Being Penalized

[gallam5]

Does anyone else feel like they are being penalized for having a large family. Being a family of 6, we are limited as to which resorts we can stay at and of course they are the most expensive resorts. Then when you try and book two rooms at a value ( 1 adult and 2 kids in each) they charge you for double occupancy anyway. We have an offer for kids stay, play and eat for free, but we are charged $2000 per room for a value resort in may. Even though the offer says $775 per adult on the pin code. but when you call they say it is $775per adult based on double occupancy so you really are not saving anything.. Enough of my venting.

I would call and get another CM, that sounds like a lot - how many days and what type of tickets? We too re a family of six and the kids are close in age - and one by one we are having to pay the price of an adult ticket - our trip costs are increasing significantly - but as I said in my other post - CREATIVITY and TIME!!! I spend LOTS of time - looking at it every which way possible!!!! It does , but I guess we put our energy into what we value. I hate that we have to take more time - and I used to stay where we had to stay .... but we plan on saving and buying dvc... even those options are 'limited'!!!! But GOOD limited!! Oh well, such is life!

 

[zagafi]

There has to be a line drawn somewhere since there is no such thing as a 1/4 room. If they had value rooms for 5, then people with 6 would complain they have to pay double for 1 extra person.

Hotels have a price per room, they don't charge by the person. You could have the opposite argument. People who stay in a hotel by themselves could say why do they have to pay double per person than when 2 people stay in the room.

Thank you for missing my point entirely.

 

[bookwormde]

Just for clarity, occupancy is “rated” on cumulative egress of other egress components (doorways) and stairways. The factor used for this is different between sprinklered and unsprinklered buildings. Also since the rating is cumulative the number of exits has an impact and there are specific # of required exits when you get over an occupancy load of 500. Also only the occupancy load of 1 floor is considered in the calculations. The only place sqft comes into play is that it sets a base minimum occupancy rating for any building, not the maximum occupancy. Also since elevators are not egress components they have no influence on occupancy.

Just to give you an idea 1 36” door (into a stairwell) in a sprinklered building is capable of handling 240 people so if the floor has 4 exits that is 960 people.

I have not been in any WDW hotel were a rough estimate did not put the allowable occupancy at least 150% (often 200 or 300%) of the amount allowed currently WDW policy, which is good, so using fire codes as the reason just comes from improperly informed staff.

I know a bit OT but since this comes up often in occupancy discussion I though I would give the “facts”

bookwormde

 

[maxiesmom]

Thank you for missing my point entirely.

Your extra person does take an extra room, that is the point you are missing. You can't just cram them into existing resorts that are set up to hold only 4, fire codes and other things will not allow it. Disney is not set up to just charge you for an extra person, cause they don't charge by the person, they charge by the room.

Yes resort choices for familes of 6 are limited, cause families of 6 are not the norm! I like the car comparison. Would you complain to Chevy that their SUVs cost double of the cars, and they only hold 2 more people? Same thing.

 

[bicker]

Occupancy need not be a safety issue; companies sell what they decide to sell, how they decide to sell it; that's the nature of a free market.

 

[maxiesmom]

Occupancy need not be a safety issue; companies sell what they decide to sell, how they decide to sell it; that's the nature of a free market.

Until the government gets involved. They put all sorts of conditons on what can be sold, and how that item can be sold.

 

[flickwizard]

Your extra person does take an extra room, that is the point you are missing. You can't just cram them into existing resorts that are set up to hold only 4, fire codes and other things will not allow it. Disney is not set up to just charge you for an extra person, cause they don't charge by the person, they charge by the room.

Yes resort choices for familes of 6 are limited, cause families of 6 are not the norm! I like the car comparison. Would you complain to Chevy that their SUVs cost double of the cars, and they only hold 2 more people? Same thing.

Okay, sticking with the car comparison, but taking it further, companies do make minivans with price points that are in between a car and an SUV, with various levels to appeal to the budget conscience family and the one who wants all of the bells and whistles (Nav system, DVD player, leather seats, etc.). You do not have nearly the same options at Disney.

You are right that Disney charges by the room. The point many have made here is that Disney should offer more room options for larger families than they do currently. In terms of Disney having the space...well Disney renovates all the time (see AKL villas put in on Concierge rooms at Jambo). It comes down to a Cost Benefit Analysis done by Disney.

Ultimately Disney will do whatever it thinks will make them the most money. One of the reasons I am surprised that Disney does not offer more options for larger families is because of the minimal marginal cost compared to the substantial marginal revenue per larger family. Someone used the term Step Function Costing (I think it was Bicker). That's exactly right. The rooms are fixed costs. The marginal increase in cost per room used is minimal (electricity, water, transportations for additional guests, etc.). However, the marginal revenue per additional person visiting Disney is huge (park tickets, dining, merchandise, shows, etc.).

The latest buy 4 nights/get 3 free deal is a perfect example of this. Disney is simply trying to get more people to the parks for a longer period without any explicit additional cost to the consumer, precisely because Disney knows that the increased revenue will be significantly greater than the cost involved.

Another reason accommodating larger families makes sense is that they provide additional value for Disney, more so than singles, couples or smaller families since there are more people, which translates to increased revenue. Additionally, to get 6 people to visit Disney, say three different couples would need to be targeted and marketed to in order to get them to attend. With a family of 6, it's just the husband and wife. The downside is, perhaps, less discretionary income to spend. I don’t know how many families of 6 are dinning at Victoria & Albert’s!

In the end, I don’t think anyone here was seriously complaining or is mad or bothered too much. Just like every other person, regardless of family size, we all make sacrifices in certain areas so that we can afford “luxury” items like a trip to Disney. What has been expressed here is larger families simply trying to maximize their dollars, and noting that for a family friendly place, it isn’t as easy as we might have thought it could and should be.

 

[dizneekim]

OP, I totally get what you are saying. Our family's answer has been to rent off property for the past few years. Most of the homes we have rented have had a shorter door-to-turnstile travel time than staying on property, and the space has been wonderful! We made an exception in Sept. for the free dining, renting 2 rooms at All Stars. While we all enjoyed the dining, none of us are wanting to stay on property again anytime soon. (Although we do have fond memories of the Poly when the kids were younger...)

We have stayed in lovely 4br pool homes for 7 nights for less than $600, less than 2 nights at a Deluxe. If more of us choose to stay off property, maybe Disney will feel enough of an impact in their pocketbook to make some changes. Please pm me if you'd like some references for homes. Good luck to you!

PS-Bicker, I am a homeschooling mother of 3. I pay tremendous taxes for a very inadequate public school system to which I choose not to subject my children. Your argument would have more validity if the public school system reliably turned out well-educated, workforce-ready graduates, but it does not.

 

[bicker]

PS-Bicker, I am a homeschooling mother of 3. I pay tremendous taxes for a very inadequate public school system to which I choose not to subject my children. Your argument would have more validity if the public school system reliably turned out well-educated, workforce-ready graduates, but it does not.

Not true. My point contrasts with and without education, which is the choice most folks' children have. It is great you have time to homeschool; most parents do not. So while the example may not apply to you, personally, because your own situation is so different from the norm, it does apply generally, because it does reflect the reality for the vast majority.

 

[maxsmomamy]

I think the point folks try to make is that a family of five, for example, pays DOUBLE in room costs what a family with one less member pays(needing 2 rooms vs. 1 or a getting a family suite). It's the *affordable* part that seems to get lost in these discussions, IMO. No one is asking for handouts!

We went from a family of 3 to a family of 5 with the birth of twins, and because of one "extra" child, we now need MUCH costlier accomodations. (And of course I "chose" to have my kids--what a ridiculous argument.)

We were AP holders until the twins were born and we haven't been back in a few years. We simply cannot afford the cost of accomodations for a family of 5 like we could when we were a smaller family. I expect to pay per person for tickets and meals. But effectively needing a second room for one "extra" child? Makes it a whole lot more costly for us.

We stayed at Great Wolf Lodge in OH this summer and had a BLAST. We had a ginormous "Kid Kabin" suite for less than we'd pay for something at WDW. Was it "cheap"? No--but I feel like the value for what we paid was excellent in comparison to what we'd get for the same accomodations at WDW (which would probably be double if they offered something similar).

Rambling now...

THANK YOU! That is the point exactly!

 

[maxsmomamy]

I also am disturbed by the use of the word "penalized". Does that mean that Target penalizes larger families because they charge more for six pieces of clothing instead of just three or four?

So hotel stays being more expensive for larger families isn't a penalty any more so than Target charging more for more clothing.

I think this is where we got off track. Of course you'll pay more proportionally- it's the lack of options that the OP is upset about. (and the rest of us with 5+)

 

[GPA1015]

OK I am coming in here on the tail end of things- but I last year was a family of 6- we brought my neice. We had a 8 month old, 2 year old, 4 year old and 5 year old and mom and dad. When we went to the resturants we were charged the addition gratuity because we had 6 ppl. That in MY opinion was not right. The 8 month old was not being served - so yes that was a penalty for us.


And yes I do think the prices sky rocket when you add one. But again that is MY opinion. You are welcome to yours.

 

[maxiesmom]

I think this is where we got off track. Of course you'll pay more proportionally- it's the lack of options that the OP is upset about. (and the rest of us with 5+)

I think the Target analogy is dead on. You do choose in most cases to have children. Knowing that it is not free in any way to do so. Everything costs more, yet for some reason people seem to feel Disney is singling them out by charging them more for those family members. Again, larger families are NOT the norm, you should not expect Disney to build/renovate rooms like they are.

Disney has done a pretty good job of offering multiple choices. I know those options, because most of my trips are spent with my sister and her family, which makes us a group of 6. And she is a SAHM, so that still only gives us 2 wage earners per trip. So far we have done the following:

Two rooms at a Value
Two rooms at a Deluxe
An All Star Family Suite
Rented points from a DVC member
Stayed off-site
Stayed as a legal 6 in one room at POR

So no, I don't understand the posts that seem to be all about not having enough options at a reasonable price. I have stayed in 6 different room configurations, and that is not even all that is available. Would more choices be nice? Sure, but I don't feel penalized or punished for traveling with a larger family.

 

[ricthemic]

good point

 

[portocall]

I wish that there were more affordable options for the larger family, period. The cheapest way to go is POR... which is fine, but I wish some of the other mods would have the trundle as well for variety sake. I think that the mod is more than affordable, I just wish it wasnt the only one to choose from...

And yes, I did choose to have a bigger family, and yes, it did cross my mind before we decided to have #5... so it isn't that big of a deal.

 

[tinkerbellmichelle]

We have 5 and I never really thought of it in terms that we were penalized. Yes, I know that there are a lot of rooms that we can't go in, and it kind of bums me out; however, it isn't Disney's (or any other hotels) problem/fault etc. I'd love for there to be more choices but I do think they have plenty to choose from. And even if we 'could' stick 5 of us in a value in one room - would we really WANT to?

We deal with this whenever we go anywhere.... and I actually think that Disney offers a lot more than many hotel/hotel chains.

 

[maxsmomamy]

I think the Target analogy is dead on. You do choose in most cases to have children. Knowing that it is not free in any way to do so. Everything costs more, yet for some reason people seem to feel Disney is singling them out by charging them more for those family members. Again, larger families are NOT the norm, you should not expect Disney to build/renovate rooms like they are.

Disney has done a pretty good job of offering multiple choices. I know those options, because most of my trips are spent with my sister and her family, which makes us a group of 6. And she is a SAHM, so that still only gives us 2 wage earners per trip. So far we have done the following:

Two rooms at a Value
Two rooms at a Deluxe
An All Star Family Suite
Rented points from a DVC member
Stayed off-site
Stayed as a legal 6 in one room at POR

So no, I don't understand the posts that seem to be all about not having enough options at a reasonable price. I have stayed in 6 different room configurations, and that is not even all that is available. Would more choices be nice? Sure, but I don't feel penalized or punished for traveling with a larger family.

I don't know where you live, but where I'm at, 3 kids IS average. At anytime when my friends are talking about Disney, this discussion comes up. Did you know they took away rooms for 5 at AKL? They've made them into DVC villas. If Disney can build entire buildings for DVC, then they can certainly build a value resort for larger families. I'm glad you haven't had the difficult situation that I and many others on this post have encountered. Does it deter us from going? No way. It does create a little (additional) stress when arranging accommodations.
And for the record, I don't think anyone actually feels punished or penalized, or they just wouldn't go. I believe what the OP feels is frustration and she wanted to voice it. That's the beauty of this forum- you can do that and find others with the same feelings- and others that feel the opposite!

 

[bicker]

Average number of children per family = 0.90.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-2000.pdf

Even when eliminating all the families without children, the average is still 1.86. Idoho and Utah are the only states where the average is above 2.0, and then, again, that is only when you eliminate all the families without children.

 

[itchin2go]

They have made several options available for larger families. For 5 people, you could get a cabin at FW. There are options for all income levels. You could get a family suite at AS, 2 value rooms, a trundle room at POR, a deluxe other than WL. They offer discounts for most of the year that make rooms more affordable. You could rent points from a DVC member to make that 2 bedroom at VWL more affordable.

You say they don't have their finger on the pulse of the average American family, they don't seem to be hurting for business with their current structure. They are a public company in business to make money. I don't think Walt went into the business to break even.

Thank you for saying this in such a nice way, because I was trying to think of a nice way to express it and was coming up short.

There are options for large families. There are cheaper options and there are more expensive options. If you want to stay at a certain resort, but can't (or won't) afford it, for whatever reason, that is not Disney's fault. There (probably) are affordable options for you. I would love to stay GF concierge, but I just can't see spending that kind of money. That doesn't mean Disney doesn't have their finger on the pulse of America, or that anyone is being unfair to me. It just means there's an option out there I'm not going to pay for. Everyone has their budget. Just because WL is not in your budget doesn't mean Disney is not family friendly.