Anyone else feel like Disney is discouraging families of 5+ from staying on site?

[KellyNY]

If you do a Family Suite it is "only" around $60 a night more than one room at POR. And for that extra amount you get an additional bathroom and a kitchenette. And a second tv. Also, if you do a few meals in your room you will make a lot of that $60 a night back.

If you do that you will "only" be paying roughly $25 a night more for all of the extra space, and the extra bathroom, and tv. Some may rather squeeze into 1 room at POR and eat all their meals out, but staying in a Family Suite and doing breakfast in the room instead of out is a good, affordable choice.

We cannot compare value and moderate. You get different ammenities, it is simply not apples to apples. Extra person literally costs double when it comes to room. You pay that much for 4 and same money for 5th. Many offsite resorts have suites and they are not double or even more from the regular room. Disney just knows that many would prefer onsite for various reasons, including Disney 24/7 and they charge all the way.

 

[Violet Parr]

If you do a Family Suite it is "only" around $60 a night more than one room at POR. And for that extra amount you get an additional bathroom and a kitchenette. And a second tv. Also, if you do a few meals in your room you will make a lot of that $60 a night back.

If you do that you will "only" be paying roughly $25 a night more for all of the extra space, and the extra bathroom, and tv. Some may rather squeeze into 1 room at POR and eat all their meals out, but staying in a Family Suite and doing breakfast in the room instead of out is a good, affordable choice.

Or you can rent points.

Our next trip, we are renting points for a 1 bedroom in Kidani. The price difference? $2.33 more per night than AOA suite. $110 more per night than POR.

Yes, that's a lot, but we will cook meals. We have 3 kids, and on our last trip, we found that getting them off of their regular diet for too long was a bad idea. So while we will enjoy F&W, we will at least get one good meal a day in the villa so we can make sure they are getting at least a bit of their usual diet/nutrition. (We're very healthy eaters in our fam.) We will do all breakfasts in room so I can make sure they're not just hitting the sugared cereals at the buffets and have a good, solid, high-protein, low-sugar breakfast for those long touring days. For me, that's really important, because we all got sick on our last trip and a doctor said that the reason our toddler had a seizure as a result of the illness was because he was so far off his usual diet.

So in the coming months, we are going to save that $110 per night by skipping the urge to go out to eat, etc. We have a change jar. We are going to do what we can to make up that $660 that we would be spending at POR.

My long-winded point? Renting points is awesome. We are getting to stay deluxe, we get great theming at Kidani, and we get to take advantage of onsite perks, for not much more than ONE room at POR for the 5 of us.

There ARE options for fams with 5 or more. And for the record, I looked at Wyndham Bonnet Creek for our family just out of curiosity. The website said we had to book a 2 bedroom because we had too many people for a 1 bedroom.

VP

 

[maxiesmom]

We cannot compare value and moderate. You get different ammenities, it is simply not apples to apples. Extra person literally costs double when it comes to room. You pay that much for 4 and same money for 5th. Many offsite resorts have suites and they are not double or even more from the regular room. Disney just knows that many would prefer onsite for various reasons, including Disney 24/7 and they charge all the way.

But the poster I quoted didn't seem as if they were turned off by the Family Suites because of the lack or amenities at the value resorts. But by the cost only. I was just trying to point out that it would really cost relatively little for a lot more space. But yeah, you do lose out on a hot tub, pool slide, and the other moderate resort amenities.

It will never seem fair to everyone. It just won't. The only way to be fair would be to charge strictly per person, and that will never happen. And if it did, I doubt it would save larger families money, the per person rate would have to be astronomical to make money on the solo guests and the couples.

 

[lugnut33]

That is why price of strollers is up, but honestly everyone stops in a middle of the road.

I know, but when you get 5 strollers stopped in the middle of the walkway, it kinda blocks everybody. Or, it only takes one stroller in a store to bottleneck everything.

I'm telling you, I think we need to issue licenses if people want to use strollers because I know we can't get rid of them.

 

[KellyNY]

But the poster I quoted didn't seem as if they were turned off by the Family Suites because of the lack or amenities at the value resorts. But by the cost only. I was just trying to point out that it would really cost relatively little for a lot more space. But yeah, you do lose out on a hot tub, pool slide, and the other moderate resort amenities.

It will never seem fair to everyone. It just won't. The only way to be fair would be to charge strictly per person, and that will never happen. And if it did, I doubt it would save larger families money, the per person rate would have to be astronomical to make money on the solo guests and the couples.

It is really not about being fair but reather reasonable. If offsite can charge only about 30% more for a suite, why can't Disney.

 

[KellyNY]

I know, but when you get 5 strollers stopped in the middle of the walkway, it kinda blocks everybody. Or, it only takes one stroller in a store to bottleneck everything.

I'm telling you, I think we need to issue licenses if people want to use strollers because I know we can't get rid of them.

Or we can always have vacation in Vegas! I just returned and shared CBR for 10 days with Brazilian tour groups(I saw 3 different groups). Let me tell you, I saw blocking your way in a complete new light, 5 strollers are nothing.

 

[deegack]

It is really not about being fair but reather reasonable. If offsite can charge only about 30% more for a suite, why can't Disney.

Because they don't have to. Like it or not Disney is in the business of making money. If the suites were not filling they would discouInt them. They are Not just with larger families but families of 3 and 4. Heck we originally planned our trip with three and we reserved a one bedroom villa because we wanted the space. And it is reasonable. They could rent out that extra space to another family at the full rate.

 

[ShirikiUtundu]

It is really not about being fair but reather reasonable. If offsite can charge only about 30% more for a suite, why can't Disney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

 

[Simba's Girl]

I am not reading through the 12 pages of replies, but OP...I don't think its exclusively Disney that "discriminates" against families of 5 or more-I think that is the way the world works these days...

Look at everything around us...most things are geared for groups of 4.

I personally have priced out the difference between a "value" resort's family suite and a standard room at one of the "deluxe" resorts that sleep 5 (WL & AKL each only sleep 4 per standard room) and there is a difference but for us the higher price is worth it because of location and amenities.

I don't understand the complaints about the price difference between adult/child tickets-its like $5 (I checked because I have a 9 year old now and wanted to know if it would make more sense to go to Disney when she was 9 rather than 10-it really doesn't make much difference at all)! I can for the DDP because that particular child is a particularly picky eater, but that said we typically don't use DDP anyway, or pay for it rather...

I don't think that there's any use complaining (to management), it is what it is. My husband and I chose to have the size family we have and to be honest we'd probably want a larger family than we have right now-if we could, but we can't.

But if it this was all a general complaint-then yes...it stinks that the world seems to be made for families of 4!

 

[miami305]

Disney needs to make a hotel for larger families. Just like PoR but bigger. Say a regular room with 2 queen beds and bunk beds that sleeps 6. No kitchenette, no extra bathrooms. Just enough room for everyone to sleep in the same room. I know me personally I don't want frills. I just want a place to lay my head. We don't hang out in the room.

They new AoA is a copy of the Nickelodeon Hotel minus the awesome pool and the reasonable rate. Nickelodeon hotel is due for a refurb if the reviews on Trip Advisor are accurate. However, we stayed there 4yrs ago and loved it.

I read somewhere that WDW caters to the diehard annual visitors who love anything Disney and international tourists. The rest of us are icing on the cake, but they do not cater to our wants or needs.

 

[KellyNY]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

I familiar with this, no need for wikipedia, but as you can see from OP push too much and people leave offsite. I doubt that 30% would push them away and many on this site stay offsite, esp. those with bigger families for this very reason. BTW, they do run all the discounts because of lower demand then before. There is a difference between expensive vacation because you love Disney or any other destination and selling a kidney to be able afford one.

 

[waynesgirl]

The thing is, there has to be a cut off somewhere. If the age was 13 for kids meals you would still have people complaining. If it were 5 to a room you would still have people complaining. There is truly no way to make everyone happy.
However to state that Disney discourages larger families from staying on-site is just flat out wrong. .

This is my point. At my personal property, I think the cut-off should be 13 and then be charged. I have a lot of sports teams that come through for tournaments- the kids use my towels to clean cleats, they stain my floors with kool-aid, or they drop things on the rooms with hardwood flooring, causing us to have to pick up the floor and re-do. That's kids doing adult-sized damage, same as Disneyworld.

*
Yes, understood, but years ago they used to have "junior" pricing for kids I believe under 17 years old. I still stand my ground for a 10 year old being an adult though. It is a way to make money for them, because it's mainly kids that go there.
My .02cents.
Brunette

As someone who is spending the money, it is easy to see it this way. But, as someone who stated they stayed in deluxes and by the below mentioned reference to the DP, it really isn't a fair comparison. You aren't staying in a value and eating OOP. You are choosing a certain benefit for a price.

*
Hi! Yes, I agree. I think the Dining Plan ruined this for most of us! LOL! BTW just got back from the Yacht Club. We had a GRAND TIME! The place is spectacular and the staff is great! I highly recommend that resort.

Brunette

We cannot compare value and moderate. You get different ammenities, it is simply not apples to apples. Extra person literally costs double when it comes to room. You pay that much for 4 and same money for 5th. Many offsite resorts have suites and they are not double or even more from the regular room. Disney just knows that many would prefer onsite for various reasons, including Disney 24/7 and they charge all the way.

Yes, you can compare the 2. A room is a room is a room. A pool is a pool is a pool. They might look different but they serve the same functions. What you can compare is the cost of the amenities and what you are getting over the other. I personally think that WL and AK are HIGHLY over-rated, and I have stayed at both with a 1/2 off RACK rate. I'd rather pay the extra to have an EP deluxe, simply because that is the park at which I spend most of my family time.

It is really not about being fair but reather reasonable. If offsite can charge only about 30% more for a suite, why can't Disney.

Disney has shareholders to answer to, that's why. If they don't make money, they lose shareholders and stock purchases which is ultimately what funds the world. They also have a higher overhead- if you slip in the shower, you sue Disney as a whole, not the individual property. If you stay onsite and use the bus- whether it is a long wait or worth it or not- it is not a free service; it costs money to fill up the buses and to run the air and the heat. Nothing is free- free dining isn't free. Free Magic Express isn't free. It is convenience.
You are paying the 30% less because the off-sites don't provide the services that Disney does- you provide them for yourself. Plus, they can get the work done cheaper as little things go wrong off-site. They also don't have the advertising costs that Disney does.

Bottom line is- griping about it doesn't help. When people quit staying onsite because of the expense, then it will change. Take the FP for instance- enough CM saw the difference and the issues. So long as the turnstiles keep turning, DIsney won't change it. I see Disney as reasonable for most things- I don't go if I can't get a discount on a room. I don't pay much, if any, to fly there. If I did, I would drive. I don't eat enough to pay for the DP but I drink and the bus service is the best. I don't want to be a danger to anyone!!

 

[djscottnc]

I come at this from two perspectives:
1) A family of 5 and Disney lover
2) A market researcher

From the family of 5 perspective:
1) As the OPs said, we live in a world built for families of 4. All of my friends with "larger" families complain about this, especially those of us who are parents of twins and did not have a choice in the matter. It is a fact that there simply aren't as many options for families of 5 on-site as their are for families of 4, or families of 6 for that matter (especially when you calculate the expected market demand). This is especially true when you account for all of the great off-site options for larger families (one of which we used our last visit and loved). However, Disney's reasoning behind not having more 5 person friendly rooms may be pretty solid (see No. 2)

2) Market researcher's perspective. Within the industry, Disney's reputation for knowing its customer is very strong. They have set their prices according to that knowledge. They are not discouraging larger families from staying on site, they are "encouraging" us to upgrade. By limiting the options for families of 5, they push these families into a 6-person suite or into a deluxe. Simply by not guaranteeing connecting rooms in the value resorts, they push you from booking 2 value rooms into booking a 6-person suite that costs more than the price of the two 4-person rooms (22% to 46% more than the price of two rooms). If the demand for family suites at AoA remains strong, they'll probably build another structure with this model in mind.

As the existence of disboards shows, the passion and emotion of Disney fans overrides their rational brains. They pay more to stay on-site for the "magic" even if their brains tell them it's not the wise decision and that staying off-site makes more sense. It's the intent of every good brand manager in the world to build more value in its product than the customer gets by simply looking at the dollars-to-value calculation. Disney is among the best at this in the world.

For my family of 5, and even with my love of the "magic", staying on-site will only happen in extraordinary circumstances (like being able to travel off-peak with FD). Any other time, we'll be off-site.

 

[melancholywings]

I'm not sure how they can make it more accommodating. The more people that go (or in this case the larger the family) the more expensive the trip.

The child age cut off sucks...although if anything adults should get the cheaper ticket prices as we're the ones holding the purse strings. More adults = more money to spend...my allowance is bigger than my 11 year olds.

 

[CFioren317]

Bottom line is- griping about it doesn't help. When people quit staying onsite because of the expense, then it will change.

I agree with your post entirely, except that griping also doesn't really hurt either and sometimes it is best to let someone vent their feelings. Griping is perfectly acceptable. I happen to disagree with the OP because I don't think Disney would purposely discourage a family of ANY size. They just don't cater to the 10-15% of the families that are larger than 5 people as much as they cater to those families that are 4 or less.

Gripe away OP. It won't hurt. And if it makes you feel better, then that's all that really matters. My advice to you again would be to rent one of the thousands of houses available for rent within 15 minutes of WDW. For a family of 5 or more, they are perfect and more reasonable than staying at a value resort but 10 times the size.

 

[brunette8706]

This is my point. At my personal property, I think the cut-off should be 13 and then be charged. I have a lot of sports teams that come through for tournaments- the kids use my towels to clean cleats, they stain my floors with kool-aid, or they drop things on the rooms with hardwood flooring, causing us to have to pick up the floor and re-do. That's kids doing adult-sized damage, same as Disneyworld.



As someone who is spending the money, it is easy to see it this way. But, as someone who stated they stayed in deluxes and by the below mentioned reference to the DP, it really isn't a fair comparison. You aren't staying in a value and eating OOP. You are choosing a certain benefit for a price.

Yes, you can compare the 2. A room is a room is a room. A pool is a pool is a pool. They might look different but they serve the same functions. What you can compare is the cost of the amenities and what you are getting over the other. I personally think that WL and AK are HIGHLY over-rated, and I have stayed at both with a 1/2 off RACK rate. I'd rather pay the extra to have an EP deluxe, simply because that is the park at which I spend most of my family time.



Disney has shareholders to answer to, that's why. If they don't make money, they lose shareholders and stock purchases which is ultimately what funds the world. They also have a higher overhead- if you slip in the shower, you sue Disney as a whole, not the individual property. If you stay onsite and use the bus- whether it is a long wait or worth it or not- it is not a free service; it costs money to fill up the buses and to run the air and the heat. Nothing is free- free dining isn't free. Free Magic Express isn't free. It is convenience.
You are paying the 30% less because the off-sites don't provide the services that Disney does- you provide them for yourself. Plus, they can get the work done cheaper as little things go wrong off-site. They also don't have the advertising costs that Disney does.

Bottom line is- griping about it doesn't help. When people quit staying onsite because of the expense, then it will change. Take the FP for instance- enough CM saw the difference and the issues. So long as the turnstiles keep turning, DIsney won't change it. I see Disney as reasonable for most things- I don't go if I can't get a discount on a room. I don't pay much, if any, to fly there. If I did, I would drive. I don't eat enough to pay for the DP but I drink and the bus service is the best. I don't want to be a danger to anyone!!

*
Griping does help. IT does help other DISers about our experience with resorts, dining etc. IT's funny everything you claim above were the same "costs" and "services" as two years ago. But now everything has skyrocketed out of control in my opinion. Just read these forums and everyday there is something broke, in repair, or needs to be repaired, food quality etc. Disney has tainted the "Disney Difference". The bus service takes 30-45 minutes to get anywhere, it's crowded and slow. The Magical Express is a ploy "by design" to keep Disney customers at Disney. No car, no way out of the world. Disney didn't create the Magical Express to be nice, it's all in the marketing and it works.

Further, I don't mind paying a little extra for things but what is getting me more and more frustrated is that things are way exceeding cost of living increase and the services are going WAY DOWN. So in essense I'm paying more for a WHOLE LOT LESS. This goes for Dining, Resorts, oh yes the parks. There are numerous rides that have literally gone down hill and in ill repair. For instance Soarin film needs to be revised and improved, The Yeti, Splash Mountain details with the fountains, and rides that are just down for repair etc.. Oh and the monorail maintenance, half the time there are problems with that too. Some resorts are in desperate need of repair also. It's really getting to be ridiculous. Seriously.

 

[ShirikiUtundu]

Griping doesn't help. The only thing that helps is spending your money elsewhere. Money is the only thing that talks. Note that a new resort just opened and two new DVCs are in the works. Yet, there are no new parks on the horizon (one could argue the Fantasyland expansion and Pandora, but these are just fractions of a park). I haven't seen a "slow time" since 2002 so the majority of people still find Disney a decent value for their money.

 

[krismanda]

It's nobody's problem.

My point is that posters on here seem to casually suggest that there are plenty of options for families of 5+. It's already a lot more expensive to vacation when you have that 3rd child (because of the auxiliary costs mentioned of airline, food, park tickets), so the increased cost of the suite is a big difference.

Especially if Disney wants familes of 5 to regularly return and not just have the one "legacy vacation", this is a big factor that I'm not sure they consider. A vacation for us as a fam of 5 with a suite might run $6k (with air) while if we were a fam of 4 we could do it for $4k - saving that extra $2k to make the trip work makes a big difference.

I'm not complaining about having 5, just presenting some of the fiscal challenges that people without 5 might not see.

See, I don't think its a case of people without 5 being unable to see the fiscal challenges. Most of the people I know with smaller families, have smaller families because they DO see the fiscal challenges.

 

[KellyNY]

.

 

[TheDisneyGang6]

AoA is supposed to be for larger families-yes. However, they are over $300 a night, which is just not possible for us. Not when we can stay off site for 1/3 of the cost.

Never thought of doing the points thing at DVC. I'll check that out! Thanks!

The cheapest way for us to do Disney - there are 6 of us and all of our kids are now Disney adults - is to get 2 connecting rooms at a value resort and only go when they have free dining promotions. In fact we are staying in connecting rooms at AOA Little Mermaid Section in December. Going during free dining makes it one of the cheaper vacations we can take. We have looked into purchasing DVC but it's a minimum $25,000 buy in and we haven't spent that in 7 years of Disney vacations. I have even gotten a quote to rent DVC points and even that is much more expensive - about $2,500 more per week than just getting 2 connecting rooms during a free dining promotion.

I'm not saying that Disney is a cheap vacation, but for what we get, and taking advantage of a discount like free dining, it's a good economical choice for our family.

If you can not travel during a free dining promotion then it's almost always going to be cheaper to stay off site and only do a few table service or character meals.