2008 DDP discussion, questions, rants and vents

[TLSnell1981]

I remember, years ago, when Disney first introduced the dining plans. The first ones I remember were included in the silver and gold packages. One thing that still stands out....was how the CM described the plans. I was told they were NOT designed to save money on dining, but as a convenience for guests. This way the guest would know before hand how much their vacation would cost.

The dining plans have strayed quite far from what they were originally intended to be. I really miss the quality and ambience that once was a part of Disney dining.....but I guess those days are gone forever.

 

[bicker]

True, but it appears Disney may not have been prepared for the unintended consequences.

Given that they explicitly included the appropriate contingencies in the union contract, I'd say that there is no concern that that is the case, Lex.

 

[bicker]

That people who spent years saving for a Disney vacation are leaving with a bad feeling and may never return.

People have always had the option to get cranky about the reality they encounter. Long queues at the Dumbo ride. Not being allowed to share 10 day park hoppers. The need to make dining reservations. Year-after-year, folks online speculate about this thing or the other being something Disney didn't anticipate the "unintended consequences" of, yet almost every time, Disney not only did anticipate many such consequences, but more often than not, such consequences don't come to pass.

Disney really does know what they're doing. They make very few mistakes, when it comes to reading the American people.


(Now watch: Someone is going to reply to my message, deliberately overlooking the word "almost" in what I wrote. )

 

[bicker]

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1680376It's hard to speculate as to what Disney thought or didn't think, but the reality is that there have been problems. There's the thread with info above, as well as numerous other posts by servers indicating various problems/altercations with patrons. There are also various threads discussing whether Disney sufficiently made the public aware of the DDP changes.

How is any of that different from the kinds of complaints people post here every year, about the changes from the year prior?

Again, IMO, Disney did not anticipate the level of negative reaction it has received.

I don't believe that that is the case. You haven't proven your point.

 

[antkim]

FYI... snack credit make no sense anymore.

I brought up to the register (in SSR) a tiny single serving of pre-packaged "peaches." They cost $1.70 cash.

CM told me they're not a "snack" and directed me an area that I could choose from. I chose a package of cookies that cost a little over $3.

She looked at me and realized that these cost more...and she said "I know, it makes no sense...but they're a snack and the peaches aren't."

Funny you should mention the peaches! I was at WL this past week and was talking to CM's in the Mercantile discussing the changes in the DP...specifically snacks! The CM told me to wait a moment and went in the back room and came out with a print out of all the items that were considered snacks at WL...mentioned that peaches were just added! We also gave me a 15 page print out of snacks included through out the parks!

I looked at the store closely and there are a LOT of changes! Basically single serving MEANS single serving!! No more 1/2 gallons of milk, packages of donuts, boxes of cereal, bread etc.

 

[englishrose47]

Do you havethe list antkim? Were the desserts at Epcot a snack? Iplan on buying the cheese plate after seeing it on these boards and using a sc for a dessert!!As for the ddp I think the changes stink and would mstill rather paid more and no changes. The convenience is so great I would still get it I will still save money maybe only a little, but I AM sure the servers will suffer with this as tipping american style is not universal and that's where they will hurt!!

 

[antkim]

I do have the list...where are you looking to buy the cheese plate? I can try to see if I can find it! The list is a bit confusing but I will check!

 

[WishesQueen]

Honestly, I agree!!

The original DDP was perfect and I would have rathered they raise the price then have them change it.

I also would have like the appetizer instead of the dessert. Considering we have a snack. You would have left your dinner satisfied and later in the evening choose your desert in the park.

At least then I would have left that all we lost was the tip, and actually it would be that bad considering some of the horrible service we have received during our trips (occasionally but it has happened). My DH and I aren't the types to call the manager over to make sure she didn't get her 18% so we just signed the reciept.

 

[bicker]

My rough calculations are that if they were to leave the Dining Plan as it was, then the price would have gone up to at least $46.99 per day.

 

[WishesQueen]

I remember, years ago, when Disney first introduced the dining plans. The first ones I remember were included in the silver and gold packages. One thing that still stands out....was how the CM described the plans. I was told they were NOT designed to save money on dining, but as a convenience for guests. This way the guest would know before hand how much their vacation would cost.

The dining plans have strayed quite far from what they were originally intended to be. I really miss the quality and ambience that once was a part of Disney dining.....but I guess those days are gone forever.

I would rather pay it up front!!!

Use the original design as a convenience and know the bottom line of my vacation! (at least close to for the meals)

Right now they raised us approximately $8 to $10 per person for the appetizer plus tip!!

So I would take the DDP in a heartbeat for $46.99!!! SOLD!!!!

 

[LexPlayer]

Given that they explicitly included the appropriate contingencies in the union contract, I'd say that there is no concern that that is the case, Lex.

I would have to the language used for these so-called "contingencies" before I can comment. Would you care to share the language or provide me a link where I can look it over myself.

Also, while anybody or any corporate entity can have "contingency plans," that does not mean that they properly evaluated the level of *******.

 

[bicker]

Would you care to share the language or provide me a link where I can look it over myself.

Search the boards for the details of the union contract.

Also, while anybody or any corporate entity can have "contingency plans," that does not mean that they properly evaluated the level of *******.

"Properly evaluated the level of *******" -- use different words; those don't make sense in context.

 

[LexPlayer]

How is any of that different from the kinds of complaints people post here every year, about the changes from the year prior?

I don't believe that that is the case. You haven't proven your point.

Bicker,

Would you care to provide specifics rather than a conclusory statement? It would be instructive if you provided a list of those changes from the year prior, so that we could evaluate the impact those changes would have upon the visitors. Use of general terms without specific examples is not very informative. Obviously the changes from the 2007 DDP to the 2008 DDP were quite significant, and since Disney is partially to blame for not adequately informing the public (as many people have stated on these Boards), this resulted in a lot of discontent. You further state that I have not "proven" my point, yet there are multiple detailing problems with the implementation of the 2008 DDP, regardless or your belief.

In multiple posts, you give the impression of a greater-informed opinion. That may be so, but you need to provide supporting evidence to be taken seriously.

 

[LexPlayer]

Search the boards for the details of the union contract.

If you are so well versed, you should be able to provide a link quite easily. Please do, as you referred to the contract.

 

[bicker]

It would be instructive if you provided a list of those changes from the year prior, so that we could evaluate the impact those changes would have upon the visitors.

I'm sorry that you're new here, but no, I really wouldn't find it leisurely to rehash the last three or four years of discussions on the forum. I invite you to search the archives.

That may be so, but you need to provide supporting evidence to be taken seriously.

I'm already taken quite seriously here, and have been for years. If you hope to be, then you should do your research.

 

[sandym718]

My rough calculations are that if they were to leave the Dining Plan as it was, then the price would have gone up to at least $46.99 per day.

I know that would have been fine by me. That would have been an $8 increase. I've seen a lot of people here saying they would have paid $10 more (as would I), but I'm sure the $8 would have seemed like a HUGE jump for the same plan for a lot of people. Probably would have seemed like a big jump to me too- if I didn't know (which I wouldn't have) that the alternative is what we have now for 2008.

Ah well, moot point, LOL!! I'm still holding out hope for some changes for 2009, we'll have to see! We'll be doing the plan regardless, though, it still works out to save us $$, just not as much, which is fine.

 

[LexPlayer]

I'm sorry that you're new here, but no, I really wouldn't find it leisurely to rehash the last three or four years of discussions on the forum. I invite you to search the archives.

I'm already taken quite seriously here, and have been for years. If you hope to be, then you should do your research.

It's such a shame you can't support your argument. Someone makes a valid point and you can simply respond that you know better, are more knowledgeable, and are supremely correct. That's how one would treat a child, but not have an intellectual discussion.

Apparently, you can make a blanket statement regarding the past, but you don't feel the need to explain yourself. It's too burdensome for you to do so. The fact that one person has more posts than another is not relevant to whether a point is valid. However, it has been my experience that when a person does not cite facts to support their position, it is because they do not have any.

 

[apostolic4life]

I see many posting " I liked the plan the way it was, it was a GREAT deal, now it's not". The GREAT deal served its purpose (getting people to stay on property), but now it needs to be changed because the needs of the company have changed. Now it is a good deal that adds convenience and keeps people on property. You still save money! I just do not understand why people are so aggravated since they are still saving money vs. paying OOP........they don't have to offer any discount at all.

The plan still exists because of its popularity; people have made it part of their annual plans so WDW won't just eliminate it. Changes that make people rethink the value of the plan will ultimately reduce the numbers of those who participate in the plan; fewer people using the plan and paying OOP for food will make money for WDW. I believe the changes were meant to thin out the number of people participating in the DDP, or move them to the higher priced DDDP. In the end (even if we want to think otherwise) Disney's primary function is to generate revenue, not worrying about us as individuals with feelings.

 

[apostolic4life]

It's such a shame you can't support your argument. Someone makes a valid point and you can simply respond that you know better, are more knowledgeable, and are supremely correct. That's how one would treat a child, but not have an intellectual discussion.

Apparently, you can make a blanket statement regarding the past, but you don't feel the need to explain yourself. It's too burdensome for you to do so. The fact that one person has more posts than another is not relevant to whether a point is valid. However, it has been my experience that when a person does cite facts to support their position, it is because they do not have any.

quote]


bicker and I often disagree, but I respect the opinions presented because of their willingness to discuss things respectfully..........you need to do the same. In the past bicker has often provided us with information to bolster the points they present; bicker has earned our respect as a good DIS'er. Even in disagreement, I would suggest a show of respect if you hope to earn some for yourself!!!

 

[sandym718]

I see many posting " I liked the plan the way it was, it was a GREAT deal, now it's not". The GREAT deal served its purpose (getting people to stay on property), but now it needs to be changed because the needs of the company have changed. Now it is a good deal that adds convenience and keeps people on property. You still save money! I just do not understand why people are so aggravated since they are still saving money vs. paying OOP........they don't have to offer any discount at all.

I agree 100%! Really, the was the plan was - that just wasn't sustainable over the long term. Lots of people (including us) getting WAY too much savings. Just posted this on another thread - in 2007, we saved $310 on the plan. Based on 2008 plan, we would save $244 (on what the plan covers) and even figuring in tips and the appy I want (to compare to the 2007 plan) we would still save about $140 dollars. That's not too shabby and I'm grateful for the opportunity!! I don't think the convenience can be overlooked either! Disney is a business, it's all about revenue, supply-and-demand, etc. Now that the savings is more limited, it's really more realistic - guests get some savings and convenience, Disney gets the guaranteed $$'s!

bicker and I often disagree, but I respect the opinions presented because of their willingness to discuss things respectfully..........you need to do the same. In the past bicker has often provided us with information to bolster the points they present; bicker has earned our respect as a good DIS'er. Even in disagreement, I would suggest a show of respect if you hope to earn some for yourself!!!

Also agree 100%!