PDA

View Full Version : Exclusions ???


Bronte
02-20-2006, 05:22 PM
Great idea ... a sub topic for the dinning plan ...
My question ...
What exclusions have you encountered while on the MYW Dinning plan
My family and I are going in May and I have all my ARD's planned based on the menues but I do not want to find out after we sit down that we have "limits." I want to know what I need to budet for as far as OP extras and what is definitly no covered under the plan.
Thanks

Our ARD's
Tony's
Wolfgang Pucks Cafe
LE CELLIER STEAKHOUSE
NARCOOSSEE'S

Cplofdisneynutz
02-20-2006, 05:39 PM
Of the ADR's you have list we only ate at NARCOOSSEE'S and we were told there were no exclusions we could order whatever, I did surf and turf & DW did the lobster, by far the best use of our dining plan for the trip, all we paid for was the wine!! What we did was told our server at the beginning we are on the DP and asked if there were any exclusions or upcharges, nothing was ever excluded our entire trip. enjoy your trip and hope that helps :goodvibes

newarknut
02-21-2006, 11:27 AM
Let me ask this question. We have the Disney Dining Exp. card (20% off). The Dining Plan sounds like a good idea for our August trip (9 nights). We usually have a couple drinks with our dinner. Can I use the DDE card to get the 20% discount on our drinks if I'm using the Dining plan?

PoohHappens
02-21-2006, 01:05 PM
Let me ask this question. We have the Disney Dining Exp. card (20% off). The Dining Plan sounds like a good idea for our August trip (9 nights). We usually have a couple drinks with our dinner. Can I use the DDE card to get the 20% discount on our drinks if I'm using the Dining plan?

From what I understand YES.
And in reply to exclusions, we did not encounter any, except there was a dessert at Le Cellier if we wanted to get it, it counted as dessert for 2 people. There might have been an appetizer like that too. What we did instead is each ordered a whole dessert of the kind on the sampler that was for two people. We ended up with tons of dessert.

Sleeping Jedi Beauty
02-21-2006, 06:23 PM
From the guide, the only exceptions I know of are that certain entrees at Planet Hollywood and Wolfgang Puck's cost extra. I don't know what's already covered on the DP.

Bronte
02-21-2006, 07:36 PM
I looked at the 2006 guild and it did not say anything about "extra" costs at Wolfgang Pucks Cafe ...
Can you tell me what extra costs there will be or where in the guild I can find that information ..
We will be eating at WPC one night and it would be so embarrassing to order something only to be told by the waiter that we will have to pay out of pocket for that or the difference because it is too expensive ... then right on the spot I will have to make a choice, choose something eles and look "cheep" or pay for something I was not prepard for.
I really do not mind paying OP for stuff if I know that ahead of time ... I know wine is not covered on the plan but I want wine so I will pay OP for that no problem.

abaldacci
02-21-2006, 09:29 PM
I don't know about wgp but it is the surf and turf at phwood. which is steak and shrimp.

disneymom3
02-24-2006, 12:52 PM
I had also read on another thread that there are exclusions at Tepanyaki but I have not been able to find any info about what the exclusions are. Anyone know?

littlele
02-26-2006, 07:45 PM
I, too, would like to know about any excluded items on the Wolfgang Puck menu. I noticed in the FAQ sticky, that it said some DD restaurants may have a surcharge for certain items and I would like to know if I should cancel my ADR at WPucks to avoid any confusion/complications. :scratchin

Thanks for the help-this whole forum has been very helpful in trip planning and especially explaining this DDP!

Kirsten77
02-26-2006, 07:52 PM
I just at WPC two weeks ago on the DP and there were no exclusions. The only thing was if you wanted sushi you had to order it for dinner and not as an appetizer, but everything on the menu was included, and there was a steak for 36 dollars on the menu!

AlexDupare
02-26-2006, 08:44 PM
At the Mitsukoshi Teppenyaki the lobster/steak is excluded. Some of the downtown restaurants do have a service fee. Be sure to ask when you book them. As for the DDE and the DDP you can use your DDE for the 20% discount on the alcoholic beverages and any extra food you order.

littlele
02-26-2006, 11:12 PM
Thanks for all of the info-
Does anyone know what DD restaurants have charged this service fee? I have res at Raglan Road and WPC and my husband would not be too happy to hear that we have to pay any more. We are hoping to be one of those families who gets what they pay for and then some!

AlexDupare
02-27-2006, 05:55 AM
WGP and PH both have surcharges if the entree is over $22 or so.

Kirsten77
02-27-2006, 07:55 AM
WGP and PH both have surcharges if the entree is over $22 or so.


I didn't have to pay anything at WPC, and both of the entrees ordered were over 22 dollars. It wasn't even mentioned to us by the server.

Hopefully
02-27-2006, 08:02 AM
At Teppanyaki in Japan the Lobster with the Steak is now considered an "Add On", so it is not included in the plan. Also ordering Sushi as an appetizer is not on the plan. We found this the most restrictive restaurant in October, but still a great meal and we were very happy.
The only other "restriction" is, as another poster mentioned, any item considered to be for 2 on the regular menu, i.e. a Sampler Platter, would need to be ordered for 2, and any item that is on the regular menu as an "Add On". For example, adding shrimp to a filet is on the regular menu for an additional cost, it would also be an additional cost (OOP) on the dining plan.
We did not encounter anything we wanted that we could not order.
We, 3 Adults, ate everywhere we wanted, ordered what we desired, and saved over $450 on the Dining Plan.
Enjoy!

Maureenmouse
02-27-2006, 08:38 AM
Is it just the steak and lobster that's excluded at Teppanyaki, or is the scallops, shrimp and lobster also excluded? I love sea food and was hoping to try this, but not if I have to pay extra. I'll just get the scallops and shrimp combo then.

disneymom3
02-27-2006, 10:27 AM
AlexDupare--thanks for the info about Tepanyaki. Wouldn't have ordered the lobster anyway, so we'll be good to go.

And welcome to the DIS!!

RRmouse
03-02-2006, 10:32 AM
Just to clarify, at Teppanyaki is it just Lobster with steak that is excluded? Is steak with out lobster included??

Thanks :rotfl:

DisneyaholicRaquel
03-02-2006, 10:56 AM
Subscribing...would like this info for my upcoming trip! :thumbsup2

AlexDupare
03-03-2006, 05:55 AM
The steak is included! In fact, that is what I had. My friend had the shrimp.

RRmouse
03-03-2006, 06:25 AM
Thanks! Glad to know steak is included.

gabbysmom04
03-03-2006, 09:05 AM
I have been trying to find out what is and is not included too. I am a dvc member and tried to ask MS about the dining plan all she could tell me is that you order off the reg menu and nothing that she knows of is excluded. I know that is not true and tried to explain that I have read about people being told that they could not order some things from different menus. I am wondering if I call disney dining direct if they can give me a list of what menu items are not included in the plan. On a side note it' funny that the lobster steak combo is not included, the other menu items are only a dollar or two less!

Bronte
03-05-2006, 01:40 PM
just wondering if such a list exists ... what did disney dinning say?

Luvamouse
03-05-2006, 06:42 PM
at Teppanyaki, that doesn't leave much else.

At Teppanyaki in Japan the Lobster with the Steak is now considered an "Add On", so it is not included in the plan. Also ordering Sushi as an appetizer is not on the plan.


Appetizers (May 2005)

Sushi Sampler - tuna, yellowtail, salmon nigiri, and two pieces of California roll $7.95

Combo Roll - spicy tuna roll and California roll $7.25

Spicy Tuna Roll - tuna mixed with chili pepper, soy sauce, sesame oil and reverse rolled in sushi rice and seaweed $7.25

California Roll - avocado, cucumber, crab meat, mayonnaise, smelt roe reverse rolled in sushi rice and seaweed $6.95

Edamame young soybean pods $3.59

Garden Salad - mixed greens, tomato, cucumber, carrot topped with ginger dressing $3.29

Misoshiru Soup - soybean soup with tofu and seaweed $2.49

I've had Nachos that were more than $7... so many other restaurants offer more expensive appetizers.

Any chance anyone had a different experience??

sniff...snifff... I was soooo looking forward to that. :sad1:

Heidi

bicker
03-06-2006, 04:13 AM
Soup or salad as appetizer makes sense to me.

newarknut
03-06-2006, 12:35 PM
I must say, I really like the Japanese pavillion. Having sushi in the afternoon and dinner there is quite nice. However, why can't they play like everyone else. They don't give the 20% DDE discount. And, they seem to be the most restrictive with the DP.

I'm getting a little irritated with them! :confused3

Kirsten77
03-06-2006, 12:54 PM
Soup or salad as appetizer makes sense to me.

This doesn't make sense to me. I have ordered crab cakes as an appetizer that were more than the price of the sushi. I would think they would let you, but they don't let you order sushi at WPC as an appetizer either. I was so looking forward to a little sushi at WPC, but I didn't want a whole dinner of it, so I had to skip it :(

Lewisc
03-06-2006, 02:57 PM
Disney pays the restaurants a little over $20 including tax and tip. A few restaurants are trying to get the value of the food you get closer to what they're getting paid as opposed to participating in the internet game of seeing what restaurant lets you get the most $$$ worth of food for your 1 TS credit.

It looks like the included entrées are $20-$30. Add an appetizer (even just soup/salad), drink, dessert (even limited to one or two items) tax and tip and the guest is still getting a reasonable deal.

It's a shame some restaurants and some customers have to make a game out of the dining plan. Almost any priced fixed menu limit some menu items and have some surcharges. This restaurant got tired of being the only 1 credit restaurant that offered lobster on the menu.

Kirsten77
03-06-2006, 03:09 PM
I'm not making a game out of it. I just think the sushi thing is strange because there are other appetizers that are more expensive or at least the same price as the sushi. When I look at the menus I'm looking at what appeals to me, not so much the price. If I did do that then I would have filet every single night.

Lewisc
03-06-2006, 03:33 PM
I'm not making a game out of it. I just think the sushi thing is strange because there are other appetizers that are more expensive or at least the same price as the sushi. When I look at the menus I'm looking at what appeals to me, not so much the price. If I did do that then I would have filet every single night.


The game reference was a general comment not directed to any specific poster.

The issue for the restaurant isn't the menu cost of the item but rather the food cost, how labor intensive the item is to prepare/serve and if the item can be prepared in advance. Soup can be made in advance and requires very little labor to serve. The slipper dessert at CRT was labor intensive and was dropped from the menu.

Pedler
03-06-2006, 03:52 PM
I am sure that some of the non disney owned places would rather the dinning plan didn't exist at all. They are in essence caught between a rock and a hard place. If they don't take the plan then they loose out on customers. If they take the plan then they could loose out on revenue due to the lower compensation. If they go to 2 credits then they risk loosing customers. For these places they really need to make it work on the food service alone. They don't get the additional benefits that Disney does with higher room occupancy and additional revenue from keeping people on site.

In essence the plan works for moderate priced places but does but the higher priced non Disney owned places in a very awkward position.

Lewisc
03-06-2006, 04:42 PM
The higher priced non-Disney restaurants have a chance if customers order adult beverages like wine and specialty coffees such as cappuccino.

The restaurant in Japan became known as the only 1 TS credit restaurant on the plan that had lobster on the menu. They were getting families picking the restaurant just to order lobster and I don't think they were ordering any of the extras.

Those restaurants should be allowed to offer a reasonable price fixed menu as a compromise. For an appetizer allow soup, salad or one or two specialty. Offer almost any entrée and some type of dessert sampler for the table.



I am sure that some of the non disney owned places would rather the dinning plan didn't exist at all. They are in essence caught between a rock and a hard place. If they don't take the plan then they loose out on customers. If they take the plan then they could loose out on revenue due to the lower compensation. If they go to 2 credits then they risk loosing customers. For these places they really need to make it work on the food service alone. They don't get the additional benefits that Disney does with higher room occupancy and additional revenue from keeping people on site.

In essence the plan works for moderate priced places but does but the higher priced non Disney owned places in a very awkward position.

Pedler
03-06-2006, 05:15 PM
Those restaurants should be allowed to offer a reasonable price fixed menu as a compromise. For an appetizer allow soup, salad or one or two specialty. Offer almost any entrée and some type of dessert sampler for the table.

Having that type of setup, while reasonable, would probably cause more problems for Disney than they would want. Then you would have two different classes of restaurants on the dinning plan, those that let you order off the menu and those with a fixed menu. I would think that would dilute some of what Disney is trying to achieve with the plan by adding an additional complexity. I know it may not seem like its that complex but you can just imagine the irrate dinning plan person showing up at a fixed price menu dinning place and complaining that they can't order what they want. I would think the mouse would want to avoid that.

Like I said its the non Disney places that have it the hardest. I don't see Disney changing the plan just to help them out. It may seem harsh but if the plan works for Disney I wonder how much they care about the effect it has ont he non Disney owned places.

Lewisc
03-06-2006, 05:27 PM
but restaurants already basically do this. Pepper Market limits your dessert. Japan excludes most of the appetizers, some of the entrées and most of the desserts. The CS in Morocco excludes most of the desserts. Earl of Sandwich limits us to a fountain drink and a cookie for dessert. Disney just deleted the more expensive items from some menus. Instead of excluding the slipper dessert at CRT they removed it from the menu. Cash guests could order it even though it wasn't on the menu but MYW dining guests weren't allowed to order it.

Disney is already diluting the plan by allowing these "secret" exclusions. I might be one of the few customers who would prefer some reasonable rules rather than the secret exclusions that are creeping it.

I've never seen a price fixed meal plan that didn't have an up-charge for the more expensive items. Even cruise ships and all inclusive resorts frequently charge extra for lobster.






Having that type of setup, while reasonable, would probably cause more problems for Disney than they would want. Then you would have two different classes of restaurants on the dinning plan, those that let you order off the menu and those with a fixed menu. I would think that would dilute some of what Disney is trying to achieve with the plan by adding an additional complexity. I know it may not seem like its that complex but you can just imagine the irrate dinning plan person showing up at a fixed price menu dinning place and complaining that they can't order what they want. I would think the mouse would want to avoid that.

Like I said its the non Disney places that have it the hardest. I don't see Disney changing the plan just to help them out. It may seem harsh but if the plan works for Disney I wonder how much they care about the effect it has ont he non Disney owned places.

Pedler
03-06-2006, 07:22 PM
but restaurants already basically do this. Pepper Market limits your dessert. Japan excludes most of the appetizers, some of the entrées and most of the desserts. The CS in Morocco excludes most of the desserts. Earl of Sandwich limits us to a fountain drink and a cookie for dessert. Disney just deleted the more expensive items from some menus. Instead of excluding the slipper dessert at CRT they removed it from the menu. Cash guests could order it even though it wasn't on the menu but MYW dining guests weren't allowed to order it.

Disney is already diluting the plan by allowing these "secret" exclusions. I might be one of the few customers who would prefer some reasonable rules rather than the secret exclusions that are creeping it.

I've never seen a price fixed meal plan that didn't have an up-charge for the more expensive items. Even cruise ships and all inclusive resorts frequently charge extra for lobster.


There is a difference between a fixed menu and deleting some things or eliminating deserts. If you have a fixed menu then immediately you will have to let people know what the menu is for each place otherwise they will most likely avoid the dinning plan. And even then since they require the plan for everyone on the reservation for length of stay I would think that many people currently using the dinning plan would not be that comfortable with having a set menu at each place. Of course they probably couldn't get away with just one menu per place. You would need a vegetarian menu, a chicken dish, pasta dish, meat dish maybe sea food. It would change the nature of all of the restuarants. Once again a logistical challenge that I would think they want to avoid.

I could be wrong but I think it would change the plan enough to make it so less people would want the plan and that is not in the Mouses best interest. The plan is one of the things that helps keep people on site and not spending money elsewhere.

BTW is the pepper market owned by Disney? I know they were late getting on the plan so I assumed they weren't.

Bronte
03-06-2006, 07:39 PM
LewisC ...
How do you know that disney gives only 20 bucks per person per TS credit for both food & tip ... that does seam really, really low. :guilty:
If you add up the average app., meal, dessert and drink plus tip that is way over 20 bucks per person.
My group of six adults has made res. at three really nice rest. ... should I assume that disney is only giving that rest. and that server 120 bucks for our whole thingl ???????????

Lewisc
03-06-2006, 09:04 PM
LewisC ...
How do you know that disney gives only 20 bucks per person per TS credit for both food & tip ... that does seam really, really low. :guilty:
If you add up the average app., meal, dessert and drink plus tip that is way over 20 bucks per person.
My group of six adults has made res. at three really nice rest. ... should I assume that disney is only giving that rest. and that server 120 bucks for our whole thingl ???????????

It may only apply to non-Disney owned restaurants and it may have gone up in 2006 but last year the rate was around $22-$23 with tax and tip. Do a search someone had the actual dollar amount. I saw my bill being rung up at Chefs in France. The gross total was shown and then the amoount being billed to Disney over-rode the total. The bill I was given to sign showed zero. I think the non-Disney restaurants actually base the tip on the discounted fee that Disney pays the restaurant.

bicker
03-07-2006, 05:54 AM
The issue for the restaurant isn't the menu cost of the item but rather the food cost, how labor intensive the item is to prepare/serve and if the item can be prepared in advance. This is a good point. The Dining Plan is intended to draw in patrons. Many times, restaurants will have other ways to do so, specifically loss-leaders, items that are priced lower to patrons that they cost to provide. Since the Dining Plan already is drawing patrons in, there is no need to devote loss-leaders to patrons on the Dining Plan.

Then you would have two different classes of restaurants on the dinning planDon't you mean three? And since they already have two, why not three? Having discrete, reliable classes, even if there are five or six of them, is less confusing that having to employ a set of exclusions, exceptions and special cases, on a restaurant-by-restaurant basis.

I would think that would dilute some of what Disney is trying to achieve with the planIn the same way that increasing the price of CRT dilluted what Disney was trying to achieve with offering a princess breakfast in the castle, yet it was unquestionably the best decision they could make. The objective is not high attendance; the objective is to maximize profit.

suedisney
03-07-2006, 06:03 AM
all the sushi is excluded or just the sampler. I 've been dying to try this rest. but may go somewhere else. Not to "play a game" but to avoid an embarrassing dinner. I think any awkward moments can ruin a dinner that could be hassle free. I'd rather they remove the item from the menu (that they give dining plan customers) than we have to ask or be suprised at the end! :confused3

Pedler
03-07-2006, 08:29 AM
In the same way that increasing the price of CRT dilluted what Disney was trying to achieve with offering a princess breakfast in the castle, yet it was unquestionably the best decision they could make. The objective is not high attendance; the objective is to maximize profit.

I don't think increasing the price at CRT is dilluting what Disney was trying to achieve with a princess breakfast. The goal was to sell seats at the castle at a high price. Givent he popularity of CRT it just made sense to increase the price.

bicker
03-07-2006, 08:45 AM
By the same token, the objective of the Dining Plan is to maximize the profitability of restaurants at WDW. So therefore, having different classes of restaurants instead of a confusing system of exclusions and exceptions, to the extent it increases profitability, helps achieve what Disney was trying to achieve.

jm1008
03-07-2006, 09:02 AM
Specifically what desserts are excluded at Teppanyaki? Also, am I understanding this correctly the only excluded appetizers are sushi. And after all the talk about lobster and add ons I am confused. Can I get a combination dinner which does not include lobster?

Pedler
03-07-2006, 09:36 AM
By the same token, the objective of the Dining Plan is to maximize the profitability of restaurants at WDW. So therefore, having different classes of restaurants instead of a confusing system of exclusions and exceptions, to the extent it increases profitability, helps achieve what Disney was trying to achieve.

This is where I think we disagree. I don't think the objective of the dinning plan is to maximze the profitability of the restaurants at WDW. Just looking at the kids pricing you are getting somewhere in the the range of 30-50% of of the food. For example: CM Breakfast for a TS meal. With tax and 20% tip aproximately $14.00. Add in a CS kids Meal at Cosmic Rays with Desert, aproximately $7.00 after tax. (3.99 kids meal $2.50 brownie plus tax. When we went they were giving the brownies as desert for the kids meals.) Then add in the snack credit of $2.00 and you get $23 worth of food for the price of a child ont the dinning plan. I don't think they intend for this plan to make it just on the food service alone. That is why they have attached the the conditions to getting the dinning plan.

First you must stay on site. That makes sense because it sells rooms. Second you have to purchase it for everyone on the reservation for the length of stay. This in essence requires you to purchase all of your meals up front. This provides a bit of a disincentive to eating off site. (Combined with the DME which is also designed to reduce the number of people going off site.) Lastly, DVC excepted, they require at least one days park admission to get the plan. With the revised as of 2005 MYW Ticket pricing a one day ticket is a horrible deal. The best per day costs start to kick in around 5 days.

So take the family of 4 that goes for 6 nights. If the family of 4 had planned on going to Universal say for one or two of those days Disney has made the cost of going there vs. staying at WDW parks very high. If you get the dinning plan your food cost are just about taken care. With the new ticket pricing the extra admission for the entire family of 4 is just a few dollars. Contrast that with going to Universal and paying for transportation there, admission and food. Universal would cost that family of 4 probably close to if not more than $300 to go for two days where as staying at Disney would cost less than $20 for the extra two days. (Keeping in mind either way you are paying hotel room cost) Suddenly it becomes a more difficult decision. Is two days at Universal worth $300 over the cost of staying at Disney? Looking at the results it appears that a decent number of people have saide no and stayed on site.

This is why I don't think the dinning plan was meant to be or can be judged on food service cost alone. Setting aside all the talk of loopholes and exclusions I don't see where it is a good deal to give an across the board discount of at least 30% if not more on average. In particular when they sell a discount card to AP members that only gives 20% off.

Lewisc
03-07-2006, 10:57 AM
Specifically what desserts are excluded at Teppanyaki? Also, am I understanding this correctly the only excluded appetizers are sushi. And after all the talk about lobster and add ons I am confused. Can I get a combination dinner which does not include lobster?

ASK YOUR WAITER OR A MANAGER BEFORE YOU ORDER. Teppanyaki is the restaurant with the most restrictions and they seem to change from week to week. It is one of the few restaurants that doesn't offer a DDE discount.

Some people have posted only being allowed ice cream for dessert but I wonder if what they meat was ice cream was the only allowed dessert that they were interested in or if it was the only dessert on the children's menu.

Lewisc
03-07-2006, 11:22 AM
By the same token, the objective of the Dining Plan is to maximize the profitability of restaurants at WDW. So therefore, having different classes of restaurants instead of a confusing system of exclusions and exceptions, to the extent it increases profitability, helps achieve what Disney was trying to achieve.

There are almost no exclusions and exceptions. The obvious; no adult beverages, no specialty coffees and no souvenir mugs/glasses/glowing ice cubes. Trust me you'll have ZERO complaints with the plan, if you ever try it. Really two or three non-Disney owned restaurants are the source of most of the questions. The restaurant in Japan doesn't even offer a DDE discount. They probably should drop the plan since that's really where most of the "guest abuse" and now complaints seem to occur. Disney even allows guests to use credits paid for at the child rate to purchase adult meals. My complaint is really the opposite, by having so few rules and restrictions I wonder if Disney will be willing to continue the plan, at a reasonable price.


I think the objective of MYW Dining and DME is to get guests to stay on property, without the deeply discounted room rates and spend more of their total budget, including food, at Disney restaurants. My cost for MYW dining is probably more than I would have spent if I wasn't on the plan. When I don't have dining I tend to split more meals and eat fewer TS meals than when I'm on dining. I even bought my refillable mugs even though I think only twice did I use it when the drink wasn't already included.

pplasky
03-07-2006, 12:08 PM
I've never seen a price fixed meal plan that didn't have an up-charge for the more expensive items. Even cruise ships and all inclusive resorts frequently charge extra for lobster.

My family has taken several cruises and been to multiple all inclusive resorts and have never had an up-charge. As a matter of fact, my husband often orders two lobster tails or dinner entrees, and has always been accomodated. There should be no exclusions to the dining plan, either the restaurant is participating or it is not. I was not aware, until I read this thread, that there were any exclusions.

bicker
03-07-2006, 04:02 PM
This is where I think we disagree. I don't think the objective of the dinning plan is to maximze the profitability of the restaurants at WDW.Well, to maximize the profitability of the Disney Company, really.

Pedler
03-07-2006, 04:53 PM
Well, to maximize the profitability of the Disney Company, really.


Right. And in this case I think they are willing to accept less profit from dinning and a outright loss on transportation to gain more from other areas like increased hotel occupancy and keeping people on site spending more overall at Disney. All in so far the changes they made in 2005 are really an impressive coordination of marketing and repackaging of the product mix to not only increase overall revenue and thus profitability per guest but also have an impact on thier competition.

dm220
03-08-2006, 12:30 AM
we plan on using the dining plan for the cinderellas royal table character breakfast, i understand this uses 2 credits up, my question is do we get the picture package with the princesses included at no additional cost?

bicker
03-08-2006, 04:41 AM
Right. And in this case I think they are willing to accept less profit from dinning and a outright loss on transportation to gain more from other areas like increased hotel occupancy and keeping people on site spending more overall at Disney.Yes. Any by the same token, any restrictions or changes that result in higher overall profit (even if it means lower patronage for restaurants) should and almost surely will be adopted.

Lewisc
03-08-2006, 11:31 AM
Yes. Any by the same token, any restrictions or changes that result in higher overall profit (even if it means lower patronage for restaurants) should and almost surely will be adopted.

The reality is too many restrictions and guests will just go back to paying for what they eat. Having guests think they can "beat the system", appealing to a little greed, is one of the factors that sells the plan. We both know the actual food costs is only a fraction of the cost of running a restaurant. One of the prior meal plans was a pre-paid discount. You paid something like $20 for $25 worth of food. That plan wasn't popular.

I think having a surcharge for a few of the more expensive entrées like lobster makes sense. Based on the posters here I'm wrong and Disney is right. Don't give guests a reason not to buy the program. Cover everything on the menu and just drop the items that don't work. The restaurant in Japan is the only restaurant that seems to be having major problems and they don't even offer a DDE discount.

bicker
03-08-2006, 11:39 AM
Seems like the best compromise would be to make any restaurant that needs exclusions into a Signature restaurant.

Lewisc
03-08-2006, 11:51 AM
Seems like the best compromise would be to make any restaurant that needs exclusions into a Signature restaurant.


Disney doesn't seem to have a problem with the present rules, even with the child vs adult credit issue. I only had two exclusions, desserts at PM and the dessert sampler platter at Chefs. The dessert sampler platter was more than twice the price of the other desserts and was clearly designed to be shared. The reality is all those posts are people complaining in advance of an imagined new policy or people complaining about a very few number of non-Disney owned restaurants. Exclude Japan and desserts at Pepper Market and you've gotten rid of virtually all the exclusions.

A signature restaurant is just a likely as a "regular restaurant" to have one or two very expensive menu items that they might want to surcharge MYW Dining guests rather than dropping them from the menu for all customers.

Pedler
03-08-2006, 12:06 PM
Seems like the best compromise would be to make any restaurant that needs exclusions into a Signature restaurant.


That would make sense but it is rough for those places that don't quite fit into the two credit slot. California Grill and CRT make sense not only because of the cost but the demand. Those places are in high enough demand and don't have the same price elacticity of some of the other restaurants.

The places that have it tough are like the restaurant in Japan. The would probably like to be a Signature restaurant but probably couldn't withstand the hit in reduced patronage if they went to two credits. As an added problem they don't get any benefit from the other effects of the Dinning plan in terms of occupancy rates and such. As I said before I would think that some of the non Disney owned places would probably rather the dinning plan didn't exist and that they could compete on an even playing field with the other places. Unfortunately for them I don't think Disney has that much concern about this as long as they get all of the other non food service benefits.

NMW
03-08-2006, 08:03 PM
My family has taken several cruises and been to multiple all inclusive resorts and have never had an up-charge. As a matter of fact, my husband often orders two lobster tails or dinner entrees, and has always been accomodated. There should be no exclusions to the dining plan, either the restaurant is participating or it is not. I was not aware, until I read this thread, that there were any exclusions.


I don't think I understand what you've written. Are you saying that your husband orders 2 dinners and they give him 2 dinners? For free? Is this at Disney with the MYW dining plan or somewhere else?

BTW, I agree that there should not be exclusions to the dining plan. The restaurants should either participate or not participate. It would be less confusing, stop patrons from getting upset and taking it out on CM's, etc. The only thing I can understand is the desserts or appetizers that are made for 2 people. Two people should have to order it, that makes sense.

Lewisc
03-08-2006, 08:54 PM
Cruise ships and all-inclusive resorts will frequently let you order all you want. Same idea as a buffet but with waiter service.

Many cruise ships and all-inclusive resorts are starting to either charge extra for the better steak and lobster or are only serving those meals in special a la carte restaurants that have an extra charge.



I don't think I understand what you've written. Are you saying that your husband orders 2 dinners and they give him 2 dinners? For free? Is this at Disney with the MYW dining plan or somewhere else?

BTW, I agree that there should not be exclusions to the dining plan. The restaurants should either participate or not participate. It would be less confusing, stop patrons from getting upset and taking it out on CM's, etc. The only thing I can understand is the desserts or appetizers that are made for 2 people. Two people should have to order it, that makes sense.

pplasky
03-09-2006, 07:59 AM
I don't think I understand what you've written. Are you saying that your husband orders 2 dinners and they give him 2 dinners? For free? Is this at Disney with the MYW dining plan or somewhere else?

BTW, I agree that there should not be exclusions to the dining plan. The restaurants should either participate or not participate. It would be less confusing, stop patrons from getting upset and taking it out on CM's, etc. The only thing I can understand is the desserts or appetizers that are made for 2 people. Two people should have to order it, that makes sense.

That statement was in referance to cruise lines and all-inclusive resorts. I did not mean to imply that Disney should let you get two meals for one credit. It was just to emphasize that excluding things like lobster and certain appetizers or desserts(unless they are designed for two people) should not happen. You are paying for the plan, either a restaurant should participate or not.

Lewisc
03-09-2006, 08:06 AM
That statement was in referance to cruise lines and all-inclusive resorts. I did not mean to imply that Disney should let you get two meals for one credit. It was just to emphasize that excluding things like lobster and certain appetizers or desserts(unless they are designed for two people) should not happen. You are paying for the plan, either a restaurant should participate or not.

I understood what you meant. Many Disney restaurants are either buffet or are all you care to eat. Customers with large appetites have more than enough choices.

Many of the cruise lines have added extra cost a la carte restaurants, sometimes the extra cost is listed as a service fee. Those restaurants are now where the more expensive entrées are offered.

Kirsten77
03-09-2006, 10:13 AM
I understood what you meant. Many Disney restaurants are either buffet or are all you care to eat. Customers with large appetites have more than enough choices.

Many of the cruise lines have added extra cost a la carte restaurants, sometimes the extra cost is listed as a service fee. Those restaurants are now where the more expensive entrées are offered.


Lobster is always offered in the main dining room at least one night (I've been on Holland America, Disney and Norwegian). There are certain restaurants were there is a small fee usually between 5-20 dollars a person, and these restaurants will offer Kobe beef filet, instead of just regular filet, or a much larger lobster tail verses the small one you get in the main dining room. That being said I think having lobster excluded is fine because lobster is usually the most expensive dinner entree on a menu. I also agree with desserts or appetizers meant for two people. I don't think the degree of difficulty it takes to create an item on the menu should be taken into account.

Pedler
03-09-2006, 06:04 PM
Many of the cruise lines have added extra cost a la carte restaurants, sometimes the extra cost is listed as a service fee. Those restaurants are now where the more expensive entrées are offered.

We were on RCL last fall and they had an upcharge for Johnny Rockets! Fortunately we were Crown and Anchor members and had coupons to waive the upcharge.

gabbysmom04
03-09-2006, 08:06 PM
what annoys me about the DDP is that when you call disney directly they don't tell you about exclusions. I called MS (vacation club) and was told that she knew of no exclusions. She just continued to read off her paper. I emailed disney and asked about exclusions and I got an email back telling me the same info that is on the website. If they have exclusions then they should say it! Why not say the truth? I would like to know before I try to eat somewhere what I can and cannot order. Also, some of the items that you cannot order make no sense, they cost the same if not less then some items that are excluded. If you read what disney's website says about their dining plan it says one app, one entree and one dessert. So you should be able to order one of each it never says that different entrees and app are excluded.

Bronte
03-09-2006, 08:51 PM
I emailed disney too and got the same response ... just a the exact info. that the web page has ... that I can choose one of each with no mention of any exclusions or extra charges for anything. I replied to the "generic" email with the question, "yes or no, are there any exlusions, extra charges or surcharges on any items (app., dinner, dessert) at any of the partisipating resterants?" I guess I will wait to see if they answer the question directly ...

bicker
03-10-2006, 04:56 AM
That sounds as good as reason as any to not use the Dining Plan.

Lewisc
03-10-2006, 07:58 AM
That sounds as good as reason as any to not use the Dining Plan.

Posters on DISBOARDS, probably including myself, are making the exclusions sound like a big deal. Officially there aren't any exclusion. It's questionable if the restaurants are suppose to have any restrictions. Disney owned restaurants have no exclusions. Adult beverages, souvenir mugs including glowing ice cubes and specialty coffees aren't included but that's pretty clear. Bicker--you'd be amazed at how generous the plan works.

These discussions revolve around 2 or 3 restaurants that aren't owned by Disney. Don't sweat it. Does it really matter if the restaurant in Japan excludes lobster from the plan, removes it from the menu but sells it to cash guests as a daily special or stops serving it altogether? The bottom line is the restaurant isn't willing to serve lobster to MYW Dining guests for what Disney is paying them. Avoid the restaurant if you consider their behavior to be sleazy.

Luvamouse
03-10-2006, 10:23 AM
Given the fact that I was one who questioned the exclusion of sushi as an appetizer at Teppanyaki, here were my thoughts for being disappointed...

I want the DP to make sure I have 95% of our food budget covered. I don't drink and DH may have an occasional beer, so I figure my own clumsiness knocking over the occasional drink or snack will cost as much as our booze bill. I am not out to get the expensive items and beat the system. I simply don't want a surprise at a restaurant where I have an ADR. My older DD will be 13 when we travel. I can guarantee she will order a couple of times from the children's menu due to the offerings or the amount of food. That will be a meal I lose on. I don't suppose they will credit me for that? That is the whole thing with the DP, someone has to come out ahead or behind at the end of the day; Disney or me. If I factor in how much "free food/benefit" I will get at the end of our stay vs. what I will be paying to stay at Disney (exclusivley) for 10 days, I'd say Disney comes out the real winner. I figure it is like the loss leaders in the grocery store every week. I put them on my list and if I buy the full price stuff while I'm there, the store gets my money. If I don't go to Disney, I won't be buying souvenirs there. If I drive around Orlando and look for the cheap places to eat, I won't be seeing Disney merchandise or opting for the extra drink, etc. I think the comment, on another thread I believe, about Disney having thought this out pretty well is correct. 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 said, I have absolutely no problem with lobster being excluded or desserts/appetizers that are intended to be shared (samplers, etc.) being for 2 people. That actually makes sense to me. I do not like to see wastefulness just because they will give it to us-- "We paid for it". I don't like that mentality. Still, my sticking point with Teppanyaki's apparent exclusion of the sushi is a price issue. I know for a fact that we will never order the 3 adult appetizers we are entitled to with my family's DP. Why I can order more expensive apps at a less expensive restaurant is what I don't understand. While we are on this line, I believe only one person posted that the sushi was excluded. For all I know, that may have been an error or it may have been a 2 person appetizer. I just hope I know before I get there.


Soup or salad as appetizer makes sense to me. Bicker, while I respect your opinion on this, I do not agree. Many restaurants include soup and/or salad as a part of the meal. The Japanese restaurant near us includes both with the meal as part of the dinner price. It is not cheap there either. If I am going to a nice restaurant, I don't like the idea that I am limited to the 3 cheapest items on the menu. It is Japan, I am going there with the intention of having the sushi. If the sushi is in portions meant to be shared, then they should present it that way. I have absolutely no problem with that. (Given the price as compared to comparable ones here--dinners much cheaper at Teppanyaki but sushi more expensive-- I would imagine it is just that-- shared amounts.)


The whole issue to me is in the knowing. I do wish that the CM's in dining and elsewhere had a better grasp of the exclusions, but as noted on the bottom of the DP sheets, it is "subject to change without notice". Aren't they all.

The best way I can compare the exclusions to me, is to buy my MMyW tickets and find out that they cover all the rides except...the ones built this year, the fastest rides, the longest rides. There would be an upcharge for them or you could only ride those one time per day on your pass. That would be outrageous.

bicker
03-10-2006, 10:33 AM
Bicker, while I respect your opinion on this, I do not agree. Many restaurants include soup and/or salad as a part of the meal. Which is a good reason why it makes sense to me. Remember, with the dining plan, a combo meal counts for a full TS credit -- you don't get a separate appetizer and dessert when you order one of those inclusive choices. So, the objective clearly is to provide an appetizer, and a dessert, but not necessary any you care to have. It makes sense to me that a discount plan would include limited choices, and more specifically the ones that the patron is least likely to purchase separately (OOP) themselves. Anything that is on the menu that folks on the dining plan are likely to pay for OOP if not included in the dining plan should probably be excluded.

The whole issue to me is in the knowing.I know what you mean, and that's a good bit of what was behind my earlier statement that perhaps we're better off without the dining plan. Folks who are willing, in return for the discount, to enjoy what is unquestionable a good value, but still an unknown quantity, may do very well with the dining plan. If, like me, you want to know what you're going to get for your money, it seems to me that we'll be better of paying OOP, so we'll always know.

I do wish that the CM's in dining and elsewhere had a better grasp of the exclusions, but as noted on the bottom of the DP sheets, it is "subject to change without notice". Aren't they all. Precisely -- and that's really the core of this: If "subject to change without notice" isn't acceptable, folks should not get the dining plan, because that is part of the terms and conditions of the dining plan.

gabbysmom04
03-10-2006, 11:21 AM
Look I have no prob with things being excluded for whatever reason. I do think that you should be able to find out what is and what is not included. I do not think that it is fair to just say well don't buy the plan if you don't like it. I don't think people are saying that they don't like the plan I think people including myself are wanting to be informed. I myself called the dining number and asked about what is and what is not included. I was told that if it is listed under app, entree or dessert then you can order whatever you want. Now this is the third time that I have tried to ask. I am hoping that someone else will also call and see what a different person tells them. Anyway, I know the DDP is a great deal and I intend to buy it for my next trip also. I just want to know what to expect.

bicker
03-10-2006, 11:30 AM
Well, sorry, but it is fair for a supplier to say that a buyer must accept all the conditions of an offering, or their only alternative is to decline the offering. That's just basic business. It's not practical to have mass-market suppliers required to entertain counter-offers from every individual consumer. That sort of customer service would severely balloon the cost to consumers.

Remember, written terms and conditions always overrule the verbal. If you want assurance that what you're told verbally is true, get it in writing.

Sammie
03-10-2006, 01:09 PM
My understanding of the confusion is menus list items differently. The plan covers an appetizer, an entree, a dessert and beverage.

If the menu lists soup as Soups and not under Appetizers at that Restaurant you might not be able to get soup as your Appetizer.

However another restaurant might list Soups and Salads, under the Appetizer heading and you would be able to get it.

So basically there are no exclusions, there are only items listed differently.

Now of course consistency is not Disney's best trait, so at any restaurant they might let you subsitute.

Lewisc
03-10-2006, 02:28 PM
Overall the plan provides good value and there are very few restrictions but your understanding is not correct.

Pepper Market limits you to a tier 1 bakery item, basically cookies and muffins, for dessert. There is no question the more expensive items are desserts, they just aren't included.

Earl of Sandwich limited me to a fountain drink. Bottled soda or water is included almost everywhere else. Likewise they limited me to a cookie for dessert.

I've never heard of a customer being refused soup as an appetizer, no matter where it is on the menu.

Basically there are exclusions at a few non-Disney restaurants.






My understanding of the confusion is menus list items differently. The plan covers an appetizer, an entree, a dessert and beverage.

If the menu lists soup as Soups and not under Appetizers at that Restaurant you might not be able to get soup as your Appetizer.

However another restaurant might list Soups and Salads, under the Appetizer heading and you would be able to get it.

So basically there are no exclusions, there are only items listed differently.

Now of course consistency is not Disney's best trait, so at any restaurant they might let you subsitute.

NMW
03-10-2006, 03:28 PM
I think I would just plan on asking the CM when they come over to take our drink order. Ask them if there are any exclusions, can kids order appetizers, can we get the sushi, etc. BTW, why would they not let you pay oop pocket for sushi? I mean, what could it possibly cost-$10? Wouldn't the CM let you pay for it at the end when you pay for alcohol? I know Cape May Cafe lets you pay oop for the crab legs that are not included with the dining plan. We saw people do this in Dec. The CM informed them of the extra charge and they said fine. Wouldn't it be the same as ordering a beer instead of getting the free soda?

Sammie
03-10-2006, 05:02 PM
Overall the plan provides good value and there are very few restrictions but your understanding is not correct.

My understanding is correct based on what I was told when I requested information on the Dining Plan. It might not agree with your understanding, but I don't think you can just blanket say my understanding is not correct. Obviously from the other comments, others have been told the same thing about exclusions.

Pepper Market limits you to a tier 1 bakery item, basically cookies and muffins, for dessert. There is no question the more expensive items are desserts, they just aren't included.

Here is a perfect example of inconsistency.

Earl of Sandwich limited me to a fountain drink. Bottled soda or water is included almost everywhere else. Likewise they limited me to a cookie for dessert

Another example of inconsistency based on what Disney is telling their customers about exclusions.

I've never heard of a customer being refused soup as an appetizer, no matter where it is on the menu.

No offense, but surely you do not think you are aware of every circumstance of this happening. Soup was an example, there are salads that are listed differently on menus. So perhaps Salad would be a better example.

Basically there are exclusions at a few non-Disney restaurants.

Again this is a perfect example of you can call or email Disney and get a CM to quote the Dining Plan, but then when you use it, you run into this. So I think I understand the situation very well. What they say you can have on the plan and what is actually happening in the restaurants is not the same.

Lewisc
03-10-2006, 05:26 PM
Your understanding doesn't match the real world experience of myself and numerous others who've posted regarding what we've been allowed for dessert at Pepper Market.

Have you used MYW Dining at the Pepper Market? I have so I am qualified to correct the misinformation you posted.

I don't really care what you were told by Disney, it doesn't match what's allowed at the Pepper Market. I spoke a food manager at the Pepper Market who confirmed their dessert policy. Disney allows them to limit desserts but doesn't allow them to put up a sign. Doesn't make much sense to me. Disney can insist that there aren't any posted exclusions but when you ask for your dessert you're told what's allowed and when you go to check out you're charged the extra cost if you select an upgraded dessert.



My understanding is correct based on what I was told when I requested information on the Dining Plan. It might not agree with your understanding, but I don't think you can just blanket say my understanding is not correct. Obviously from the other comments, others have been told the same thing about exclusions.



Here is a perfect example of inconsistency.



Another example of inconsistency based on what Disney is telling their customers about exclusions.



No offense, but surely you do not think you are aware of every circumstance of this happening. Soup was an example, there are salads that are listed differently on menus. So perhaps Salad would be a better example.



Again this is a perfect example of you can call or email Disney and get a CM to quote the Dining Plan, but then when you use it, you run into this. So I think I understand the situation very well. What they say you can have on the plan and what is actually happening in the restaurants is not the same.

Pedler
03-10-2006, 07:12 PM
Precisely -- and that's really the core of this: If "subject to change without notice" isn't acceptable, folks should not get the dining plan, because that is part of the terms and conditions of the dining plan.

I don't think you can generalize that. It really depends upon the dinning experience that you want to have. If you are going to eat at just the Disney places then the dinning plan in essence has no limitations that are not already documented in the brochure. Even with the non Disney owned places at Epcot the only one with serious limitations is the place at Japan. Even then they aren't draconian. Right there you have convered a large percentage of the WDW guests. Many will never make it to DTD or may not want to eat at the Japanese restaurant. For the vast majority of WDW visitors the Dinning plan works fine and has not exclusions other than what is identified in the brochure. (specialty drinks, alcohol ect.)

In some ways it almost seems as if you wish the dinning plan didn't exist.

Luvamouse
03-11-2006, 09:17 AM
My reference above to subject to change without notice
The whole issue to me is in the knowing. I do wish that the CM's in dining and elsewhere had a better grasp of the exclusions, but as noted on the bottom of the DP sheets, it is "subject to change without notice". Aren't they all.
Bicker, when you responded to that you said
Precisely -- and that's really the core of this: If "subject to change without notice" isn't acceptable, folks should not get the dining plan, because that is part of the terms and conditions of the dining plan.

I am quite impressed with the dining plan. I know at least a half dozen friends who have personally used it and loved it. Unless there are some big changes before I go, I will get it. My "aren't they all" was in reference not just to Disney, but all rules we seem to run into today in relationship to any corporations, etc. All the rules are "subject to change without notice".

I am sure if I pay thousands of dollars to go to WDW that the one $8 sushi won't break the bank. I think my interest in this thread is based on the principle of the exclusions and lack of consistency in what items are excluded not necessarily being price based. That's my side. I'm sure the planning peace of mind I'll have by knowing 95% of my food is pre-paid will far outway any rare exclusion I encounter.

Heidi

P.S. Pedlar, you may be onto something In some ways it almost seems as if you wish the dinning plan didn't exist.

Gerweniel
03-11-2006, 10:25 AM
all the sushi is excluded or just the sampler. I 've been dying to try this rest. but may go somewhere else. Not to "play a game" but to avoid an embarrassing dinner. I think any awkward moments can ruin a dinner that could be hassle free. I'd rather they remove the item from the menu (that they give dining plan customers) than we have to ask or be suprised at the end! :confused3


My sons and I dined at Teppanyaki in December using the dining plan. The server asked if we were using the dining plan and told us exactly what was included. There were no awkward moments at all. My son was looking forward to the sushi sampler, so I ordered it. It was huge and delicious and worth the $7.95 upcharge. He is a seafood lover and ordered shrimp/scallop combo which was included in the plan. My other son had chicken/shrimp and I had chicken/steak. There was a salad included as an appetizer. For dessert we had a choice of several ice cream flavors or cake. Both were not fancy, but very good. All in all it was an excellent meal and great fun. We will definitely return and I'd buy the sushi sampler again!
ENJOY!

Luvamouse
03-11-2006, 02:12 PM
Jill,

Thanks for the great review and all the handy information! Glad you all enjoyed it so much.

Heidi

Pedler
03-11-2006, 08:02 PM
P.S. Pedlar, you may be onto something

I do think that there are several "DIS Vets" that would rather the dinning plan in its current form go away. I can only speculate the reasons but I think part of it is that some items like the slipper at CRT have dissapeared from menus. For some its that the popularity of the dinning plan has increased the crowds at the restaurants with, dare I say it, the type of people that would purchase the dinning plan. :rotfl2:

pepperw23
03-12-2006, 07:46 AM
Well, sorry, but it is fair for a supplier to say that a buyer must accept all the conditions of an offering, or their only alternative is to decline the offering. That's just basic business. It's not practical to have mass-market suppliers required to entertain counter-offers from every individual consumer. That sort of customer service would severely balloon the cost to consumers.

Remember, written terms and conditions always overrule the verbal. If you want assurance that what you're told verbally is true, get it in writing.

Wow, I am a Sr. Buyer and I could not have said it better myself.

You must be a buyer too?

gabbysmom04
03-13-2006, 08:14 AM
I do think that there are several "DIS Vets" that would rather the dinning plan in its current form go away. I can only speculate the reasons but I think part of it is that some items like the slipper at CRT have dissapeared from menus. For some its that the popularity of the dinning plan has increased the crowds at the restaurants with, dare I say it, the type of people that would purchase the dinning plan. :rotfl2:


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 .

Lewisc
03-13-2006, 09:04 AM
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
03-13-2006, 09:16 AM
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
03-13-2006, 09:27 AM
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
03-13-2006, 09:40 AM
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" pirate: , 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 :confused: . 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
03-13-2006, 09:54 AM
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
03-13-2006, 09:59 AM
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. :rotfl2: )

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
03-13-2006, 10:08 AM
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
03-13-2006, 10:28 AM
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
03-13-2006, 10:49 AM
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
03-13-2006, 11:53 AM
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
03-14-2006, 11:24 AM
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
03-14-2006, 12:25 PM
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
03-14-2006, 02:02 PM
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
03-14-2006, 06:49 PM
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
03-14-2006, 08:10 PM
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
03-16-2006, 05:53 AM
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
03-19-2006, 10:54 AM
so does anyone know of any other exclusions?

lntsmom
03-19-2006, 03:45 PM
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
03-19-2006, 05:40 PM
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
03-19-2006, 07:18 PM
What if you're allergic to shellfish? :)


Furthermore, what if you are hungry for spaghetti?

lntsmom
03-20-2006, 04:40 PM
for most of my trip planning. The Disneyland boards here are populated by people who seem to want help plannng, or to help others plan. The Disneyworld boards are filled with people who don't seem to have the knack of staying on topic and who seem to like to disagree for entertainment.

Thankfully, the other site I've found isn't like this.

The comments I made were economics-based. Another poster accused people of game playing by ordering the most expensive item at the restaurants they visit. I was simply commenting that, if you are talking pure economics, that is a sensible strategy. Sorry to have gone over the heads of some of you on that. Most major universities offer a variety of courses in economics. You'd be amazed at how applicable they are.

Non-cost determinants of demand might be a concept to explore. As are simple supply and demand curves and elasticity of demand.

I have to say, I have found the DisneyWorld boards here to be less than enjoyable.

Lewisc
03-20-2006, 04:59 PM
Actually you've gone over your own head. I can't believe how wrong you are.

People playing a game and wanting to "keep score" will order the most expensive items from the most expensive restaurants. When they get back they'll log onto the internet and post their results and see if anyone can beat their score.

Ordering food you don't particularly like or may even be allergic isn't a sound economic based decision. In order for your point to have any validity, and it doesn't, you'd have to assume there is a direct relationship between the price of the menu item and it's value to the diner. The seafood entrées tend to be the most expensive items and some people don't like seafood. Economic theory would say diners should order the food items they want regardless of the menu price. Economic theory might suggest the average dining guest on the plan will order more expensive items than guests not on the plan. Economic theory doesn't suggest diners will order food they don't like and won't eat just because it's more expensive.

People don't have an opportunity to re-sell the menu items. Now if I was buying meals for the purpose of re-selling them your economic issue would have some validity. My cost of goods sold would be the same but the presumed re-sale value of the meal would be higher for more expensive items.

You're not even following the strategy you're suggesting. Your child doesn't like to eat much so you're not planning to purchase the plan. Your economic theory would suggest that you should purchase dining for your child and make him eat the most expensive item on the menu if he likes it or not.

The comments I made were economics-based. Another poster accused people of game playing by ordering the most expensive item at the restaurants they visit. I was simply commenting that, if you are talking pure economics, that is a sensible strategy. Sorry to have gone over the heads of some of you on that. Most major universities offer a variety of courses in economics. You'd be amazed at how applicable they are.

Non-cost determinants of demand might be a concept to explore. As are simple supply and demand curves and elasticity of demand.

I have to say, I have found the DisneyWorld boards here to be less than enjoyable.

Atotty
03-21-2006, 08:54 PM
Getting back to the original topic and not a debate over the ins and outs of the Dining Plan.....

When we were there in October we were limited at Wolfgang Puck Express to what we could get. We could get a pizza but none of the pastas even though they're the same price range. Dessert was limited to a cookie.

cheap traveler
03-22-2006, 11:59 AM
It looks like everyone answered all of your questions, but I just want to add that we did Tony's last September, and it was not worth the time out of our day. There were 4 adults who are each used to a different kind of restaurant eating, and no-one liked it. What does everyone else think? And there were no restrictions or surcharges at Planet Hollywood, but don't go if you have a headache!

lntsmom
03-24-2006, 07:17 PM
local community colleges...I'd suggest you look into them. Grad courses in economics cost a bit more, but you can get some good information on the internet. I'd suggest you look into both.

If you weren't so busy being a know-it-all bore, you would have time to actually read for comprehension.

Someone asked why anyone would order the most expensive entrees. You said that it was a game and you and others implied that there is something wrong with someone who would choose to do so.

The suggestions that someone should order food even if they don't like it or if they're allergic to it came from two other posters. I'm assuming they were trying to be funny; I can hardly believe anyone here would actually be so stupid as to think that's what I was saying.

I was not attempting to advise anyone, I was posting to state that there is nothing wrong with that strategy. Diners are well within their rights to order anything on the menu. If Disney isn't prepared to allow for those who will seek out the more or most expensive items, they shouldn't offer the meal plan. You seem to think you speak for Disney, or that you need to defend them.

I think Disney is an extremely marketing-savy organization. I don't think they need help from someone who doesn't understand the basics of economics.

From the tone of your posts it appears that you are a hateful person who views the DIS boards as your domain. I can see that your ego is tied up in this. Maybe if you get involved in your real life you'll be able to come here without needing to attack the other members.

You're the only one trying to give anyone dining advice, and you're doing a piss poor job of it!

Lewisc
03-24-2006, 07:58 PM
You should really take the time to read your own posts. I, and other posters, really couldn't believe that you are so stupid as to as to suggest that economics would dictate consumers would/should order the most expensive items on the menu.

If you weren't so busy being a know-it-all bore, you would have time to actually read for comprehension. You obviously didn't take the time to read your initial post nor my followup post.

Your economics argument is pure BS. You're assuming there is a direct relationship between menu price and the desirability of a menu item. Seafood items tend to be the more expensive entrées and many consumers don't like seafood. I assume you failed that economics course at your local community college.

I'd agree that economic considerations enter into Disney's plan design but that's not the point you were making in your original post.




local community colleges...I'd suggest you look into them. Grad courses in economics cost a bit more, but you can get some good information on the internet. I'd suggest you look into both.

If you weren't so busy being a know-it-all bore, you would have time to actually read for comprehension.

Someone asked why anyone would order the most expensive entrees. You said that it was a game and you and others implied that there is something wrong with someone who would choose to do so.

The suggestions that someone should order food even if they don't like it or if they're allergic to it came from two other posters. I'm assuming they were trying to be funny; I can hardly believe anyone here would actually be so stupid as to think that's what I was saying.

I was not attempting to advise anyone, I was posting to state that there is nothing wrong with that strategy. Diners are well within their rights to order anything on the menu. If Disney isn't prepared to allow for those who will seek out the more or most expensive items, they shouldn't offer the meal plan. You seem to think you speak for Disney, or that you need to defend them.

I think Disney is an extremely marketing-savy organization. I don't think they need help from someone who doesn't understand the basics of economics.

From the tone of your posts it appears that you are a hateful person who views the DIS boards as your domain. I can see that your ego is tied up in this. Maybe if you get involved in your real life you'll be able to come here without needing to attack the other members.

You're the only one trying to give anyone dining advice, and you're doing a piss poor job of it!

CamColt
03-25-2006, 06:19 AM
Please review the Dis Guidelines so we can keep the Dis, the friendly helpful place that it is. http://www.wdwinfo.com/guidelines.htm

Fighting, including name calling and personal attacks, is not allowed here.

This thread is now closed.