PDA

View Full Version : nEW DINING PLAN CHANGES ARE LOUSY!


rdsx28
08-08-2006, 11:27 PM
My family and I love to stay at CSR. I just read on all ears that none of the restaurants there will be on the dining plan as of 2007. I think that totally stinks! Are they trying to stop non covention goers from staying there? I'm sure not many families will want to stay there on the dining plan when they can't even get a meal there. Between the rise in ticket prices and the meal plan I don't know what's going on. Sorry everyone just had to vent! :confused3

mking624
08-08-2006, 11:30 PM
That's a bummer, but honestly if it wasn't a part of the dining plan, it wouldn't stop me from staying there. I don't stay at a resort just because of what it offers for food...but that's just me. :)

taylorl25
08-09-2006, 12:13 AM
I don't think about food options when choosing a resort either but I want to have some options to actually use the plan at my hotel.

If it doesn't accept the plan it basically means I will have to pay for breakfast out of pocket, which is inconvenient but I can live with it, and won't be able to use the resort for lunch or evening meals without paying OOP.

This is more inconvenient for me, for example my flight lands at 5pm so won't get to the resort until about 7pm. I was planning on using some CS credits at the Pepper Market then going straight to bed. Now to utilise the dining plan on arrival day I would need to get a cab to a different resort or the bus to downtown then on to another resort and back. Neither of these options will be appealing after a 9hr flight so we'll just pay OOP.

To be honest if I hadn't already booked Coronado and the dining plan months ago I would be looking to switch resorts or not utilise the DP. However I'm hoping there will be some participation at Coronado by the time January comes round, and until I know for definite I'm not paying a hefty change fee at the TA.

nurseypoo5
08-09-2006, 02:01 AM
give it some time, i have a wierd feeling that the list is not completely up to date. I think some of the restaurants that WILL be on it, arent yet.

Lets wait and see. I would stay there anyway. i dont plan on really eating at our hotel at all. I'll buy breakfast stuff for our room and have it delivered with cokes and juice/milk and water. Lunch is always a CS at the park, and dinner is where ever we have a TS adr. If you like the hotel, keep it!

bicker
08-09-2006, 05:58 AM
FWIR, this is the way it works, each year. All Disney can announce now are their own restaurants, because they own them and can tell them what to do. For all the other restaurants, contracts have to be negotiated, and signed. They cannot tell you that a restaurant will be participating in the Dining Plan if the contract isn't signed yet, and 2007 is still over four months away.

So don't think of these as "changes" -- think of that just like the list that came out last year: Preliminary. Over the next four months, especially towards the end of that period, it is possible that many more restaurants could be added.

bluejasmine
08-09-2006, 06:07 AM
I dont stay at CSR (always wanted to tho) and I think the changes STINK! So many restaurants pulled out! From my point of view there isnt that much to choose from now. I cannot believe the only ones in DTD in Captain Jacks which we dont like. Also Epcot is so limited now.. I know I wont pay for that plan. If it doesnt change my family will be back to eatting counter service for the majority of our trip with a TS thrown in maybe for first and last nights..

bluejasmine
08-09-2006, 06:08 AM
FWIR, this is the way it works, each year. All Disney can announce now are their own restaurants, because they own them and can tell them what to do. For all the other restaurants, contracts have to be negotiated, and signed. They cannot tell you that a restaurant will be participating in the Dining Plan if the contract isn't signed yet, and 2007 is still over four months away.

So don't think of these as "changes" -- think of that just like the list that came out last year: Preliminary. Over the next four months, especially towards the end of that period, it is possible that many more restaurants could be added.
Has this actually been the case in the past? Has anyone actually seen this change once a list was produced?

bicker
08-09-2006, 06:10 AM
I'm going to try to find messages in the archives from last year which almost surely would exist if that was the case.

Letsbgoofy
08-09-2006, 06:17 AM
I find it hard to believe that all those restaurants pulled out unless that is what Disney wanted. I have eaten in Morroco many times, and it has never been busy. Why would a restaurant like that CHOOSE not to participate in the DP? I'm sure the DP brought them a lot of business.

I also believe that we will see many restaurants added as contracts are signed.

bicker
08-09-2006, 06:30 AM
So far I've been looking for 20 minutes and there is no sign that this happened last year. :confused3

n2mm
08-09-2006, 06:41 AM
So far I've been looking for 20 minutes and there is no sign that this happened last year. :confused3

I don't remember this happening last year. We did the free dining in September 2005, but didn't do the dining again until April 2006, when DVC members could purchase it. I think the biggest issue last year was whether LeCellier was 1TS or 2TS, then the news that Coral Reef and many other EPCOT places dropped from 2TS to 1TS.

I also think this may change too and believe that negotiations are still in the works. I do think it's strange that they published the dining brochure so early when it doesn't have to be handed out until folks check in in 2007.

bicker
08-09-2006, 06:42 AM
The 2006 Dining Plan information started coming out on July 8, 2005. The most notable discussions were about the fact that the price went up, and that that was to provide the CMs with a better gratuity. I found no discussions that mentioned that a bunch of 2005 participating restaurants weren't participating in 2006. However, it isn't clear to me that the two things -- the details of the plan and the list of participating restaurants -- were linked at the time. I found the list of 2005 participating restaurants, and that's all it was, just the list of participating restaurants. Apparently, it wasn't until the 2006 brochure that this was combined with the details of the plan, and it isn't clear to me that that happened until the beginning of 2006. Still looking.

bicker
08-09-2006, 06:44 AM
<snip>

Pedler
08-09-2006, 07:04 AM
So far I've been looking for 20 minutes and there is no sign that this happened last year. :confused3

Last year participation continued pretty much without change. At the start of the program in 2005 the DTD and WS places were not on the plan.

If I had to guess I would say that the original contract negotiated by Disney probably ran through the end of 2006 and they are now renegotiating the contract. It would also explain the month delay in getting out DDP info.

Buzz2001
08-09-2006, 07:12 AM
That's a bummer, but honestly if it wasn't a part of the dining plan, it wouldn't stop me from staying there. I don't stay at a resort just because of what it offers for food...but that's just me. :)I agree! I never participated in DDP anyways. But I wouldn't write it in stone yet. 2007 is still far enough away where changes can still happen to the final product.

jjohnson
08-09-2006, 07:56 AM
There were some very minor changes to the plan last year. Nothing like the current 2007 list.

Lewisc
08-09-2006, 08:57 AM
Bicker--The WS restaurants came into the plan in 2005. I'll agree with those posters who speculate the original contract was probably for around 18 months, through 12/31/2006.

The major change on 1/1/2006 was Coral Reef going from 2 credits to 1 credit and CRT going from 1 credit to 2 credits. I'm not sure when that was announced but it really wasn't worth a lot of posts. CR was a positive and CRT was a given when the new pricing structure for cash guests was announced.

The 2007 changes are the first major changes that weren't improvements.

I'll speculate that at least some restaurants found more MYW Dining guests than anticipated (particularly with Disney offering free dining), found guests were more creative with sharing than anticipated and some restaurants found guests were cherry picking restaurants based on lobster. Teppanyaki found they couldn't afford to be one of the only 1 credit restaurants that serve lobster. Pepper Market may be questioning why they're giving a $30 rib eye steak dinner for under $10. The compromise was allowing PM to restrict the dessert but now even that concession is gone.

rdsx28
08-09-2006, 10:41 AM
I don't choose my resort based on the food offerings. This year will be the first time we are using the dining plan. My point was that I would not get the dining plan if I was staying at CSR. I feel not having the flexibility to at least use it if we wanted to is lousy.I truly think the free dining was a big mistake for Disney. Why not offer 10.00 off a room per night.When some people hear free they take advantage of a situation and I'm sure that happens frequently.As far as the Pepper Market goes the food is ok,there but overpriced. Maybe they should change the menu a bit to fit the dining plan.Of course people will get steak instead of a sandwich when it is offered free or on the dining plan. Maybe they are discouraging the dining plan by these changes. I think discounted rooms would be just as good as the dining plan and probably more cost efficient. I love CSR and feel it is the best moderate and I will stay there just not on the dining plan.Thanks for listening :)

skater
08-09-2006, 10:52 AM
The "free" dining plan has been incredible for our family - its so much fun to eat at restaurants we normally can't afford. Its also great because both our kids like to try new foods and its nice to not have to limit them to burgers and fries on vacation. Its also fun to think that its free (even w/o codes it feels like we are getting an incredible deal). The free dining plan sucked us right back to disney this Sept.!

We would definately not go to CSR if they are not on the dining plan. We have finally learned to plan days at the resort and would not enjoy paying OOP when its hard enough to eat up all those credits!

ktbugsmom
08-09-2006, 11:24 AM
Based on the number of Epcot WS restaurants that will not be on the list for 2007- I will most likely not do the dining plan this January now. I am a little sad, but I will live. I now think I will get a DDE card (I have an annual pass) and then can take advantage of the 20% off cocktails at participating restaurants on that list. Works for me! It may just work out to be the same now.

bicker
08-09-2006, 05:28 PM
Bicker--The WS restaurants came into the plan in 2005. I'll agree with those posters who speculate the original contract was probably for around 18 months, through 12/31/2006.

...

I'll speculate that at least some restaurants found more MYW Dining guests than anticipated (particularly with Disney offering free dining), found guests were more creative with sharing than anticipated and some restaurants found guests were cherry picking restaurants based on lobster. Teppanyaki found they couldn't afford to be one of the only 1 credit restaurants that serve lobster. Pepper Market may be questioning why they're giving a $30 rib eye steak dinner for under $10. The compromise was allowing PM to restrict the dessert but now even that concession is gone.That all makes a lot of sense, and especially explains why it is taking so long to negotiate renewals of the contract. Both Disney and the non-Disney restaurants have be abused by folks doing things like using child meal entitlements for adult meals, and unless they can come up with a way to get patrons to use the Dining Plan as it is intended, it will be very hard to come up with a mutually-acceptable contract.

bstnsprts
08-09-2006, 08:54 PM
Both Disney and the non-Disney restaurants have be abused by folks doing things like using child meal entitlements for adult meals, and unless they can come up with a way to get patrons to use the Dining Plan as it is intended, it will be very hard to come up with a mutually-acceptable contract.

I figured it would take allot less than three days for you to blame all the changes on this. Do you have any hard evidence of this? These restaurants were making more margin on the people who were paying OOP for their kids meals than what they were receiving from Disney. As for Disney, what they are doing to these restaurants pales in comparison to a family maximizing DDP pooled credits. Millions have been invested by these restaurants to open on Disney property and Disney is playing a game of legal blackmail with them. Take a chance on having many empty tables, or accept what we are willing to pay you to provide meals for our guests, even though this amount does not give you the profit margin that you need to operate. These restaurants may have been filled to capacity with DDP, but that does not mean they are making money. Same can be said of the Disney restaurants, but Disney is reaping the other benefits that DDP brings. If these restaurants do not participate it will be because of Disney greed, not families using the pooled credits to their advantage.

Pedler
08-09-2006, 10:43 PM
That all makes a lot of sense, and especially explains why it is taking so long to negotiate renewals of the contract. Both Disney and the non-Disney restaurants have be abused by folks doing things like using child meal entitlements for adult meals, and unless they can come up with a way to get patrons to use the Dining Plan as it is intended, it will be very hard to come up with a mutually-acceptable contract.

I don't think you can say that the non Disney owned restaurants have been abused by the whole child / adult credit thing. Disney doesn't separate credits and has no way to tell what credit is used to compensate a restaurant for a meal. They don't know that the meals purchased at Alfredos were with adult credits while the meals at LTT were with child credits. My guess is that the restaurant just rings up the meal as an adult or child meal and gets the flat rate compensation based on that from Disney.

Where they are getting abused is that they have been put into a position where they either enter into an agreement to take a flat rate for DDP patrons or lose that business. With Disney aggressively marketing the plan the choice becomes less business than there was pre plan or take a lower compensation per dinner, one that isn't price sensitive to what the order because it is all included, from however many people order the DDP and decided to eat at their place. For the Disney owned places taking in less money per patron but keeping them on site in Disney resorts and spending money on other Disney items the plan works great. For the non Disney owned places that don't get those extra benefits the plan doesn't appear to work so well. The problem is they have to compete with the Disney owned places that do take the plan.

The other problem accepting the DDP the non Disney owned places have is that it would appear from some of the posters that are glad the WS places are not listed for 2007 that some people avoided the WS places because of the effects of the DDP. So not only do they have to take a lower compensation amount than they would if the people paid for the meal then also loose some business from paying customers that avoid them because of the effects of the dinning plan or that get squeezed out because of all DDP folks.

I can see why the non Disney owned places would not like the dinning plan. Unfortunately for them there is no good solution. Take the plan and suffer the lower compensation, don't take the plan and loose out on business. It works out well for the Mouse but not so much these restaurants.

Pedler
08-09-2006, 10:50 PM
I figured it would take allot less than three days for you to blame all the changes on this. Do you have any hard evidence of this? These restaurants were making more margin on the people who were paying OOP for their kids meals than what they were receiving from Disney. As for Disney, what they are doing to these restaurants pales in comparison to a family maximizing DDP pooled credits. Millions have been invested by these restaurants to open on Disney property and Disney is playing a game of legal blackmail with them. Take a chance on having many empty tables, or accept what we are willing to pay you to provide meals for our guests, even though this amount does not give you the profit margin that you need to operate. These restaurants may have been filled to capacity with DDP, but that does not mean they are making money. Same can be said of the Disney restaurants, but Disney is reaping the other benefits that DDP brings. If these restaurants do not participate it will be because of Disney greed, not families using the pooled credits to their advantage.

You have hit it right on the head. These places are basically in the same spot as all the folks in the transportation industry that are effected by the Magical Express. They are collateral damage. I don't think Disney decided they wanted to put limo drivers out of business with the ME. They wanted to capture people on site so they wouldn't leave. The effect on other transportation services is just a side effect. The same thing here. I don't think they are looking at this as a way to promote the Disney owned places over the non Disney owned places. The dinning plan, with its fixed compensation rates, helps them get lots of $$ benefits beyond food. Loosing some revenue on food is just a side effect. For the mouse owned places it doesn't matter because Disney gets other benefits. For the non Disney owned places they are in a big time bind.

One thing that wouldn't suprise me is to see in a few years if the DDP continues and it still has a negative effect on these places would be to see some of them change hands or just become operated by Disney.

mandy200587
08-10-2006, 12:53 AM
I read somewhere on here that some were still pending. 2006 ain't over yet and everything can change on this plan. It says dining plan subject to change without notice.

bicker
08-10-2006, 04:37 AM
I don't think you can say that the non Disney owned restaurants have been abused by the whole child / adult credit thing. Disney doesn't separate credits and has no way to tell what credit is used to compensate a restaurant for a meal.The flat rate each non-Disney restaurant gets for each credit redeemed is likely held artificially low by the fact that Disney factors in abuse. If 1000 adult credits are sold and 1100 adult credits are redeemed, then the reimbursement for each adult credit redeemed must necessarily be lower. I believe that's why they've been auditing the program so much.

I read somewhere on here that some were still pending. 2006 ain't over yet and everything can change on this plan. It says dining plan subject to change without notice.Yes, you're absolutely correct.

Pedler
08-10-2006, 06:19 AM
The flat rate each non-Disney restaurant gets for each credit redeemed is likely held artificially low by the fact that Disney factors in abuse. If 1000 adult credits are sold and 1100 adult credits are redeemed, then the reimbursement for each adult credit redeemed must necessarily be lower. I believe that's why they've been auditing the program so much.

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

That could be though I would imagine the rates were set at the beginning of the program before they were aware of what the abuse levels would be.

Another area where the non Disney restaurants lose control with having to accept a fixed payment per dinner is on what they offer. If you know you will have a significant percentage of dinners that you will only get compensated at the fixed rate then you will be less likely to want to offer items that may be significantly higher than the fixed rate. Aside from the whole monetary issue these places lose control over what they can offer. If a place wanted to offer some sort of signature / expensive dish as some restaurants do they will be less likely to do so because of cost.

Or to put it another way rather than come up with an entree, price it and see how it sells they now have to run it by some sort of quick analysis to see if too many fixed rate people will order it. Or they most likely will just put in a cost ceiling and nothing can go above that. Assuming some of these places due to their unique nature take a certain amount of pride in what they offer the DDP does take away some of their creative control.

bicker
08-10-2006, 06:35 AM
That could be though I would imagine the rates were set at the beginning of the program before they were aware of what the abuse levels would be.We don't know what the reimbursement rate for 2007 will be. It could be less, or perhaps could simply not be increasing as much as the restaurants want it to, due to the added costs of the program which weren't factored into the rates the first time around.

Lewisc
08-10-2006, 08:00 AM
We don't really know if the problem is Disney's greed or customers greed. Probably a little bit of both. It's certainly possible the restaurant makes out better if the family pays cash for a kids meal as opposed to using the meal plan but that saving is gone if the family uses the saved credits to either treat their extended family or to enable them to eat extra meals. A family that has 2A and 2C can double the number of meals they have if they pay cash for their kids.

One problem the restaurants may be having is the number of dining guests is probably higher than was projected. Free dining. Guests sharing. Guests paying cash for kids meals to increase the total number of available credits.

Prior meal plans weren't that popular. The savings weren't dramatic and we were forced to purchase LOS tickets. I wonder if one solution might be to promote the premium plan. Now that we're used to having a meal plan give guests the option of paying more.

I don't know if I agree with the term legal blackmail but you have a point. The restaurants, other than the ones at CSR, probably don't have any choice but accept whatever terms Disney offers.





I figured it would take allot less than three days for you to blame all the changes on this. Do you have any hard evidence of this? These restaurants were making more margin on the people who were paying OOP for their kids meals than what they were receiving from Disney. As for Disney, what they are doing to these restaurants pales in comparison to a family maximizing DDP pooled credits. Millions have been invested by these restaurants to open on Disney property and Disney is playing a game of legal blackmail with them. Take a chance on having many empty tables, or accept what we are willing to pay you to provide meals for our guests, even though this amount does not give you the profit margin that you need to operate. These restaurants may have been filled to capacity with DDP, but that does not mean they are making money. Same can be said of the Disney restaurants, but Disney is reaping the other benefits that DDP brings. If these restaurants do not participate it will be because of Disney greed, not families using the pooled credits to their advantage.

Lewisc
08-10-2006, 08:25 AM
The difference is the non-Disney owned restaurants are partners with Disney as much as they are competitors. All of the restaurants at CSR, virtually all the restaurants at DTD, and basically the TS restaurants at AK are non-Disney. EPCOT has many Disney owned restaurants but I'm not sure Coral Reef and Le Cellier have enough capacity to handle demand if restaurants like Chefs de France don't wind up participating. I guess Disney could set up a buffet "restaurant" that's more like a cafeteria somewhere in EPCOT.


The plan will lose some appeal, at least to me, if the missing restaurants decide to go to buffet in order to profitably operate under Disney's reimbursement rates.





You have hit it right on the head. These places are basically in the same spot as all the folks in the transportation industry that are effected by the Magical Express. They are collateral damage. I don't think Disney decided they wanted to put limo drivers out of business with the ME. They wanted to capture people on site so they wouldn't leave. The effect on other transportation services is just a side effect. The same thing here. I don't think they are looking at this as a way to promote the Disney owned places over the non Disney owned places. The dinning plan, with its fixed compensation rates, helps them get lots of $$ benefits beyond food. Loosing some revenue on food is just a side effect. For the mouse owned places it doesn't matter because Disney gets other benefits. For the non Disney owned places they are in a big time bind.

One thing that wouldn't suprise me is to see in a few years if the DDP continues and it still has a negative effect on these places would be to see some of them change hands or just become operated by Disney.

JimMIA
08-10-2006, 08:29 AM
I really doubt that "abuse" is what caused the current lineup. This is hardly Disney's first rodeo with a meal plan, and I'm sure they expected some "shrinkage." They're also well aware that the abundance of Internet sites discussing the plan would expose and publicize any holes in their systems, and that "shrinkage" would increase as a result over time.

I see two explanations which I think are more likely:

The negotiations are still in progress, and the lineup will change. Several months ago I was hearing that the 2007 DDP would feature two things: more restaurants, and tighter controls. I think it is likely that the eventual lineup will look different from what we see today.

The DDP was much more popular than anticipated, and that upset the mix of DDP/non-DDP diners the restaurants were expecting. DDP diners yield a fraction of the revenue an OOP diner does, so that resulted in much reduced margins. To accommodate that in 2006, restaurants did the only thing they could do - change menus to remove more costly items to reduce the bleeding.

For 2007, they have two choices: get a higher reimbursement from Disney, or opt out of the plan. Since Disney has decided only to raise the price $1 per day, there is limited ability to pay more to the restaurants. That may be what's complicated the negotiations, or it may be the reason non-Disney restaurants choose not to participate. They may run their models and find they are better off with less traffic, but with all of it OOP.

JimMIA
08-10-2006, 08:40 AM
EPCOT has many Disney owned restaurants but I'm not sure Coral Reef and Le Cellier have enough capacity to handle demand if restaurants like Chefs de France don't wind up participating.I don't think there's any doubt about that -- you can't get into Le Cellier as it is now! It will be VERY difficult next year, if the lineup holds as it is now.

I also think you're going to see a backlash against DDP from the free dining folks this year. I don't know how much of it we'll see here, because hopefully all of our members are savvy enough to know to make ADRs. But I'm sure a lot of WDW newbies are going on the free plan and will be in for a shock when they commando the parks all day and then "drop by" for their TS dinner!

We were at WDW in May, during pretty low visitation, and saw days where there was no TS availability all day at MK when it opened in the morning. We also saw a number of irate visitors who could not get into restaurants. I wouldn't want to be a host/hostess at a WDW restaurant the next six weeks!

Lewisc
08-10-2006, 08:49 AM
Jim--Disney's option is to open more buffet restaurants. They did this last using the taco restaurant and will be doing this year, setting up a buffet restaurant in tomorowland. I'm sure Disney could do the same in EPCOT. Odyssey, the building that was used for the celebration and even the WoL pavilion are all locations that might be available. Disney could even convert a CS restaurant to a TS buffet. A generic buffet isn't what most of us buy the plan for.

It won't be popular but the room service option is way for Disney to get guests to burn credits and get fed.

The non-Disney restaurants have a third option. They have to make money with whatever reimbursement rate Disney gives them. That might include trying to surcharge some items such as what Teppanyaki did or just getting rid of every expensive menu item. Even consider changing the restaurant to a buffet.


I don't think there's any doubt about that -- you can't get into Le Cellier as it is now! It will be VERY difficult next year, if the lineup holds as it is now.

I also think you're going to see a backlash against DDP from the free dining folks this year. I don't know how much of it we'll see here, because hopefully all of our members are savvy enough to know to make ADRs. But I'm sure a lot of WDW newbies are going on the free plan and will be in for a shock when they commando the parks all day and then "drop by" for their TS dinner!

We were at WDW in May, during pretty low visitation, and saw days where there was no TS availability all day at MK when it opened in the morning. We also saw a number of irate visitors who could not get into restaurants. I wouldn't want to be a host/hostess at a WDW restaurant the next six weeks!

Gerweniel
08-10-2006, 08:49 AM
For what it's worth, my sons and I dined at Teppanyaki Dec 2005 and used the dining plan. The hostess gave us separate menus in which the lobster and sushi were not included, but we bought sushi ala carte which was well worth the cost. Not sure if they changed the rule to include lobster in 2006, but I doubt it. If we had wanted lobster, we would have paid for it. As it was, the meal was terrific regardless.
If we went to a restaurant and wanted something not included in the dining plan, we just ordered and paid for it with no hassle at all - and included appropriate tip. Our experience with the dining plan has been fantastic and I am sorry to see that some of the WS restaurants will not be participating in 2007 as it may prevent us from visiting them in the future. However, at least in Teppanyaki's case since it is one of our favorite restaurants, we will go even if we have to pay OOP, but some of the others, probably not. I guess I better change my ADR's for our Halloween trip to include some of the places in WS we have not tried and will be off the plan. :tilt:

JimMIA
08-10-2006, 08:58 AM
A generic buffet isn't what most of us buy the plan for. Exactly. A buffet is certainly a way to accommodate more people, but even if it's a spectacular buffet, it's not what I buy DDP for.

kaytieeldr
08-10-2006, 09:43 AM
I'm going to try to find messages in the archives from last year which almost surely would exist if that was the case. I have the 2005 brochure stored in my computer, as well as the restaurant information on a spreadsheet - but I don't know how to, or even if I can, post either or both here. May I e-mail one or both versions to someone with more expertise, for comparison to the 2006 (and 2007) participants?

Michelle1125
08-10-2006, 09:43 AM
Several people in the Yahoo All Ears group have said that last year a bunch of restaurants didn't sign up until the fall or closer to the new year.

On another note, wow I wish I hadn't read this thread. :sad2: I'm feeling guility now for purchasing the dining plan for my January trip. I feel like I'm cheating the restaurants even though we won't be abusing the plan. I guess I didn't think about how much money they were losing.

KellyFam
08-10-2006, 11:17 AM
The thing of it is, no one knows just how much (if any) that the restaurants are losing. This discussion only came about because of the preliminary 2007 dining guide.



"I truly think the free dining was a big mistake for Disney. Why not offer 10.00 off a room per night.When some people hear free they take advantage of a situation and I'm sure that happens frequently."


I don't understand what is meant by taking advantage...are we still talking about the pooled credits or are we talking about people actually booking during free dining? Because if it is the pooled credit thing, it seems as if it happens as much or more in the oop ddp then then free. As for the other, Disney got more money out of my family because of it. We have a trip to Orlando planned because of a company meeting that I am attending (which happens to be on Disney property). We extended out stay, but had no intentions of staying on property or going to any of the Disney parks. Because of this, we are. $10 off a room would not have done anything to sway us.....I get that and more with AAA.

Pedler
08-10-2006, 12:37 PM
I also think you're going to see a backlash against DDP from the free dining folks this year. I don't know how much of it we'll see here, because hopefully all of our members are savvy enough to know to make ADRs. But I'm sure a lot of WDW newbies are going on the free plan and will be in for a shock when they commando the parks all day and then "drop by" for their TS dinner!


We did see this somewhat last year during the free dinning then but apparently it wasn't a big enough issue for Disney not to offer free dinning again.

In our case we had ADR's and all that but as you know the best laid plans....
Anyway we decided that on our last day we wanted to move things around a bit. We couldn't get into the Whispering Canyon Cafe at all, Chef Mickeys not until aftger 9:00 PM so we ended up making a same day ADR at LTT. As it turned out it worked out well and we really enjoyed the place but even when we got there for dinner they were telling people it would be an hour or more wait without a resservation. Keep in mind that this was a day that the park was so empty in the morning our kids were able to walk onto Dumbo at 10:00 am. I recently looked at some video of that morning in Fantasyland and the place was empty yet ressies at those places didn't have much in space for a same day resservation.

JimMIA
08-10-2006, 12:46 PM
Keep in mind that this was a day that the park was so empty in the morning our kids were able to walk onto Dumbo at 10:00 am. I recently looked at some video of that morning in Fantasyland and the place was empty yet ressies at those places didn't have much in space for a same day resservation.Right, that's the kind of thing we saw in May. 5-10 minutes for Small World or Dumbo, walk on the Carousel or Teacups, but don't even think about walking in to a restaurant!

That tells you a lot about the success of DDP.

I don't think Disney would ever even remotely consider not doing DDP because of lack of restaurant capacity. They're not selling food -- they're selling room-nights!

Like I said, I don't think we'll hear the screams of the free DDP folks because I think the DIS free DDP folks know the system pretty well and will take care of themselves. But I'd hate to be a host or hostess!

DVC Grammy
08-10-2006, 01:03 PM
Jim--Disney's option is to open more buffet restaurants. They did this last using the taco restaurant and will be doing this year, setting up a buffet restaurant in tomorowland. I'm sure Disney could do the same in EPCOT. Odyssey, the building that was used for the celebration and even the WoL pavilion are all locations that might be available. Disney could even convert a CS restaurant to a TS buffet. A generic buffet isn't what most of us buy the plan for.

It won't be popular but the room service option is way for Disney to get guests to burn credits and get fed.

The non-Disney restaurants have a third option. They have to make money with whatever reimbursement rate Disney gives them. That might include trying to surcharge some items such as what Teppanyaki did or just getting rid of every expensive menu item. Even consider changing the restaurant to a buffet.

IIRC, many years ago, the Odyssey was a cafeteria-type restaurant. We never ate there, so I can't say what type of food was served. :confused3 I would guess that it would be fairly easy to re-configure it back into a restaurant. :)

mickey2000
08-10-2006, 08:24 PM
Bicker--The WS restaurants came into the plan in 2005. I'll agree with those posters who speculate the original contract was probably for around 18 months, through 12/31/2006.

The major change on 1/1/2006 was Coral Reef going from 2 credits to 1 credit and CRT going from 1 credit to 2 credits. I'm not sure when that was announced but it really wasn't worth a lot of posts. CR was a positive and CRT was a given when the new pricing structure for cash guests was announced.

The 2007 changes are the first major changes that weren't improvements.

I'll speculate that at least some restaurants found more MYW Dining guests than anticipated (particularly with Disney offering free dining), found guests were more creative with sharing than anticipated and some restaurants found guests were cherry picking restaurants based on lobster. Teppanyaki found they couldn't afford to be one of the only 1 credit restaurants that serve lobster. Pepper Market may be questioning why they're giving a $30 rib eye steak dinner for under $10. The compromise was allowing PM to restrict the dessert but now even that concession is gone.


Pepper Market is run by an outside company from California. It is not a Disney operation. I got this info from a manager that I know. :thumbsup2

Sammie
08-10-2006, 11:06 PM
Nothing is final concerning the WS restuarants and CSR at this time and I truly feel before the end of the year you will see additional restaurants added.

Sammie
08-10-2006, 11:12 PM
I don't think there's any doubt about that -- you can't get into Le Cellier as it is now! It will be VERY difficult next year, if the lineup holds as it is now.

I also think you're going to see a backlash against DDP from the free dining folks this year. I don't know how much of it we'll see here, because hopefully all of our members are savvy enough to know to make ADRs. But I'm sure a lot of WDW newbies are going on the free plan and will be in for a shock when they commando the parks all day and then "drop by" for their TS dinner!

We were at WDW in May, during pretty low visitation, and saw days where there was no TS availability all day at MK when it opened in the morning. We also saw a number of irate visitors who could not get into restaurants. I wouldn't want to be a host/hostess at a WDW restaurant the next six weeks!

We made ADRs many months in advance of our trip this week and after arriving found that our schedule had changed. We were able to rebook on short notice of one day or even same day, Captain Jack's, Cape May, Turf Club, Concourse Steakhouse and Yachtsman and added LeCellier.

I think there is availability for same day or next day ADRs if needed. I also know they are experimenting with a new program where when a guest books their trip and gets the DDP they are encouraging the guest to book ADRs and even contacting them back later to remind them.

Sammie
08-10-2006, 11:20 PM
I figured it would take allot less than three days for you to blame all the changes on this. Do you have any hard evidence of this? These restaurants were making more margin on the people who were paying OOP for their kids meals than what they were receiving from Disney. As for Disney, what they are doing to these restaurants pales in comparison to a family maximizing DDP pooled credits. Millions have been invested by these restaurants to open on Disney property and Disney is playing a game of legal blackmail with them. Take a chance on having many empty tables, or accept what we are willing to pay you to provide meals for our guests, even though this amount does not give you the profit margin that you need to operate. These restaurants may have been filled to capacity with DDP, but that does not mean they are making money. Same can be said of the Disney restaurants, but Disney is reaping the other benefits that DDP brings. If these restaurants do not participate it will be because of Disney greed, not families using the pooled credits to their advantage.

Do you have any hard evidence of your accusations that Disney is playing a game of legal blackmail with them.

The WS restuarant's participation is still under negotiation. Using a child's entitlement to purchase adult meals was a huge headache to all involved including the WS restuarants. We are here now and everyone from managers at these restaurants to servers are complaining about it.

Changes to the system will prevent that and possibly that is what the WS restaurants are waiting on.

Lewisc
08-11-2006, 07:56 AM
I'm not the poster, and I agree "legal blackmail" is overstating the point.

You are missing the point of the poster. A greedy guest pays out of pocket for the kids meal instead of using credits. Chefs charges $7 for a kids meal, plus tax and tip. Compare that with the estimated $5-$6 Disney pays the restaurant. It's possible the restaurant comes out ahead if the guest pays out of pocket for kids meals. That assumes the "banked credits" aren't used at the same restaurant for additional guests or an additional meal. Disney loses if guest cheat but I'm not sure if the restaurant loses.

The WS restaurants are really forced to accept Disney's terms. Even if that means reduced profits or having to gut their menus. CRT and Brown Derby are both signature restaurants. There isn't any logical reason why Le Cellier and Coral Reef shouldn't also be 2 credit restaurants. That would allow Chefs to also be a signature restaurant.




Do you have any hard evidence of your accusations that Disney is playing a game of legal blackmail with them.

The WS restuarant's participation is still under negotiation. Using a child's entitlement to purchase adult meals was a huge headache to all involved including the WS restuarants. We are here now and everyone from managers at these restaurants to servers are complaining about it.

Changes to the system will prevent that and possibly that is what the WS restaurants are waiting on.

Brian Noble
08-11-2006, 08:32 AM
Well, I can think of a reason. At DS and MK, HBD and CRT don't have any non-Disney competition. At EP, LC and CR do. Disney can afford to take a loss on those two restaurants as long as the plan balances out elsewhere---why not use that as an opportunity to put the squeeze on the outside vendors?

I don't know that I believe that reason, though. If itr is, the entire premise is really in conflict with the situation at AK, where Disney owns NO sit-down restaurants, and the only new one being built is ALSO an outside contractor. You'd think that if WDW were really trying to play hardball with the outside vendors at Epcot, they would not have simultaneously signed with Landry's on the new AK place.

Lewisc
08-11-2006, 08:45 AM
The non-Disney restaurants are really partners more than competitors. Disney has decided to have outside companies, almost exclusively, run the restaurants at DTD, AK and CSR. I'm sure the non-Disney restaurants pay Disney rent, possibly a % of sales.

I wouldn't use the term "legal blackmail" but what is the point of allowing outside vendors but then try to squeeze them out? Disney is putting more outside restaurants into DTD and AK.

My guess is Disney and the restaurants are trying to gage the effect of policies such as separating the credits.





Well, I can think of a reason. At DS and MK, HBD and CRT don't have any non-Disney competition. At EP, LC and CR do. Disney can afford to take a loss on those two restaurants as long as the plan balances out elsewhere---why not use that as an opportunity to put the squeeze on the outside vendors?

I don't know that I believe that reason, though. If itr is, the entire premise is really in conflict with the situation at AK, where Disney owns NO sit-down restaurants, and the only new one being built is ALSO an outside contractor. You'd think that if WDW were really trying to play hardball with the outside vendors at Epcot, they would not have simultaneously signed with Landry's on the new AK place.

Pedler
08-11-2006, 08:59 AM
The WS restaurants are really forced to accept Disney's terms. Even if that means reduced profits or having to gut their menus. CRT and Brown Derby are both signature restaurants. There isn't any logical reason why Le Cellier and Coral Reef shouldn't also be 2 credit restaurants. That would allow Chefs to also be a signature restaurant.


The problem that Le Cellier and Coral Reef and all the WS places have is that in Epcot there is a lot more competition for Ts places. Coral Reef was 2 TS and it changed to 1. My guess is that the volume wasn't sustaining it as a 2 TS place.

At the Magic Kingdom the non buffet / family / all inclusive style places are pretty much limited to 2 places. In Epcot there is a lot more most of which are non Disney owned places It becomes hard for just one or two of them to become signature places. The in essence double the cost to DDP patrons and would probably take a big hit in business. If they don't take the plan they end up taking a big hit in business because there are two places that do take the plan and DDP may just plan their days to not eat at Epcot. If they do take the plan then they in essence loose some control over their menus as they have to have items that allow them to make a profit on Disney's terms.

I don't see this getting any better in the future for them either. Iger was recently quoted in a conference call to analyst about the parks as saying the intent was to get people to stay on site longer and spend more time on property. The dinning plan, ME and MYW ticket pricing are all a part of that. With MYW Ticket pricing your cost per day drops significantly after the 4th day. They seem to be running DDP promos more than I would have thought. I don't see Disney letting up on pushing the plan to people so my guess is that the WS places will have to suck it up and take the plan. They will just have to accept watering down the menus so the pricing makes it work for them.

bicker
08-11-2006, 10:29 AM
Yes, Pedler is exactly right: This is what the guests, in general, want, and so the restaurants just have to accept that.

JimMIA
08-11-2006, 10:34 AM
It's possible the restaurant comes out ahead if the guest pays out of pocket for kids meals. That assumes the "banked credits" aren't used at the same restaurant for additional guests or an additional meal. Disney loses if guest cheat but I'm not sure if the restaurant loses.Yeah...but only if you take that one meal and examine it in a vacuum.

However, if that unused child's credit gets used for an adult meal, somebody is going to get $5 instead of $22 or whatever they get. When you are in a marketplace like WS, you know that those discrepancies are eventually going to get somewhat evened out. So Chefs may not lose on what that family did, but over the longer term somebody else will nail them.

And, if you are Chefs, or Le Cellier, or Coral Reef, you are probably take a lot more of those child-credit-for-adult-meal hits than Alfredo's.

You also have to get over with 8-9 of those OOP kids meals for each one of the child-for-adult hits you take to break even on the process, because you're making $2 on one transaction and losing $17 on the back end.

Pedler
08-11-2006, 10:57 AM
Yeah...but only if you take that one meal and examine it in a vacuum.

However, if that unused child's credit gets used for an adult meal, somebody is going to get $5 instead of $22 or whatever they get. When you are in a marketplace like WS, you know that those discrepancies are eventually going to get somewhat evened out. So Chefs may not lose on what that family did, but over the longer term somebody else will nail them.

And, if you are Chefs, or Le Cellier, or Coral Reef, you are probably take a lot more of those child-credit-for-adult-meal hits than Alfredo's.

You also have to get over with 8-9 of those OOP kids meals for each one of the child-for-adult hits you take to break even on the process, because you're making $2 on one transaction and losing $17 on the back end.

Jim,

At this point as they don't separate child / adult credits I would speculate that they restaurant gets compensated for the type of meal ordered and not the type of credit used. For example if someone went all out and used every "child" credit for adult meals at the WS the WS places would probably get compensated at the adult rate. There just isn't any way to tell and it would create a huge problem if they tried to force them to take the child rate as compensation for an adult meal when it is Disney's problem that they are not separated. I think this is a case were Disney takes the hit.

One thing to consider is that it is possible that DDP patrons average entree cost are higher than people paying OOP. That could also go for deserts and appetizers as well. It may very well be that when determining the rate of compensation for the plan they looked at average entree cost pre DDP and based it off of that. DDP patrons have essentially no price elasticity to demand because there is no cost difference to them. They can order what they want without considering the cost. Couple that with some DDP patrons may not normally frequent the TS places at Disney or at least not as much so they may be more likely to base their decision on getting something they normally wouldn't get if they were paying OOP for it. For example someone may order the most expensive steak on the plan because at otherwise they wouldn't order it due to the cost. There are numerous postings / questions about how to maximize the plan. All of this could skew the average entree cost higher than the OOP guest and exacerbate the compensation problem.

JimMIA
08-11-2006, 11:07 AM
Jim,

At this point as they don't separate child / adult credits I would speculate that they restaurant gets compensated for the type of meal ordered and not the type of credit used. For example if someone went all out and used every "child" credit for adult meals at the WS the WS places would probably get compensated at the adult rate. There just isn't any way to tell and it would create a huge problem if they tried to force them to take the child rate as compensation for an adult meal when it is Disney's problem that they are not separated. I think this is a case were Disney takes the hit.You're right. I didn't think of it that way, but the child/adult credit thing IS Disney's problem, not the restaurant's.

As I said before -- not sure whether here or another thread -- I guess the restaurants' problem with DDP is the success of the plan. I'm sure they assumed a certain mix of low-margin DDP meals and regular-margin OOP meals, and they've actually gotten a lot more of the former than they expected.

Pedler
08-11-2006, 11:16 AM
You're right. I didn't think of it that way, but the child/adult credit thing IS Disney's problem, not the restaurant's.

As I said before -- not sure whether here or another thread -- I guess the restaurants' problem with DDP is the success of the plan. I'm sure they assumed a certain mix of low-margin DDP meals and regular-margin OOP meals, and they've actually gotten a lot more of the former than they expected.

That is entirely correct. And its even worse when Disney offers it for free. That means an even higher percentange of guests are going to have the plan.

Yep, it stinks to be a non Disney owned restaurant at the world these days.

eliza61
08-11-2006, 11:16 AM
I have a quick question for folks, but first let me say I don't use the DDP so I'm asking this as an outsider looking in.

If these changes stick or are the final choices for next year would people all of a sudden stop using the free dining or would we basically just deal with it and go to Disney anyway?

The reason I ask is because from reading these forums on the DDP it seems like a lot of extra stress. (Remember I am an outside totally just browsing other forums) There is always forums on "how to cheat the system" "how to maximize the credits with the efficiency of Patton" and now folks getting upset about the changes a full 4 months before they even occur. Am I reading this wrong? My family and I pretty much just pick a restaurant that we think we would like, make the ADR and call it a day.

Pedler
08-11-2006, 11:41 AM
I have a quick question for folks, but first let me say I don't use the DDP so I'm asking this as an outsider looking in.

If these changes stick or are the final choices for next year would people all of a sudden stop using the free dining or would we basically just deal with it and go to Disney anyway?

The reason I ask is because from reading these forums on the DDP it seems like a lot of extra stress. (Remember I am an outside totally just browsing other forums) There is always forums on "how to cheat the system" "how to maximize the credits with the efficiency of Patton" and now folks getting upset about the changes a full 4 months before they even occur. Am I reading this wrong? My family and I pretty much just pick a restaurant that we think we would like, make the ADR and call it a day.


Remember that your typical DIS person is most definitely not your typical WDW visitor. I sometimes think that folk, myself included at times, make things more stressful than they need to be. For what its worth I think the DDP should be used just the way you stated it. Pick out where you want to eat and make your Adrs and don't worry about if you are getting the maximize financial return on it. I have never understood the concept of ordering the most expensive items not because you wanted them but because they were the most expensive items.

For us the DDP was a stress reliever. We didn't have to think about how much each place cost and if we wanted to spend the money there or not. We just made ADR's for the places we wanted to eat at without thinking about the cost at all. It made for a much lower stress level vacation.

bicker
08-11-2006, 11:45 AM
At this point as they don't separate child / adult credits I would speculate that they restaurant gets compensated for the type of meal ordered and not the type of credit used.I don't believe that that would be a reasonable assumption.

bicker
08-11-2006, 11:47 AM
The reason I ask is because from reading these forums on the DDP it seems like a lot of extra stress. I believe that online discussions magnify the appearance of stress, both within each individual who experiences it, and with respect to how representative that might be in the context of the general public.

JimMIA
08-11-2006, 11:48 AM
If these changes stick or are the final choices for next year would people all of a sudden stop using the free dining or would we basically just deal with it and go to Disney anyway?I think the FREE DDP, which is only for six weeks, is probably a non-issue for most people who are questioning the lineup so far. Those questions are being asked by those of us who pay for DDP. FREE DDPers would just go anyway, but that's only a small % of those who use DDP.

Personally, we live nearby (relatively nearby - 4 hour drive), and we go twice a year. I don't think the DDP would change our visitation pattern, but if we don't use it, we have more options of things to see and do. So instead of using APs and DDP like we do now, if we don't like the plan, we might switch to some other ticket, enjoy other Orlando attractions, and eat mostly offsite. That, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Disney is trying to accomplish with DDP.

The reason I ask is because from reading these forums on the DDP it seems like a lot of extra stress. ... Am I reading this wrong? My family and I pretty much just pick a restaurant that we think we would like, make the ADR and call it a day.No, I don't think you're reading it wrong. DDP can be more or less stress, depending on how you use it. If you let it rule your vacation - and people do - I think it can add a lot of extra stress.

Mom of Sleepy, Bashful and BabyDoc
08-11-2006, 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedler
"At this point as they don't separate child / adult credits I would speculate that they restaurant gets compensated for the type of meal ordered and not the type of credit used. "

Qutoe: Bicker
"I don't believe that that would be a reasonable assumption."
__________________

If they make you order a child's meal for every child, they won't have any problems. But let's say, for discussion sake, that a family of 4 comes in, 3A and 1C, and they order 3A meals to share(I'm sure this happened a lot in the past). Those 3A meals will be submitted to Disney and the restaurant will get reimbursed for 3A meals, right?

Now, let's say that same family comes to the end of their trip with 4C meals left, but because they don't separate credits, Disney doesn't KNOW that they are child's meal credits and not adult meal credits(and neither does the restaurant). So they order 4A meals.............are you saying that the restaurant will only get reimbursed 4 child's meals and not adult meals?? I would think Disney would have to honor the restaurant for adult meals because it was not the restaurant's fault.........it is Disney that keeps track of the credits, not the restaurant.

Ofcourse, this is all speculation on my part. :) I would think is was Disney that is losing out and that that is why Disney is trying to make it harder to "abuse" the system.

added: Moderators, I am in no way saying do this to "work" the plan ( I don't think this will be able to happen now anyway) but only giving an example of how I thought the restaurants get paid. Hope this is ok. :wave2:

Pedler
08-11-2006, 12:44 PM
I don't believe that that would be a reasonable assumption.


How else would you determine what compensation the restaurant gets? Assuming that it has to be automated and there are two levels, child / adult, and that credits are not identified as child / adult I would think the only way to determine the compensation level for a restaurant is by how it get keyed into the system, either as an adult meal or kids meal. I may not be thinking creatively enough but without the separation of credits I can't imagine another way to do it that wouldn't generate lots of problems.

Mom of Sleepy, Bashful and BabyDoc
08-11-2006, 01:07 PM
How else would you determine what compensation the restaurant gets? Assuming that it has to be automated and there are two levels, child / adult, and that credits are not identified as child / adult I would think the only way to determine the compensation level for a restaurant is by how it get keyed into the system, either as an adult meal or kids meal. I may not be thinking creatively enough but without the separation of credits I can't imagine another way to do it that wouldn't generate lots of problems.


Ok. You just said what I was trying to say but so much simpler. :teeth: :blush:

Lewisc
08-11-2006, 01:27 PM
I guess Disney could have an audit procedure so a family with 2A2C couldn't be put through as 4 adult meals but I can't see any system that could stop the restaurant from just processing 2 adult meals and allowing the guest to pay out of pocket for 2 child meals. The audit system could even be used to just spot check the restaurant after the fact.

The question is will the expected seperation of credits help or hurt non-Disney restaurants?




How else would you determine what compensation the restaurant gets? Assuming that it has to be automated and there are two levels, child / adult, and that credits are not identified as child / adult I would think the only way to determine the compensation level for a restaurant is by how it get keyed into the system, either as an adult meal or kids meal. I may not be thinking creatively enough but without the separation of credits I can't imagine another way to do it that wouldn't generate lots of problems.

Pedler
08-11-2006, 01:47 PM
The question is will the expected seperation of credits help or hurt non-Disney restaurants?

If it doesn't change the rate of compensation, and it really shouldn't as it is Disney that is most likely loosing out and not the restaurant, then I don't see it having any financial impact. They will continue to be between a rock and a hard place. The mouse has definitely turned a blind eye towards them in its larger marketing plan.

Brian Noble
08-11-2006, 02:25 PM
I would think it would help marginally---there would be no more paying OOP to bank child credits for adult meals. The few people who do this would no longer eat the "extra" meals. Assuming DDP customers are lower margin (a fair assumption), this will free up more tables for cash customers.

Disney wins a lot (by not over-compensating restaurants relative to income) and the restaurants win a little.

Brian Noble
08-11-2006, 02:26 PM
(though I suppose that if servers routinely allow children to order adult meals now, then the restaurants could lose out...)

bicker
08-11-2006, 07:14 PM
Disney doesn't KNOW that they are child's meal credits and not adult meal credits(and neither does the restaurant). So they order 4A meals.............are you saying that the restaurant will only get reimbursed 4 child's meals and not adult meals??The question was whether the restaurant would be compensated based on the "type of meal ordered" or "the type of credit used". I had said that I believe the restaurant will be compensated based on the type of credit used, because that's all the system cares about. It won't matter what food was actually ordered.

Brian Noble
08-11-2006, 08:58 PM
the type of credit used
But there is only one "type"---the Table Service credit. I'd be surprised if the reimbursement rates for a $7.99 children's meal and a $40 tab for dad were the same.

bicker
08-12-2006, 05:52 AM
I think we're talking past each other. :confused3

Pedler
08-12-2006, 06:25 AM
The question was whether the restaurant would be compensated based on the "type of meal ordered" or "the type of credit used". I had said that I believe the restaurant will be compensated based on the type of credit used, because that's all the system cares about. It won't matter what food was actually ordered.

If credits are not differentiated how would the system know what type of credit was used?

bicker
08-12-2006, 06:45 AM
I don't know how they do that. I wonder if some intrepid soul, visiting in the next few weeks, could ask around and let us know.

tinkamom
08-12-2006, 06:59 AM
I don't know how they do that. I wonder if some intrepid soul, visiting in the next few weeks, could ask around and let us know.

Couldn't it be as simple as the credits deducted are what the server submits?

bicker
08-12-2006, 07:12 AM
As Pedler asked, if credits are not differentiated how would server submit to the system which type of credit was used?

tinkamom
08-12-2006, 07:16 AM
As Pedler asked, if credits are not differentiated how would server submit to the system which type of credit was used?

Maybe the server swipes the card then enters 2 adults, 2 kids into the computer?

bicker
08-12-2006, 07:56 AM
Credits are not differentiated in the computer, right?

Pedler
08-12-2006, 09:20 AM
Credits are not differentiated in the computer, right?

Credits are not but there has to be a way for the restaurant to enter in the appropriate type of meal for reimbursement. My guess is that they do what the previous poster said. Its the only way I can think that they are able to compensate the restuarants at a different rate for child meals vs. adult meals.

edited to add: Tracking compensation to restaurants as opposed to credits used by guests would have to be different if they don't seperate credits by child / adult for the guests but do compensate the restuarants differently by meal type. If they do this it would provide a simple means to create an audit report and how credits are used.

bicker
08-12-2006, 09:54 AM
Credits are not but there has to be a way for the restaurant to enter in the appropriate type of meal for reimbursement.Indeed there must, but that raises a whole host of other issues.

edited to add: Tracking compensation to restaurants as opposed to credits used by guests would have to be different if they don't seperate credits by child / adult for the guests but do compensate the restuarants differently by meal type. If they do this it would provide a simple means to create an audit report and how credits are used.I'm sure that that's already being done, and the basis on which rumored systems changes are based.

disneypharm
08-12-2006, 02:04 PM
I have already posted my questions in the 2007 fearless thread. Hopefully, someone has an answer. Someone said that a CM mentioned it.

How do you guys know that not all of the contracts are signed? Is this a rumor amongst DIS threads (sorry, hopefully nobody gets offended!) or there is an official site that mentions it? Just curious! :confused3 Disney has already published their 2007 list and I would imagine that they would have waited for these contracts to finalize before they would publish the final version!

bicker
08-12-2006, 02:24 PM
Not likely. Disney was already running five weeks behind last year making year 2007 vacation packages available for reservations. I doubt they would have held off that even longer, just because the contracts for participation in the Dining Plan aren't signed yet.

Amyrlin
08-12-2006, 03:04 PM
I have already posted my questions in the 2007 fearless thread. Hopefully, someone has an answer. Someone said that a CM mentioned it.

How do you guys know that not all of the contracts are signed? Is this a rumor amongst DIS threads (sorry, hopefully nobody gets offended!) or there is an official site that mentions it? Just curious! :confused3 Disney has already published their 2007 list and I would imagine that they would have waited for these contracts to finalize before they would publish the final version!

Actually, publishing that now could be a tactict to get the other restrants to sign up for it and get better terms for Disney, putting the pressure in, so to speak.

Also, disney may not have been able to wait any longer for fear of loosing out on bookings.


I think we just have to wait.

Pedler
08-12-2006, 04:24 PM
Actually, publishing that now could be a tactict to get the other restrants to sign up for it and get better terms for Disney, putting the pressure in, so to speak.

Also, disney may not have been able to wait any longer for fear of loosing out on bookings.


I think we just have to wait.


Ahhh... good point. The 180 ADR window is open for January and now parts of February. People are buying thier packages and making ADR's. The non participating places can start to get an indicator of how it would go not being on the plan based on advance reservations. Keeping in mind that most likely the typical package purchaser, non DIS of course, would just look at the info they get with the package and make ADR's based on that.