Change in pricing for people over 9 ordering from kids menus

[sndral]

I can understand your point. For many years disney never had a problem with who ate what. Now? with the "leaders" that are in power, they are taking away yet another convenience for people who I still feel did not have an impact on them at all, or very little. Disney got a lot of good will for Not nickel and diming everything. They had bills back "then", too, and could have done what chapek has done. But some things can't have a money tag put on them. This will cause even more bad feelings among guests for whatever money they might make. Like I said, a lot of people eat the adult meals who are not adult and visa versa - It must even out in the end, and Why is this even an issue, IMO (not a question just a statement)

W/ folks using the dinning plan they certainly enforced the rule that adults must use adult dinning credits & kids must use kid dinning credits & cannot order adult items on the menu at table service restaurants for the many years that the dinning plan existed.
About a year ago at the quarterly earnings call Disney’s CFO said they were looking to cut food costs by finding other suppliers, using cheaper items, and cutting portions, it was her boneheaded suggestion that smaller portions would be good for some of their customers’ waistlines that garnered the headlines though https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...-good-for-some-people-s-waistlines/ar-AAQAXXo.
But when the CFO of a corp. focuses on cost cutting in a particular division in the quarterly earnings call that tells me that the company is focusing on increasing profit in that division & that changes are in the pipeline. And that was last year, before inflation really started to kick in, last month food costs were 11.40% higher than Aug. 2021 https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/food-inflation, thus I expect more changes going forward.

 

[Simba's Mom]

But on the other hand, they enforced all kinds of ridiculous rules on the DDP, sometimes to their own detriment. I was once next to a table where the 2 women said they weren't very hungry, and wanted an appetizer instead of an entree. However, the server pointed out that since they were on the dining plan, the rules clearly stated they must order an entree. The women pointed out that ordering an appetizer instead would be to Disney's financial advantage but he was insistent. They called the manager over, who agreed with the server-rules said it must be an entree. Don't think Chapek would agree-I think that in this case he'd be more flexible.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

But on the other hand, they enforced all kinds of ridiculous rules on the DDP, sometimes to their own detriment. I was once next to a table where the 2 women said they weren't very hungry, and wanted an appetizer instead of an entree. However, the server pointed out that since they were on the dining plan, the rules clearly stated they must order an entree. The women pointed out that ordering an appetizer instead would be to Disney's financial advantage but he was insistent. They called the manager over, who agreed with the server-rules said it must be an entree. Don't think Chapek would agree-I think that in this case he'd be more flexible.

The DDP was priced however for that entree. Ordering  just an app is not financially in Disney's best interest.

You can't be flexible with a pre-paid plan like that, it's the opposite of flexibility. Those women knew what the plan entailed. They could have not used their dining plan credits and done whatever they wanted, no one was stopping them.

Not to be construed to be in defense of Disney or the Dining Plan but you buy it you know what it comes with and they weren't forced to use it.

 

[HopperFan]

But on the other hand, they enforced all kinds of ridiculous rules on the DDP, sometimes to their own detriment. I was once next to a table where the 2 women said they weren't very hungry, and wanted an appetizer instead of an entree. However, the server pointed out that since they were on the dining plan, the rules clearly stated they must order an entree. The women pointed out that ordering an appetizer instead would be to Disney's financial advantage but he was insistent. They called the manager over, who agreed with the server-rules said it must be an entree. Don't think Chapek would agree-I think that in this case he'd be more flexible.

The DDP was priced however for that entree. Ordering  just an app is not financially in Disney's best interest.

You can't be flexible with a pre-paid plan like that, it's the opposite of flexibility. Those women knew what the plan entailed. They could have not used their dining plan credits and done whatever they wanted, no one was stopping them.

Not to be construed to be in defense of Disney or the Dining Plan but you buy it you know what it comes with and they weren't forced to use it.

THIS^

AND each restaurant has negotiated a reimbursement price for each item on the DDP. If the ladies had ordered an appetizer it was not part of a negotiated price. While the guest didn't care that they were taking a loss on what they paid for the DDP, the restaurant would be taking a loss as they might not have been able to get reimbursed.

We tend to look at "well it's all Disney" when in fact the resort is made up of TONS of profit centers, especially resorts and dining, that have lots of decisions to make each year to maximize profits.

 

[maxiesmom]

I’ve seen plenty of trip reports of people ordering kids meals at QS places but not TS places. It’s probably just a disboards thing and not something the average first does.

I do that every so often. I am usually good with a smaller portion of chicken fingers, and I don't eat many fries.

 

[Simba's Mom]

The DDP was priced however for that entree. Ordering  just an app is not financially in Disney's best interest.

You can't be flexible with a pre-paid plan like that, it's the opposite of flexibility. Those women knew what the plan entailed. They could have not used their dining plan credits and done whatever they wanted, no one was stopping them.

Not to be construed to be in defense of Disney or the Dining Plan but you buy it you know what it comes with and they weren't forced to use it.

Interesting-I hadn't thought of it that way. It didn't make sense before, but now I see. Thanks!

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

But on the other hand, they enforced all kinds of ridiculous rules on the DDP, sometimes to their own detriment. I was once next to a table where the 2 women said they weren't very hungry, and wanted an appetizer instead of an entree. However, the server pointed out that since they were on the dining plan, the rules clearly stated they must order an entree. The women pointed out that ordering an appetizer instead would be to Disney's financial advantage but he was insistent. They called the manager over, who agreed with the server-rules said it must be an entree. Don't think Chapek would agree-I think that in this case he'd be more flexible.

But what you might not be thinking about is how much food a WDW restaurant orders. They order based on trends. If all of a sudden all the people on the dining plan order an app, while cheaper, then the probably will end up with more main course waste. And they will probably have DDP people who want to order an app, but can't because it's sold out

Maybe pre-internet they could be more flexible. But now a days 1 disboarder gets an exception and it becomes policy.

Edit:. Apologies...I didn't see that several posters expressed similar thoughts as what I just did. Didn't mean to rehash

 

[binkeecat17]

They should just refuse children’s meals to anyone over 9 and eliminate this problem

Then it should be 12 and under. My niece is 10 years old and she eats like a little bird I can't imagine paying $59 for her buffets.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Then it should be 12 and under. My niece is 10 years old and she eats like a little bird I can't imagine paying $59 for her buffets.

The age is really just arbitrary. You'll run into kids menus for ages 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,etc in various places. I'm sure there are individuals out there that don't have the huge appetite. There will always be someone who then says "the age should be this because ___ doesn't eat much". Just how it is, no one is really unique here on that front. Even I had a little appetite until middle school really, I was older than 12...

Places just set an age and that's that.

 

[Anthony1971]

Perfect example as clothing has ridiculous markups. 25% discount would still be well above cost.

the majority of clothing does not have a ridiculous markup. Stores that run constant ridiculous sales like like Jos a Bank did… markup in general is 1.2-1.5 % of wholesale. That means if you were to buy a shirt for 20.00 retail the store paid 8 assuming 1.5. But wait lets not forget shipping the 3% credit card fee unless you pay cash the salaries who received the box unpacked tagged it put it rung it up on a POS system the cost of running maintaining a store like rent electric the hanger if the shirt is on one the cost of the POS system itself and much more…. If a retail store sold 20 shirts and that’s it they would quickly be out of business… unless they sell extremely sub par shirts in which case people would spend the same 20 elsewhere to get better quality… if that does not make sense read about Jos A Bank and why they had a lot of stores and are now out no longer…. Without people buying higher priced items a store, restaurant will not survive… ordering a 18 burger or a 36 steak is a personal choice but of course the restaurant will make more on the 36 steak…. Although a 36 steak will have a lower percent of profit there is just no way of making 15 from an 18 burger but easier on 36 steak.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

Then it should be 12 and under. My niece is 10 years old and she eats like a little bird I can't imagine paying $59 for her buffets.

Then don't go to a $59 buffet. Pretty simple. WDW has a plethora of dinning options so if $59 for your niece isn't cost effective there are options that are. Now if you want to have breakfast with Mickey and Minnie and $59 isn't worth it....that's more a you decision. And that is 100% cool.

Disney sets their prices. We decide if it's worth it. Sometimes ( or maybe a lot) we want to go but the personal perceived value isn't there. That's how the current WDW works. Even if we get a worst case recession I don't see that changing. They will just close whole restaurants to cap supply. Maybe I'm wrong...but I don't think I am.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

the majority of clothing does not have a ridiculous markup. Stores that run constant ridiculous sales like like Jos a Bank did… markup in general is 1.2-1.5 % of wholesale. That means if you were to buy a shirt for 20.00 retail the store paid 8 assuming 1.5. But wait lets not forget shipping the 3% credit card fee unless you pay cash the salaries who received the box unpacked tagged it put it rung it up on a POS system the cost of running maintaining a store like rent electric the hanger if the shirt is on one the cost of the POS system itself and much more…. If a retail store sold 20 shirts and that’s it they would quickly be out of business… unless they sell extremely sub par shirts in which case people would spend the same 20 elsewhere to get better quality… if that does not make sense read about Jos A Bank and why they had a lot of stores and are now out no longer…. Without people buying higher priced items a store, restaurant will not survive… ordering a 18 burger or a 36 steak is a personal choice but of course the restaurant will make more on the 36 steak…. Although a 36 steak will have a lower percent of profit there is just no way of making 15 from an 18 burger but easier on 36 steak.

I have a friend who is a manager at a high end steak place in chicago. Steak is consistently one of the least profitable things on the menu. We were there not that long ago and the 8oz filet was $59. The creamed spinach and potatoes were $12 &$14 each. Martinis $18 each and a decent bottle was $80. Who wants to rate the most to least profitable parts of my meal?

Per my buddy, steak is dead last.

 

[binkeecat17]

Then don't go to a $59 buffet. Pretty simple. WDW has a plethora of dinning options so if $59 for your niece isn't cost effective there are options that are. Now if you want to have breakfast with Mickey and Minnie and $59 isn't worth it....that's more a you decision. And that is 100% cool.

Disney sets their prices. We decide if it's worth it. Sometimes ( or maybe a lot) we want to go but the personal perceived value isn't there. That's how the current WDW works. Even if we get a worst case recession I don't see that changing. They will just close whole restaurants to cap supply. Maybe I'm wrong...but I don't think I am.

But at some point Disney's just ripping people off. Just like the $925 I'm paying for Columbus Day weekend to stay at the Contemporary per night. On a non-holiday weekend it's going to go way down. And I understand it's my choice where to eat and my choice whether I go there or not but their whole business model is selling wonderful magic to families but gouging everyone every way they can.

 

[Anthony1971]

I have a friend who is a manager at a high end steak place in chicago. Steak is consistently one of the least profitable things on the menu. We were there not that long ago and the 8oz filet was $59. The creamed spinach and potatoes were $12 &$14 each. Martinis $18 each and a decent bottle was $80. Who wants to rate the most to least profitable parts of my meal?

Per my buddy, steak is dead last.

Liquor is always the $$$$$ so is a regular beverage. Most places the biggest % is always a soda. Food itself is just not that profitable however steak houses are different animal as far as markup one is not going to walk into a high end steak house and find nor order a burger unless it is a high end type of beef $$$. The point was not what is the most profit by percent it is the same with most things you buy. A high end item does have a lower percentage of markup but making a 400 -500 profit on one 1100 item is what makes or breaks profit for a day… when you are making 10 or 12 on the 40 other sales that day. Next time buy that 1500 bottle of wine - we did, company money, and truthful the 50 bottles were just as enjoyable.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

My kids are so different. DS stopped eating off the kids menu by like 2 or 3. He just preferred adult food. DD on the other hand barely eats anything (quantity or variety), so feeding her is always a challenge. I dread her aging out of the kids meals after the next trip, though honestly now that she’s vegetarian (but doesn’t really eat vegetables) I envision a lot of French fries, fruit salad, and “anytime snacks” from my backpack.

 

[Jangles]

that she’s vegetarian (but doesn’t really eat vegetables)

Ohh that’s a hard one. My daughter works at an English boarding school and she finds that buying lots of vegetarian and vegan recipe books and letting the children choose a recipe from them, shop and cook (with her help) encourages them to try other vegetables/meals.

 

[Lewisc]

Then it should be 12 and under. My niece is 10 years old and she eats like a little bird I can't imagine paying $59 for her buffets.

I think it used to be 12. My memory is Disney lowered the age so it was the same as the age for tickets.

Wait until Disney decides, for consistancy, to charge extra for more then 2 guests over 10 in the room.

 

[SL6827]

I think it used to be 12. My memory is Disney lowered the age so it was the same as the age for tickets.

Wait until Disney decides, for consistancy, to charge extra for more then 2 guests over 10 in the room.

That is one I have yet to think of, but I could certainly see them doing that. Though the industry standard with hotels is age 18 and above, correct?

 

[Lewisc]

That is one I have yet to think of, but I could certainly see them doing that. Though the industry standard with hotels is age 18 and above, correct?

Yes, but there hotels which charge extra for kids in a room. A hotel in Vegas even charges for an infant in a porta crib.

 

[SL6827]

Yes, but there hotels which charge extra for kids in a room. A hotel in Vegas even charges for an infant in a porta crib.

Wow! I bet they will wait till this is more the norm in Orlando before they would start such. But I don't put this change past them at all. Would be a good selling point for DVC as well.