pixiesrule
Earning My Ears
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2006
I remember when the first big hubub blew up over how people were abusing the system to get extra adult meals (TS and CS). Another DIS member and I had a PM discussion about it, and came to agreement that it was clearly not what Disney intended, represented another example of Entitlement Mentality that has been sweeping the country for a decade, and was clearly going to eventually result in Disney taking steps to compensate for the abuse, and those steps would invariably have some collateral damage, i.e., cause some inconvenience or dissatisfaction for some guests who were always using the Dining Plan appropriately. Lo and behold, that did happen. Indeed, there was recently a thread where we listed a few such side-effects of the new TS enforcement. I don't think the CS situation will result in as significant of a change in enforcement as the TS situation did, because the differential in value isn't as high. Indeed, I think there will be even worse collateral damage from the CS situation: I think they'll simply recognize that some people are getting a greater value from the Dining Plan than intended, and reflect that by increasing the price to compensate, perhaps even just increasing the child price. Time will tell. Surely, given how much less value differential there is with CS credits, it'll probably take longer, and whatever reaction there is will probably be more subtle, than that for the TS situation.
Folks who won't get a good deal on the Dining Plan shouldn't get it. If I figure I won't get $300 worth of entertainment out of my admission passes, I don't look for ways to defeat the biometrics so I can transfer my pass to someone else to split the cost. If I figure I won't get $180 worth of enjoyment out of a new stereo system, I don't try to walk out of the store with a matching equalizer that I didn't pay for. The issue isn't whether each will get $40 worth of food every single day (night, really), but rather whether or not they'd spend $40 for that 10 year old's food if they were paying in cash.However, the DDP is not free, unless you are one of the lucky ones who got the promotion. Most customers pay for the DDP. Will every single adult in your party -- including those 10 and 12 year old "adults" -- eat $40 worth of food every single day? Maybe, maybe not.
That is really irrelevant. The point of pricing is to assess what the offering is worth to a typical customer and exact that much revenue from each customer. Going back to my stereo system example, Samsung isn't going bankrupt either, but I'm still going to assess their offering at the price they offer it, and if it isn't worth it to me, I won't buy it..Disney knows what they are doing, and they aren't going bankrupt by a long shot.
Absolutely, subject to the terms and conditions which were part of the offering. You paid $40 for the offering they outlined for you in the brochure, not for what you wished the offering was.As far as "entitlement"...hmm. If I pay $40 for a TS, CS, and S every day, then yep, I am entitled to what I paid for with that flat fee, whether it's the most expensive steak or the cheapest hamburger.
Sorry, but no. You don't get to impose rules unlaterally on the supplier. In a mass-market scenario, the supplier always makes the rules. The consumer always has the ultimate power, but that power is either to accept the rules the supplier set forth, or to walk away from the offering.IMHO, once I use that credit to purchase my food, it should be mine to do with as I please
You've purchased a set of meals for the specific people listed on your reservation, with the number of adult versus child meals proportional to the number of adults/older children versus children 3-9.what exactly have I purchased?
Ok so let me get this straight....
If they continue to pool the adult and childrens CS meals into one lump number, I could technically order my 8 year old the adult chicken strips instead of the chintzy nuggets and it still will pull from the credits correctly? So unless they change it to make it like the TS system, it just sees it as (6 days, 4 people) 24 counter service credits total and just subtracts them with no difference as adult or child?
I am so confused, just want to get it straight before I start following up over the next months! Thanks!
Are you asking logistically or philosophically? Keep in mind that, generally speaking, sharing is allowed, but applying the hypothetical if new rules were put forth that prohibited that, it would be just a matter of "their house, their rules". Nothing in the Dining Plan marketing materials explicitly promises that sharing will be allowed, and the materials clearly indicate that the rules can change without notice.In a scenario outlined earlier, just a husband and wife, both on the plan, I don't understand why they couldn't share a meal a couple times, in order to save the credits for the Signature restaurants?
This is statistically not true. There is unquestionably a significant difference in the quantity of food "being issued" to guests comparing a Dining Plan that allows sharing and a Dining Plan that does not allow sharing.No difference in the quantity of food being issued to the guests
I don't purchase the dining plan, because I have an AP and book room only. But after reading this thread, particularly the sharing, something doesn't make sense.
You are allowed one TS for each night of your stay. But some TS cost two credits, so that means you need to skip a day to have two credits available. In a scenario outlined earlier, just a husband and wife, both on the plan, I don't understand why they couldn't share a meal a couple times, in order to save the credits for the Signature restaurants? No difference in the quantity of food being issued to the guests, both guests on the plan, not getting a single thing that they didn't pay for. I'm not saying they should share, if sharing is against the rules, but I don't understand WHY the sharing is against the rules if both parties are on the plan (other than because Disney says so).
I'm just really confused on this issue.
And a lot of them are counting on sharing a few of their meals among their family members, especially if they want to save up extra credits for a special meal, like CRT.
If we would choose to share a couple of our meals during our 7 day trip, I would think that would be preferable to wasting a bunch of food.
This is statistically not true. There is unquestionably a significant difference in the quantity of food "being issued" to guests comparing a Dining Plan that allows sharing and a Dining Plan that does not allow sharing.
I believe your confusion stems from the fact that you're only considering one of many possible scenarios that allowing sharing of meals supports. There are many other ways you could use credits "saved up" from sharing of meals. Keep in mind that the Dining Plan factors in a certain amount of non-use. Not every family will have a significant amount of non-use, but many do, and the propensity for non-use would definitely be affected by any rules Disney may someday decide to put in place that restrict sharing meals. Indeed, such rules would very likely convert a significant amount of non-use of credits (which is "soft" non-use) into non-use of entitlements (which would be "hard" non-use -- I'm using the word "entitlement" here to mean an appetizer, entree, or dessert, within a specific meal). That conversion, I suspect, would increase the total amount of non-use, because it would overflow onto folks who previously didn't have much non-use, because they covered additional meals with the "saved up" credits.Maybe I wasn't clear with my example. If two guests are both on the plan, and they are sharing one meal so they can save credits toward a Signature restaurant, by using one credit they would get one appetizer, one entree, one dessert, correct? They don't get more food by sharing the one meal they are entitled to for one credit. So I'm confused as to why that would be an issue for Disney.This is statistically not true. There is unquestionably a significant difference in the quantity of food "being issued" to guests comparing a Dining Plan that allows sharing and a Dining Plan that does not allow sharing.
The reason that there is the Signature dining option is so that folks have the ability to eat at some of the finest restaurants, if they wish to.I'm sure it's easier to just say "no sharing" so they don't have to differentiate between TS and TS Buffet. But why even have the Signature dining option if this is the case?