EJ,
Hee hee hee - I love it when the legal terms get tossed around. I guess a Nazi reference must be next (old Usenet comment).
For those who are wondering, this from the 'legal information institute' at Cornell Law School:
Promissory Estoppel: The doctrine allowing recovery on a promise made without consideration when the reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promisee relied to his or her detriment
So I guess it would come down to a legal finding that a) Disney made a promise to provide AP discounts for the time period in question, b) that it was reasonable for the promisee to rely on that promise, and c) that said reliance was detrimental. Now
that's a Court TV case I'd like to see!
EJ, there's a difference between stating the raw numbers of a poll (what I did) and attempting to infer something from the percentage results (what you did). I can back up the raw data - check out the thread. I'd appreciate it if you could provide the sampling error and bias factors for the results of this poll, and address the population size issue. Then we can reasonably determine whose side is better supported.
To reiterate my side: Disney has, what 10,000 or 20,000 rooms (anyone? anyone? Bueller?) Let's say 10,000. Even if all 153 people who said they weren't staying onsite did so at the same time (highly unlikely), that would only be 153/10000 x 100 = 1.5% of their occupancy. Spread that out over the rest of the year (14 weeks) and you get 0.1%/week. I doubt that this is going to affect Disney. And I contend that the general public is much less concerned about AP discounts than DIS folks.
I'm glad you sent Disney a letter - I think that everyone who is dissatisfied with any service, anywhere. But I hope you didn't state that your opinion was the "Will of the boards"; as someone else above stated, it isn't.
Well, I promised to be oh, so pleasant. So now I'll start.
Erick
PS I have two PAP vouchers that will be worth much less if the AP discounts are eliminated. So sign me up for some of that Estoppel, please!
