go from soda with my meal to coffee with dessert. I didn't think it was worth arguing over, I could see their point.

 

[Pedler]

Surprised about the coffee. Was it a some type of specialty coffee? Had you already ordered soda as your included drink? I found some restaurants would charge me for coffee if I had soda with my meal and other restaurants would let me go from soda with my meal to coffee with dessert. I didn't think it was worth arguing over, I could see their point.

We had that happen at Boma. They gave us smoothies as drinks with our dinner and after dinner they asked about coffee or lattes. I said sure and ordered a latte and reminded her to put in a seperate bill so I didn't have to hassel with it later. Instead she said it was covered under the plan. Sure enough both drinks showed up on the bill and they covered them on the plan. I was gratefull for it but had fully expected to pay for the latte. (Actually given the poor state of coffee access in the world I would have paid just about anything for a decent coffee drink at that time. )

 

[DeirdreTours]

I hadn't ordered a drink, but the rest of my party ordered iced tea and she brought me one as well. I told her that I hadn't ordered it when she returned, but she just shrugged. At the time, I thought she meant something like "oh well, it is poured now"-- I didn't think she planned to charge me for it. My son ended up drinking it when his own glass was empty (and refills were very slow to arrive).

 

[gabbysmom04]

so does anyone know of any other exclusions?

 

[lntsmom]

Some people will make out like bandits, some will break even and some may even come out behind for whatever reason. Disney had a pretty good idea how that could work.

That would be me. I've just started planning our May '07 trip, but have already pretty much decided that the dining plan would be a major waste for my family. My older son is seriously finicky (as in, eats only chicken fingers...)and from what I see, the nicer restaurants don't offer what he'll eat. Even going to the second tier restaurants, I'd be taking a loss because he will want to eat off the kids' menu even though he'll be 11 at the time of our trip.

And, to those who disparage those who look on this as a "game"...it's not, it's called economics. It is always in the consumer's best interest to have goods and services delivered at the lowest price possible. Meaning, if you play the game of percents, you are much wiser to order lobster than a plate of spaghetti if you are looking to get the most for your money.

It amazes me that some people here behave as if Disney is a kindly old man sitting on a rocking chair on his front porch, trying to make enough to buy his heart medicine this month. Come on, Disney has no face, no name! It is a mega-corporation. The PTB like to play on Walt's image, but it's been a long time since a kindly uncle figure was running the show. Maybe these are stockholders who are worried about their own pocketbooks, I don't know.

What I do know is that the Disney folks are masters at making people feel as if they have to have the best of the best to have a "true" Disney experience. I, for one, am not buying into that line of thought!

 

[bicker]

And, to those who disparage those who look on this as a "game"...

I don't think anyone would consider your decision any type of game-playing. What you described is really what everyone should do: Evaluate the offering, as it is presented, and make a decision based on what would be best for their family. I think your analysis is right-on-target.

It is always in the consumer's best interest to have goods and services delivered at the lowest price possible.

Not necessarily. There is often a correlation between price and quality. In those cases, it may be preferable to pay more for better quality. On the other hand, if the choice is between paying more and paying less for the same exact thing, from the same supplier, same quality, etc., then you're absolutely right.

Meaning, if you play the game of percents, you are much wiser to order lobster than a plate of spaghetti if you are looking to get the most for your money.

What if you're allergic to shellfish?

 

[pedro2112]

What if you're allergic to shellfish?

Furthermore, what if you are hungry for spaghetti?