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

[NMW]

p.s i don't think treating gramma to dinner when she joins the fam for a day in Epcot is "cheating" and if disney doesn't make a distinction about child and adult credits i also don't think its "cheating" to pay OOP for 2 kids at Cali. Grill and use 4 credits for M&D. AS i see it- or saw it on the "old" plan- its part of an all inclusive package- food tickets and hotel. Each family uses it to feed their family- simple as that, also the DP is designed so that you still need to purchase food out of pocket- so who cares what meals and for whom? People are a little too upity about this. Disney has set new rules- they do it all the time. MYW was a big change too.

You were right. However, in June Disney changed the DDP brochure on their website. It now states that adults are unable to use child meal entitlements and that the dining plan is non-transferable. There have been several posts on the board from people stating that they were unable to order over what their card said even if they had the credits. For example, if your card says 2A/2C, you would be unable to order 3 adult meals (treating Aunt Bertha) and pay oop for one or both kids. Several posters mentioned talking to managers (one a Yachtsman stands out) and were told "no." They can only use to card to get the number of adult meals on the card, not over it.

I really doubt this will effect all that many people. I'm sure many people using the plan never considered treating friends/family not on the DDP or using child credits for adult meals.

I also don't think it's "cheating" paying oop for 2 kids meals so the parents can eat at a signature restaurant one night during their trip. It seems like that wasn't the only thing being done though. I guess people were treating off-site guests, family members not on the plan, friends, and Disney may have never intended that. The brochure only talks about using the plan for YOUR family not paying oop for your kids meals so you can treat various others not on the plan.

I really wonder if people deliberatly misusing the plan this way forced Disney to make the changes in the brochure.

 

[cgbsilver@hotmail.co]

I don't see the distinction that you're making here. That's pretty much what I said. The issue is that the credits are used pretty-much for the people they were provided for. That's the point I was making.

Well, It could be interpreted that you are saying that the you only allowed one TS, one Snack and one counter service each day, with the exception of the Signature meal. So I just wanted to clear up you can use your credits the way you please in order to feed your family. All counter service one night and all Table Service the next and eat snacks all day on the third.

 

[bicker]

Welcome to the world of one sided travel agreements.

This is a good point, but it goes beyond travel. It is really the nature of the mass-market. There is no way to simultaneously satisfy the mass-market's demand for low prices, the investment market's demand for profitability and operational efficiency, while still providing a customized service engagement process for each customer. The way the mass-market works is that the sellers compete with each other by offering their products and services to the marketplace. Buyers can compare the sellers' presentations and decide which to purchase from (if any). That's it. The buyer cannot put out RFPs to mass-market suppliers, specifying what information the seller must provide. By the same token, buyers are welcome to use the lack of information, indeed the lack of guarantees, as input to their purchasing decision.

 

[bicker]

I'm just looking for consistency

Even that might be unreasonable to expect, given how much customers expect flexibility in enforcement based on special circumstances. Just read these boards for a while and you'll see even to the extent Disney is consistent there are people who complain about that because it overlooks aspects of individual situations that people feel should be factored in.

 

[bicker]

huh?

Why is this so hard to fathom? Each restaurant can operate as it sees fit. That seems very clear to me.

 

[frndofpooh]

No where does it say you can use the Dining Plan for anyone who isn't in your party. The reality is that the five pages are rather redundant, giving individuals more opportunities to read into the brochure more than it ever included. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those are still fabrications by the buyer, and therefore not valid.

I'm not talking about trying to transfer credits to people outside of your party, and I'm not talking about trying to get more adult meals than your party should be entitled to by having children routinely share adult meals. I'm talking about two adults in the same family sharing a meal. The plan gives my family a pool of credits for the group to use collectively. Do you really believe that my wife and I (both paying for the plan) are not entitled to share a meal and use only one credit to do so? If so, where in the brochure or any other material provided by Disney does it lead you to conclude this?

There can be honest disagreements about the details of the plan, and discussing it can be helpful to those of us who want to know the details so that we can follow the rules. Using terms like "fabrication" to describe those who do not agree with you is not helpful to the process. I apparently disagree with you about the interpretation of the brochure, but I believe that my view that the brochure permits sharing between two adults who are both on the plan (supported by numerous CMs telling people that this is fine) is not only a reasonable interpretation, but the best one. I also think that any ambiguity in the brochure should be read in the favor of the customer. Disney has the power to clarify anything it wants at any time, but with that power comes the responsibility to do so when it is needed. If you disagree, I respect your point of view. Honest people can see the same thing two ways, and it doesn't mean that one of them is "fabricating" anything.

 

[Sammie]

That's the whole problem. Disney has created a problem by not spelling out the rules clearly, and they have compounded the problem by enforcing the rules in a way that leads people to believe that something is allowed. CMs have encouraged people to share meals in order to save credits, and this creates an expectation that it is permitted. If I'm trying to figure out what the rules of the plan are, I have only a few sources of information. One is the printed brochure. Another is what a CM may tell me on the phone. Another is what a CM may tell me in writing in response to an email. Another is what a CM in a restaurant may tell me while I am there. Other than that, I can't read the minds of the Disney employees who developed the plan to try to figure out if I should or should not believe what their employees are telling me. No matter how big a company is, at some point the public should be able to rely on what the company's employees tell them.

Did Disney truly do this, or did the Internet convince you they did. They are not the same. Unless you got something in writing from Disney and then it was contradicted by Disney in person to you, the rest is hearsay.

As far as someone asked for consistency, never will happen at Disney. They have gotten too big. You have so many employees with thier own agenda that the trickle down effect from what management says they should do and what actually happens is never going to be the same.

For example the turnover in front line CMs, those the guest most often comes in contact with is huge at Disney. Why; many reasons, pay is not great, hours are long and lately abuse from guests is out of control. I had a friend get spit on last week by a guest. Yes, they removed this person from the park but does anyone really even want to have to deal with this on minimum wage.

You have management make a policy and it is distributed to the front lines. You have a CM that knows, just as soon as she/he can find another job they are out of there, when you ask them a guestion, they could care less about Disney and its policy, they just want you out of their face, so they tell you what you want to hear. "You" being any guest, not anyone in particular.

The biggest problem Disney made was not preparing for the scam. They should know by now that anything they put out there, some guests are going to work it. They should know the Internet is going to feed that too. You can blame Disney for not preparing for the scamming, but you can blame others for the scam.

 

[rantnnravin]

Why is this so hard to fathom? Each restaurant can operate as it sees fit. That seems very clear to me.

It was the "There is no one set policy" that i was reaccting to. How far does that extend.
Wouldn't you agree, bicker, that one could argue that this statement alone from Disney itself -- contradicts your entire argument thus far?
It doesn't matter what the brochure says, or what the Disney higher ups intended, since "there is no one set policy".

 

[Luv2Roam]

I think anyone who has been a Disney guest at some point has experienced an unexpected and unannounced change.
One of my personal examples -- the DDE on January 1, 2005.
We had been DDE members for months, but not a complete year.
When we purchased the DDE, the discount was accepted on all major holidays.
January 1, for dinner, we dine at Rose & Crown. Lo and behold sometime during the meal we find out the DDE was no longer allowed on major holidays.
We even thought it was the error of the CM server.
No, the plan changed that day. No notice.
And the server kept even going back and forth: No we would not get it; Yes, I made a mistake, you will get the discount; No, I was right the first time, you won't get the discount.
We did get the discount, but because the entire service was so bad and I think she knew we had had it with the whole pace. (And we have never returned and probably won't.)

 

[bicker]

No where does it say you can use the Dining Plan for anyone who isn't in your party. The reality is that the five pages are rather redundant, giving individuals more opportunities to read into the brochure more than it ever included. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those are still fabrications by the buyer, and therefore not valid.

I'm not talking about trying to transfer credits to people outside of your party, and I'm not talking about trying to get more adult meals than your party should be entitled to by having children routinely share adult meals. I'm talking about two adults in the same family sharing a meal.

And I'm not.

If so, where in the brochure or any other material provided by Disney does it lead you to conclude this?

Concluding is irrelevant. If Disney decides that restricting sharing is the most effective means of ensuring their objectives for the Dining Plan are met, there is nothing that should prevent them from doing that.

Using terms like "fabrication" to describe those who do not agree with you is not helpful to the process.

It is, actually, because it describes the action it is referring to.

 

[bicker]

Wouldn't you agree, bicker, that one could argue that this statement alone from Disney itself -- contradicts your entire argument thus far?

On the contrary, it confirms it.

It doesn't matter what the brochure says

It actually is what the brochure says. I believe I've mentioned that already.

 

[Delaware Mike]

I think "non-transferrable" means "non-transferrable." Meaning you cannot use it for anyone other than whom it was purchased for.

I apologize, Linda, however "non-transferrable" means the product/service cannot be used by anyone except by whom it was purchased.

IMHO, and please, I mean no disrespect to Linda or anyone else as I value all opinions posted here, however the confusion in this part of the plan which I take the greatest umbrage. I purchased the DDP, which provides "x" snack credits, "y" counter-service meals, and "z" table service meals. Let's say, for example, I'm and adult staying 8 nights with the DDP, staying alone at a WDW resort and let's limit our discussion to only TS meals. Under the plan, I have credits representing 8 TS meals. If I happen to meet someone while walking through The World Showcase in EPCOT, and invite her to dinner at Le Cellier, I should be able to use one of my 8 TS credits for my meal, and one for my guest. It makes no difference who eats the other adult meal, as I'm still using 2 credits. I'll be leaving the table with 6 credits remaining "in the bank". After doing this 4 times, I've used all 8 TS credits and I'm done with my TS credits. Hence, have I violated any rule? In my opinion, I think not.

The same applies for a family with pooled credits they have purchased...

The credits on the DDP represent a value, or money if you prefer. Just like money, once spent, it's gone. And since I purchased the value of those TS credits, as long as I stay within the rules, I should be able to use them anyway I wish... Hey, check the rules. Like Prego, "it's in there...."

In short, if I use the credits in the described manner, I'm not violating the rule. If I give the credits to someone else to use while I'm not present, then I'm violating the non-transferrable rule.

Thank you for allow me to express my opinion.

 

[Pedler]

Why is this so hard to fathom? Each restaurant can operate as it sees fit. That seems very clear to me.

I understand that and if that is Disney's policy then that's it. Still I would have thought that at least for the Disney owned places they would have either some uniform policy or at least one based on the type of place. For example Signature places have one policy non signature others. It is confusing for the guest to have the possibility of each place having different policies and no where to find out what they are.

 

[LSchrow]

so...........
i'm going to WDW (BWV studio w/DP) with DH for 6 nights. we will use only 5 of the 6 TS's.
My parents, DB & family come in (BWV 2bdrm w/DP) the same day DH is leaving.
i'm staying with them for a few days before returning home (MS said it was fine ~ i just can't get the DP).
i planned on having 2 TS credits for my last/their 1st evening, using one for self & other for my dad.

the following night, i figured dad could order 2 meals, "giving" one to me.

i dunno now........

 

[calypso*a*go-go]

I personally feel the answer to the problem of adults using child credits to purchase adult meals would be to issue family members on the dining plan an actual booklet that containes tear-out vouchers for each meal type and includes the name the reservation is under and an expiration date based on check-out. For example, the voucher would clearly identify that it is for a "Child" Counter Service meal, or an "Adult" Table Service meal. You order three adult entrees and one child entree at Pecos Bill's...great, just hand the CM at the register the corresponding vouchers and be on your merry way. The older kids want to go their separate way...fine, rip-out their meal vouchers and threaten them with a slow and painful death if they lose them (okay, maybe that's not the best example -- but you get the idea, right?).

Now the real question is: Is the problem really wide-spread enough to justify the expense of changing the system, or is this group of criminal masterminds on the DISboard such a small percentage of total visitors to WDW that we're having hundreds of debates about something that is really small potatoes to the Powers-That-Be?

 

[bicker]

That's a good question. Normally, this sort of thing starts out small, with only a small number of people exploiting the system. However, it is clear that enough people were violating the non-transferability rule for admission passes that it warranted putting in rather expensive equipment: biometric scanners.

 

[castleri]

I apologize, Linda, however "non-transferrable" means the product/service cannot be used by anyone except by whom it was purchased.

IMHO, and please, I mean no disrespect to Linda or anyone else as I value all opinions posted here, however the confusion in this part of the plan which I take the greatest umbrage. I purchased the DDP, which provides "x" snack credits, "y" counter-service meals, and "z" table service meals. Let's say, for example, I'm and adult staying 8 nights with the DDP, staying alone at a WDW resort and let's limit our discussion to only TS meals. Under the plan, I have credits representing 8 TS meals. If I happen to meet someone while walking through The World Showcase in EPCOT, and invite her to dinner at Le Cellier, I should be able to use one of my 8 TS credits for my meal, and one for my guest. It makes no difference who eats the other adult meal, as I'm still using 2 credits. I'll be leaving the table with 6 credits remaining "in the bank". After doing this 4 times, I've used all 8 TS credits and I'm done with my TS credits. Hence, have I violated any rule? In my opinion, I think not.

The same applies for a family with pooled credits they have purchased...

The credits on the DDP represent a value, or money if you prefer. Just like money, once spent, it's gone. And since I purchased the value of those TS credits, as long as I stay within the rules, I should be able to use them anyway I wish... Hey, check the rules. Like Prego, "it's in there...."

In short, if I use the credits in the described manner, I'm not violating the rule. If I give the credits to someone else to use while I'm not present, then I'm violating the non-transferrable rule.

Thank you for allow me to express my opinion.

I Agree completely - that doesn't mean Disney will though.

 

[rantnnravin]

bicker,
i respect what you're saying, but the point is that there need to be resonable expectations on the part of the consumer. Whenthe "official line" is that "There is no one set policy", the consumer, in fact, has no idea what he or she is purchasing (Door #1?, Door #2?, or Door #3?)
you suggest with some of your posts that this is, indeed, the gamble consumers take when they purchase the dining plan, but in other posts,
you tout the merits of "what the brochure spells out" and what the enigmatic *Disney* decides.

If you pay $37.99 per adult for dining, you can spend those credits any way the brochure explicitly says you can,

No where does it say you can use the Dining Plan for anyone who isn't in your party. The reality is that the five pages are rather redundant, giving individuals more opportunities to read into the brochure more than it ever included.

Regardless, I was being charitable by saying that the brochure was vague. It really isn't. It says that the members of your part can have 1TS, 1CS and 1 snack for each night of the reservation, and can combine TS credits to enjoy signature meals. That's it.

If Disney decides that restricting sharing is the most effective means of ensuring their objectives for the Dining Plan are met, there is nothing that should prevent them from doing that.

Yet, the brochure is vague and clearly, *Disney* can't decide what the "rule" is - nor, who actually makes the rules.

 

[bicker]

i respect what you're saying, but the point is that there need to be resonable expectations on the part of the consumer.

Reasonable expectations are as explicitly stated in the brochure. Don't read anything into it; just read it for what it actually says.

Whenthe "official line" is that "There is no one set policy", the consumer, in fact, has no idea what he or she is purchasing

This has always been the case with every theme park I've ever been to.

you suggest with some of your posts that this is, indeed, the gamble consumers take when they purchase the dining plan

Every service experience is a gamble. You're not gambling about what you're explicitly promised, but rather only with respect to the "over and above".

but in other posts, you tout the merits of "what the brochure spells out"

Which, as I mentioned above, is what guests can reasonably expect.

*Disney* can't decide what the "rule" is - nor, who actually makes the rules.

You're mistaken. That which is explicitly stated in the brochure is guaranteed. The "over and above" is up to the management of each restaurant manager, who can empower each server.

 

[rantnnravin]

Quote:
It doesn't matter what the brochure says

It actually is what the brochure says. I believe I've mentioned that already.

well, which one is it, bicker, go by what is written in the brochure, or the brochure is irrelevant?

quite the paradox, don't you think?