How long before they stop letting people share?

[jodifla]

With all the new crackdowns, I think the next one will be this: No sharing, everybody has to order a meal.

At first, I thought it might be a wash for Disney for people to share, but now I can see that it would be in WDW's best interest to disallow sharing.


I can see it coming on the horiizon with all the ratcheting back of the DDP that Disney is now instituting.

For those that pay OOP, I can imagine a plating charge, which is standard at many restaurants.

 

[bicker]

I doubt they'll ever stop letting people share. However, it is common in some restaurants to either require everyone to order a meal, or pay some type of cover, plating or sharing charge.

 

[jodifla]

I doubt they'll ever stop letting people share. However, it is common in some restaurants to either require everyone to order a meal, or pay some type of cover, plating or sharing charge.

Yes, your description is more accurate.

But given all the tightening of the screws on the DDP, it certainly seems like this would be next....

 

[bicker]

I think it would be more related to how busy the restaurants are, regardless of the Dining Plan. If they stay jam-packed full of patrons, then it would make sense to impose fees like that. So these would be things imposed by the restaurants on all patrons, not just on Dining Plan patrons.

 

[Lewisc]

I don't think a sharing charge would go over very well with patrons. I could see Disney just changing a restaurant to a format that obviously doesn't permit sharing; a buffet like Boma, all you care to eat like LTT or a price fixed meal like CRT. I can see Disney just doing this the restaurants that are packed. I'd think CG would be a candidate for a policy that obligates customers to order meals.

I could see Disney doing something like having a dessert or appetizer sampler for the table (DDP guests). That would also require everyone use a credit.

Jodifla--The major change in the DDP is seperating child and adult credits. Most of us wouldn't call this

tightening of the screws on the DDP

, just closing a loophole too many greedy guests were taking advantage of.

The new kids menus apply to all guests, not just DDP. It is thought that the new kids meals are more expensive to prepare yet the kids meal plan is still a bargain $11.

 

[jodifla]

I think it would be more related to how busy the restaurants are, regardless of the Dining Plan. If they stay jam-packed full of patrons, then it would make sense to impose fees like that. So these would be things imposed by the restaurants on all patrons, not just on Dining Plan patrons.

Yes, I agree. It would most likely apply to everybody.

 

[jodifla]

Lewis: Well, the DDP was more flexible, not it's not. I think many more changes are coming in that direction.

Again, I think that beyond the plan "fudgers" this really hurts the DDPers with little kids who don't want to eat the kids menus, which we see thread after thread from people who are there now/just back saying how bad the kids counter service menus are.

I didn't notice the kids counter service meals that much before, because I either didn't have a kid or he was too young. But the last few times we've gone that he's been eating table food, I was pretty shocked at how lousy the kids CS menus were.

I would just get him an adult meal he'd like. Not a huge problem for me, big problem for those now locked into the child's meals on DDP.

 

[The Sweetness]

I wouldnt be surprised or upset by a per person minimum for sharing (ie everyone who is sharing at least orders a drink and an ap or dessert, or just pays a min sharing charge of say $8, if they dont want to order a cup of soup (or whatever) and a Coke)

I also wouldnt be surprised to see the menu stay somewhat similar for DDp patrons, and have a different menu for those paying OOP, This could even be added into the other menu as an inset of 1 or 2 pages, clearly marked as additional offerings, not avaialbe on DDP, with possibly more options available (and maybe even slightly larger portions, since people who arent on the DDP may not order an ap, entree, and dessert for every person at the table. (we never do when eating out locally. Its usually 1 ap (and maybe a soup for DD15, an entree for each, other than the baby, and 1 dessert to share.The way I see it aps and desserts were made to be shared (based on my exp dining out over the last 36 years. I know this isnt the best way for everyone, just seems to be the norm )

 

[oghoagie]

Jodifla--The major change in the DDP is seperating child and adult credits.

tightening of the screws on the DDP

Most of us wouldn't call this, just closing a loophole too many greedy guests were taking advantage of.

The new kids menus apply to all guests, not just DDP. It is thought that the new kids meals are more expensive to prepare yet the kids meal plan is still a bargain $11.

This is in my opinion stealing. You know full well when you pay $11 for the kids DDP and are getting the same food as the $40 adult plan thats wrong. I had a 3YO with me on my last trip and knowing I could get the adult meal because of a loophole did not let my concious do it. Even though I could eat his leftovers (I CAN EAT) and my meal.

The sharing issue is another issue sometimes people are just not ready or able to eat the portions that are given at most restaurants.

This year I will be with a 3 and 5YO My daugter will eat a chicken strip and be done. My son will eat the other 3 and hes out to. I don't feel right about ordering two full Kids meal and just throwing one out.

Shareing with outside groups is wrong, again just my opinion but anyone in your clan that is on the DDP is fine to me.

The last time we went I still had a Counter Service and a snack on my card I did not mind becaues I felt I got more than I paid for.
Thanks for letting me get on my soap box.

LONG LIVE THE DDP and SHARING!!!!

 

[Pedler]

Lewis: Well, the DDP was more flexible, not it's not. I think many more changes are coming in that direction.

Again, I think that beyond the plan "fudgers" this really hurts the DDPers with little kids who don't want to eat the kids menus, which we see thread after thread from people who are there now/just back saying how bad the kids counter service menus are.

I didn't notice the kids counter service meals that much before, because I either didn't have a kid or he was too young. But the last few times we've gone that he's been eating table food, I was pretty shocked at how lousy the kids CS menus were.

I would just get him an adult meal he'd like. Not a huge problem for me, big problem for those now locked into the child's meals on DDP.

I have to admit that I still don't see how puting in a rule enforcement mechanism that doesn't let people use child credits for adult meals reduces the flexibility of the plan unless the flexibity was based on taking advantage of the lax enforcement and using the plan not as it was intended to be used.

Another way to look at the child meal situation, as LewisC as mentioned in the past, is to say that for the $11.99 a day you get the following:

Snack: $4
Dinner: $7-15 or More
Kids CS: $3-5

If the kids CS meal doesn't work for you then just order the kids CS meal to get the side items and drink and pay to order them a burger or whatever for $5-6. Essentially you would be creating a plan for $11.99 per day plus the extra $6, so $18 that would let you have a Snack, Kids TS meal and essentialy an adult CS meal or at least entree for the kid. Still a very reasonable approach. I know with our younger son that is exactly what we would do if he wanted an entree at a CS place that wasn't on the kids meal. Order the kids meal for the extras to use the credit and toss the main entree and then order a seperate entree and pay OOP. It is still a great deal.

Like I said I don't understand all of the doom and gloom predictions for the DDP. They are just enforcing a rule that they have explicitly stated for awhile. Unless you were banking on using child credits for adult credits this change shouldn't have any impact.

 

[Lewisc]

I see you edited your OP but your point still isn't valid, the plan hasn't been ratched back kids were never allowed to order adult meals if the restaurant had a kids menu. The only reduction in 2007 is DDP customers being restricted from the better tables in the dinner shows.

It may be in Disney's interest to eliminate sharing at restaurants that are packed. That would include cash customers that go to CG for coffee and dessert.

The kids plan costs $11 and dinner at a character meal is around $15 with tax and tip. PAY CASH FOR AN ADULT CS meal if necessary. BTW there are CS restaurants, particularly at the resorts, that will offer older kids some items not on the kids menu if the guest asks.

With all the new crackdowns, I think the next one will be this: No sharing, everybody has to order a meal.

At first, I thought it might be a wash for Disney for people to share, but now I can see that it would be in WDW's best interest to disallow sharing.


I can see it coming on the horiizon with all the ratcheting back of the DDP that Disney is now instituting.

For those that pay OOP, I can imagine a plating charge, which is standard at many restaurants.

 

[jodifla]

I see you edited your OP but your point still isn't valid, the plan hasn't been ratched back kids were never allowed to order adult meals if the restaurant had a kids menu. The only reduction in 2007 is DDP customers being restricted from the better tables in the dinner shows.

It may be in Disney's interest to eliminate sharing at restaurants that are packed. That would include cash customers that go to CG for coffee and dessert.

Well, I believe my point is perfectly valid. And I only changed the spelling of the word before in my OP, nothing else.

I think that either the elimination of sharing or a plating charge is on its way. You can see by the many posts on this subject that this is yet another way that people are trying to shave costs at Disney, and I bet they'll put a stop to it now that their restaurants are packed.

 

[Lewisc]

Your pre-edited post talked about

tightening the screws

, you didn't correct spelling, you deleted a phrase. You can believe whatever you want, the plan never allowed adult meals for kids, if the restaurant had a kids menu. I guess your point is parents can longer cheat Disney. I'm not sure how preventing cheaters is either "tightening the screws" or "ratcheting back".

I don't see how anyone can complain when a $10.99 kids credit buys a snack ($3-$4) and a character dinner ($15 with tax and tip).

I agree with your second point. I think Disney will reduce sharing. I think Disney will go the route of a price fixed meal, buffet or all you care to eat rather than charge a sharing fee but the result isn't much different. Actually that approach might cost guests more than a sharing fee.

Well, I believe my point is perfectly valid. And I only changed the spelling of the word before in my OP, nothing else.

I think that either the elimination of sharing or a plating charge is on its way. You can see by the many posts on this subject that this is yet another way that people are trying to shave costs at Disney, and I bet they'll put a stop to it now that their restaurants are packed.

 

[Pedler]

I think that either the elimination of sharing or a plating charge is on its way. You can see by the many posts on this subject that this is yet another way that people are trying to shave costs at Disney, and I bet they'll put a stop to it now that their restaurants are packed.

If the places are packed and people are sharing why wouldn't they either have a plate charge or eliminate it? Once they are operating at capacity they have to look at other ways to increase revenue. Getting more money from people that are not ordering entrees would make sense.

Disneys goal is to pack as many people as it can into its hotels, parks, restaurants and gift shops. People may prefer it when the parks are empty or the restaurants aren't filled but I don't begrudge Disney their goal of running as close to capacity as they possibly can.

 

[jodifla]

Your pre-edited post talked about , you didn't correct spelling, you deleted a phrase. You can believe whatever you want, the plan never allowed adult meals for kids, if the restaurant had a kids menu. I guess your point is parents can longer cheat Disney. I'm not sure how preventing cheaters is either "tightening the screws" or "ratcheting back".

I don't see how anyone can complain when a $10.99 kids credit buys a snack ($3-$4) and a character dinner ($15 with tax and tip).

I agree with your second point. I think Disney will reduce sharing. I think Disney will go the route of a price fixed meal, buffet or all you care to eat rather than charge a sharing fee but the result isn't much different. Actually that approach might cost guests more than a sharing fee.

Actually, I didn't take out that phrase in my OP. Maybe a moderator did?

And I think it's absolutely tightening the screws when they disallow what they frequently allowed CMS to do before.

I agree it's probably cheating the system. But with the limited, lousy kids menus, people found it was a workaround.

 

[NMW]

Lots and lots of restaurants, especially those at or near vacation destinations have plate sharing fees. It's not uncommon at all. We eat out every night when we go to either Myrtle Beach, Nags Head, Hilton Head for our summer vacations. I have seen $10 shared plate fees at almost ALL of these restaurants. In fact, the only ones that really DON'T have them are chain restaurants, like House of Blues. It wouldn't surprise or upset me if Disney did that at their signature restaurants or Epcot TS. I'd be surprised if they did it at a place like Sci-Fi, maybe like $2 would be okay. I think people would balk if it was higher, or just order their own food. Of course, I'm sure that's what Disney wants!

 

[Lewisc]

Restaurants generally want customers who are there to eat a meal. I don't know how many people go to Sci-Fi just for shakes but several posters do just that. Lots of restaurants have plate sharing fees, minimum per person food orders and a lot of restaurants just have a price fixed menu that all guests must order.

As the Disney restaurants get more crowed I expect some changes in how they handle guests who don't eat a meal.

Lots and lots of restaurants, especially those at or near vacation destinations have plate sharing fees. It's not uncommon at all. We eat out every night when we go to either Myrtle Beach, Nags Head, Hilton Head for our summer vacations. I have seen $10 shared plate fees at almost ALL of these restaurants. In fact, the only ones that really DON'T have them are chain restaurants, like House of Blues. It wouldn't surprise or upset me if Disney did that at their signature restaurants or Epcot TS. I'd be surprised if they did it at a place like Sci-Fi, maybe like $2 would be okay. I think people would balk if it was higher, or just order their own food. Of course, I'm sure that's what Disney wants!

 

[jodifla]

Restaurants generally want customers who are there to eat a meal. I don't know how many people go to Sci-Fi just for shakes but several posters do just that. Lots of restaurants have plate sharing fees, minimum per person food orders and a lot of restaurants just have a price fixed menu that all guests must order.

As the Disney restaurants get more crowed I expect some changes in how they handle guests who don't eat a meal.

My point exactly.

 

[Lewisc]

My point exactly.

Long before the current dining plan DIS members asked about going to Sci-Fi for just a shake, dessert at Cindy's and what time to book a dessert seating for Wishes at the CG. The current DDP isn't responsible for any issues but may be making the restaurants crowded enough so Disney wants to reduce people not eating in a restaurant.

Most of us agree with your main point, Disney may start to take actions that will impact guests who aren't ordering much. I think converting some restaurants to buffet, all you care to eat or fixed price menus is more likely than a plate charge but either is possible.

 

[jodifla]

A note: It looks like I must have inadvertently delete a sentence from my original post when I was trying to fix the misspelling in my title.