Do you think this is what is confussing CM and Guests?

[cgbsilver@hotmail.co]

Q. Can adults use child meal entitlements?
A. Sorry, meal entitlements can not be shared between adults and children age 3-9.

I was reading the updated Dinning plan Brochure and Came across this little diddy.

I am thinking this might be the thing confussing us. In my interpretation this just says that an adult can not use a Childs credit. What do you think??

 

[Cinderumbrella]

Interesting idea....

 

[kcashner]

I think this is exactly what the problem is--and Disney is trying to close this loophole in the plan.

I think the issue is not that FOOD cannot be shared, but that credits purchased for a child cannot be used to purchase an adult meal (shared by an adult), and that the wording is what is causing all the stuff about sharing.

 

[BeckWhy]

Is the new brochure online? If it is, what's the URL?

 

[bluejasmine]

I agree thats there to keep adults from using childs credits. I think its ridiculous that ppl think you cant share. While I dont understand two adults sharing I can understand a child sharing with an adult, like my DD doesnt like whats on the kids menu at Pecos so I share a chicken wrap with her.. Now sharing at a buffett type place is just trying to skip out on a bill IMHO..lol

 

[cgbsilver@hotmail.co]

http://adisneyworld.disney.go.com/m...gespecific/eng/nontheme/tickets/MYWDining.pdf

 

[BethR]

I do agree that Disney is trying to stop the use of Child's credits by Adults. But if that is SOLELY it, then the CMs who are passing on information really DON'T understand because when I inquired about sharing meals, I made sure that the CM knew that everyone in our party was an adult and that there was no way that we could be using child's credits for adults.

I was told that we could not order 3 adult meals with 3 adult credits to share amoung 4 adults.

 

[Mom of Sleepy Bashful and BabyDoc]

I was told that we could not order 3 adult meals with 3 adult credits to share amoung 4 adults.

Beth, I totally get ya. But I bet when you go to a restaurant while you're at WDW and order 3 adult meals for 4 adults, you will have no problem. This is just my opinion, though.

 

[Sammie]

Based on conversations with friends who work for Disney, I think they are trying to deal with two issues.

One: you can not use a child entitlement and feed an adult.

Two: You can not use any entitlements, child or adult, and feed someone not on the plan. Someone not on your personal reservation. No transfer.

The way I understand it is if Family Jones purchases the DDP for 2 adults and 2 children, as long as no adult in this family dines on a child entitlement, I don't think they care about sharing among the Jones family.

I do think they care if the Family Jones feeds the Family Smith that is staying off property.

I know some will say why would they care, they care because the DDP is a package and packages are sold for many reasons and one is that they want you to stay with Disney in order to get the meals. They don't want you to stay with Marriot and get some of the meals.

Now I know some will say but I would eat those meals anyway, if I don't share them. The problem is if Family Jones is feeding Family Smith steak at LeCellier and then going off property to Chik Fil A to make up the other meals, Disney is losing out.

Also would Family Smith book LeCellier and pay for steak if not being treated to the DDP, maybe not.

All of what they want to accomplish with the Plan is based on extensive marketing and so many times guests never look beyond their own personal use of the plan and not the big scheme.

Now the problem is in order to stop the use of child entitlement's for adult meals and to stop the feeding on those not on the plan, some CMs might confuse the issues and say no sharing at all.

That is until they divide the credits on the cards, then it will all be taken care of.

 

[akalittleeva]

quoted from Sammie "The way I understand it is if Family Jones purchases the DDP for 2 adults and 2 children, as long as no adult in this family dines on a child entitlement, I don't think they care about sharing among the Jones family."

Even if an adult has no intent of using the child credit for themselves, but would like to share their adult meal with their child for whatever reason, it could be seen by a CM as them trying to "save" a child credit, perhaps for the adult to use later, there is no way to know for sure with pooling, so I could see them not allowing children to share with parents. I really hope they separate the credits.

 

[Sammie]

quoted from Sammie "The way I understand it is if Family Jones purchases the DDP for 2 adults and 2 children, as long as no adult in this family dines on a child entitlement, I don't think they care about sharing among the Jones family."

Even if an adult has no intent of using the child credit for themselves, but would like to share their adult meal with their child for whatever reason, it could be seen by a CM as them trying to "save" a child credit, perhaps for the adult to use later, there is no way to know for sure with pooling, so I could see them not allowing children to share with parents. I really hope they separate the credits.

Ok thanks, I did not explain that enough. I meant I did not think they would mind if you order 2 adult meals and 2 children's meals and shared. Definitely what you said would be possible and might not be allowed.

Basically due to the abuse of some, it just a mess, and I tried to warn some this would happen. That everyone would be affected.

 

[JimMIA]

All of what they want to accomplish with the Plan is based on extensive marketing and so many times guests never look beyond their own personal use of the plan and not the big scheme.

I think this is the crux of the matter.

As a consumer, I can (and will) make the argument that if I pay $37.99 per adult for dining, I can spend those credits any way I please. It makes no sense to me as a consumer to say that I may - at my discretion - use two TS credits for signature dining, but may not use them to treat my pal, Mr. Smith and his lovely wife, Conchita.

I know all about the marketing assumptions Disney made, but you know what...if you priced it wrong, that's your bad, not mine. Live with it for now, adjust later.

OTOH...

as an MBA business person, I know how these plans are developed and priced, and I appreciate that a package plan is not the same as buying a six-pack of Sam Adams. There is an overall marketing stategy at work, and the product is specifically targeted, designed, and priced for certain people. It was never intended for everyone, and nobody except us here on the DIS ever assumed it would be. We like "one size fits all," but it doesn't occur much in the real world.

The tough business answer is: The Dining Plan is what it is. If the plan doesn't meet your needs, don't buy it. And trust me, you're buying it whether you're paying for it or getting it free! Ain't no such thing as a free lunch, much less a free character meal.

In any program like this, there are always mistakes made and "fine-tuning" to be done. The glitch with being able to use kids credits for adult meals (thereby almost quadrupling their value) shows that even marketing geniuses can make mistakes. Disney made one here, and they have found an easy, cheap interim way to fix it -- tell the CM's not to accept it.

The issue about treating someone not on the plan -- to me -- is one of those questions that is better left alone. It doesn't happen that often.

Also, once the lovely Conchita eats at Le Cellier, Mr. Smith most definitely will be bringing her back. The Joneses taking the Smiths to Le Cellier is the best possible marketing of Disney Dining...and Mr. Jones is paying for it!

As far as sharing among participants of the same category -- I think that is another issue the geniuses did not anticipate. It's the natural result, not of anyone's desire for Chic Fil-A, but of their desire for CRT and other signature dining.

Disney's best approach to this pressing problem (IMHO) would be the implementation of a simple and reasonable sharing charge. That's common restaurant practice and something anyone can understand. Then, it becomes the consumer's choice -- do I REALLY want to share that bad...or not?

 

[Lewisc]

Disney is 100% to blame for this situation. Until the recent brochure change the terms of the plan, and prior plans, made no distinction between adult and child credits. Many CMs confirmed this.

The entire plan talks about total TS credits and tells guests the credits can be used as the family sees fit. Using credits to treat other family members makes logical sense.

It's up to Disney to explain the plan in a matter that's consistent with the way Disney wants the plan to work.

Jim--Guests on a cruise ship or in an all-inclusive resort can't skip meals and use the skipped meals to justify treating others. It's obvious guests will be treating at Le Cellier and paying out of pocket in less expensive meals, even CS meals. The problem is Disney assumed policies they didn't communicate with guests.

Ok thanks, I did not explain that enough. I meant I did not think they would mind if you order 2 adult meals and 2 children's meals and shared. Definitely what you said would be possible and might not be allowed.

Basically due to the abuse of some, it just a mess, and I tried to warn some this would happen. That everyone would be affected.

 

[3PRINCESSMOM]

Amen and Hallelujah!!!

 

[Sammie]

To JimMIA very well said.

To LewisC, again we disagree. I had no problem from the beginning understanding what they wanted to do with the plan and that was not from any inside info, it was from a basic understanding of economics.

No business wants to give expensive meals to anyone for $10.99. Even getting a kid's meal for CS and Buffet for TS for a child is more than $10.99, so certainly it was not hard for me to understand that Disney did not want to provide a CS meal which can average at least $10 and a nice dinner at Le Cellier for that $10.99 and a snack.

Even though I will agree that Disney did not do a good job of preventing the loopholes and making sure that "anyone" could understand their intentions, I feel it was pretty plain to begin with.

I personally just think some, not all, wanted the "too good to be true" situation to be true.

 

[BeckWhy]

http://adisneyworld.disney.go.com/m...gespecific/eng/nontheme/tickets/MYWDining.pdf

Thank you!

 

[jonimce]

JimMIA, Thank you. Hope everyone reads this.

On the free dining, I'm not sure what you mean. We were already booked for 7 nights starting Aug. 13th, full pkg. w/dinning. When I heard about free dining my TA got it for us and added 3 more nights (at a delux resort) and I still got money back. It is truly free for us.

 

[Pedler]

To JimMIA very well said.

To LewisC, again we disagree. I had no problem from the beginning understanding what they wanted to do with the plan and that was not from any inside info, it was from a basic understanding of economics.

No business wants to give expensive meals to anyone for $10.99. Even getting a kid's meal for CS and Buffet for TS for a child is more than $10.99, so certainly it was not hard for me to understand that Disney did not want to provide a CS meal which can average at least $10 and a nice dinner at Le Cellier for that $10.99 and a snack.

Even though I will agree that Disney did not do a good job of preventing the loopholes and making sure that "anyone" could understand their intentions, I feel it was pretty plain to begin with.

I personally just think some, not all, wanted the "too good to be true" situation to be true.

Sammie,

They not only didn't do a good job preventing loopholes they actually had the vast majority of thier employees that have contact with the customers encouraging it. This wasn't the case of some "secret" loophole that only savy WDW visitors got from the Internet. It wasn't the case of a few rouge CM's encouraging people to behave poorly or sprinkle pixie dust. This was a case where thier front line employees were offering this up as unsolicited advice. A simple change to the FAQ clears up the policy intention. Hopefully they will train thier CM's properly as well.

I totally understand why they would want to eliminate sharing. I think in the dark of the night they care much more about the on site customer than the off site customer. While both paid for park tickets they make a lot more money from the on site customer. Still LewisC is correct that this is a problem that they have created. It continues today with poorly trained CM's. If they want to eliminate sharing simply have a signifigant plate charge for sharing. Many fine restaurants do this or just eliminate sharing all together. If you want to eliminate most of the instances of people buying meals for others not on the dinning plan limit the number of meals purchased at a sitting to the numbers listed on the card. That way a family that has 2A 1C couldn't treat another family staying off site and buy meals for themselves at the same time. There are simple non technical ways to enforce the rules.

 

[Linda 441]

The "treating" others is a very fine print rule as I read it. It is in the bottom and says something like the creadit have no cash value and can not be transferred, blah blah blah... Not as clearly stated as the child/adult thing (imho).

For us, it would be a way to have more flexibility - not necessarily "save" money or "cheat" Disney. We're spending a lot on our upcoming vacation, a few hundred dollars more or less isn't the end of the world (not that I'm not budget consious, just saying that at this point, it's not making or breaking the trip). I'm either using those credits at a high priced rest for myself or for my freinds. If we can't share and our friends get the plan too then our whole group will spend way less out of pocket, we'll eat more sit down on the plan (and we can easily drop $200 on a sit down meal alone for the 6 of us - w/o alcohol of course). So, in our case, I beleive Disney would actually be losing money by not allowing us to treat our friends to dinner with our credits.

I also wonder, if the treating others "problem" really has to do more with when the dining plan is free. We are going when we are paying for it.

I see it different from a cruise as well because EVERYONE on a cruise has the same thing - all you can eat. You can't bring people who are not on the cruise onto the boat to eat. They haven't given you "coupons" for each type of meal to use and when they are gone, you have to pay. That's the difference in my mind. When my table service credits are gone, Did that make sense?

 

[bicker]

As a consumer, I can (and will) make the argument that if I pay $37.99 per adult for dining, I can spend those credits any way I please.

Of course anyone can make any argument they wish. To make it a valid argument, however, it needs to be based on valid foundations. When you purchase the Dining Plan, you're purchasing the agreement that Disney can set whatever rules they wish. It says so right there in the brochure. There is no way to avoid that fact.

This basically means that there is no merit in the argument that you can "spend those credits any way [you] please." It would be very attractive to have that right, but we don't.

If you pay $37.99 per adult for dining, you can spend those credits any way the brochure explicitly says you can, and for things that the brochure is vague or silent about, you can spend those credits any way Disney allows you to.