Exclusions when on Dining Plan?

[twinmum]

OK, I thought I'd read everything I needed to re: dining plan. But...recently I've seena number of posts which lead me to this question:

When you are ordering your meal on the dining plan, are there ever food items that are excluded? I don't mean add-ons like shrimp etc, or glow cubes or fancy drinks. I just mean if there are 10 appetizers, can you pick any one? If there are 10 main courses, are they all available to you?

My DH (who knows very little about WDW and has left the planning pretyy much up to me, bless him!) will be very disappointed in his California Grill experience if he can't have the sushi, for example!

Thanks for your help!
Twinmum

 

[2GuysSeattle]

Hi, generally you can order anything off the menu. I think I did read somewhere that sushi wasn't included though. I could be wrong about that. Apparently now at Tony's in MK all DDP customers must have the "dessert sampler" rather than order their choice from the dessert menu. This doesn't sit well with me.....is this the beginning of a trend of Disney putting more restrictions on the dining plan? I hope not. That was the one thing that was most appealing to me about the plan, the fact that you could order ANYTHING you wanted off the appetizer, entree, and dessert menus. Perhaps there are others that have experienced their menu choices being restricted while on the plan?

 

[daisy58]

I was just about to post the same question...are there any exclusions with the DDP?...look like there may be???? This could be a factor in choosing to go with the plan, or not

 

[bicker]

The FAQ has a section on exclusions. The Tony's dessert one is relatively new. I hadn't read anything about it a week ago. Beyond that, we know that two entrees at Teppanyaki have been moved off of the entrees menu and on to a specialties menu (not eligible for the Dining Plan). Beyond that, there might be one or two exclusions at DTD, but that's it. The vast majority of restaurants allow you to order any appetizer for one, any entree for one, any soft drink for one, and any dessert for one on their menu.

 

[BCV23]

Don't know if it is on the list, but there is currently a dessert on the menu at Ragaln Road that is excluded. But I agree, exclusions are few and far between.

 

[bicker]

Here's the current list of exclusions on the FAQ:

1) Earl of Sandwich--fountain drink and cookie for dessert
2) Tangerine--limits your dessert
3) The Lunching Pad - no dessert

I'm going to ask Joyce to consider putting the Tony's dessert thing on there, as well as specifically mentioning the reclassification at Teppanyaki, since that seems to cause the most confusion.

 

[jjohnson]

Don't know if it is on the list, but there is currently a dessert on the menu at Ragaln Road that is excluded. But I agree, exclusions are few and far between.

Do you remember which one? I ate at RR in May and there were no exclusions including the apps for 2 could be used for 1 person so this is something new.

 

[Lewisc]

I've read Pepper Market at CSR went back to restricting desserts to tier one bakery items.

I've been to restaurants that offer fixed price menus. Most menus have asterisks for items that either are unavailable or have an up charge. I was surprised to see DDP has virtually no restrictions. Guests will be fare more surprised with what's included than with the few items that are excluded.

I wonder if the sampler dessert at Tony's saves money on food or is simply a more efficient way to offer dessert to a large number of guests.

 

[BCV23]

Do you remember which one? I ate at RR in May and there were no exclusions including the apps for 2 could be used for 1 person so this is something new.

We ate there in April/May and had the same experience as you. But this time, the two person appetizers had to be for two people (not that I don't think that is fair) and this dessert was excluded.

Sorry I don't remember the exact title or price but it was the last dessert listed and was a "dessert platter" or something like that. It was around $11 or $12. I just checked and it is not on the menu listed on allears.

 

[jjohnson]

We ate there in April/May and had the same experience as you. But this time, the two person appetizers had to be for two people (not that I don't think that is fair) and this dessert was excluded.

Sorry I don't remember the exact title or price but it was the last dessert listed and was a "dessert platter" or something like that. It was around $11 or $12. I just checked and it is not on the menu listed on allears.

Thanks. I'll list it under exclusions as dessert sampler. I was also surprised they included the 2 for 1 in May.

 

[Hope73]

We at eat LeCellier in jan and one of the deserts that was 12.00 wasn't included.

I hin one item at Wolfgang Puck's is't included.

 

[ernste40]

I just booked reservations at teppanyaki for late Nov. Can anyone fill me in on what the above-spoken restrictions might be?

Thanks!

EE

 

[bicker]

Here's a link to a message about the limitation at Teppanyaki --
http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=12616583&postcount=19

 

[2GuysSeattle]

It just seems to me that the list of exclusions, though apparently pretty short right now, keeps growing longer and longer. I can see an extravagant $11 - $12 dessert being excluded from the plan, but this is not the case at Tony's. The desserts there are in the $5 - $6 range, but you can't order what you want! I think this is a sign of things to come and that's a shame. The dining plan is losing a lot of it's flexibility and value, IMO.

 

[bicker]

I wouldn't say "longer and longer." I think one "longer" describes it well-enough.

I think the issue at Tony's is strictly a matter of efficiency. I suspect that, as with every other offering, Disney will continue to change things until the value is in line with the price. Right now, as this forum clearly demonstrates, "too many" people think the Dining Plan is "too good" of a deal. That indicates to a business that they're missing revenue opportunities. They've got to fix that. They could raise the price or adjust what they offer to match the price. When deciding between the two, they have to be governed by whether or not customers are price sensitive -- in this case I bet they are.

 

[Lewisc]

I agree. The sampler dessert is very efficient. Desserts aren't prepared to order but can be dropped on the table as soon as the dinner dishes are picked up. Also makes ordering easier for the restaurant.

This is one of the first restrictions at a Disney owned restaurant. I wonder if this might result in non-Disney restaurants such as Chefs making similar changes.

The question is if more restaurants will change to a house dessert. Could the appetizer become a choice of soup or salad? The dining plan would still make economic sense but would be less attractive to some guests.

MYW Dining was a great deal for the customer. Changes are making it less of a deal.

I wouldn't say "longer and longer." I think one "longer" describes it well-enough.

I think the issue at Tony's is strictly a matter of efficiency. I suspect that, as with every other offering, Disney will continue to change things until the value is in line with the price. Right now, as this forum clearly demonstrates, "too many" people think the Dining Plan is "too good" of a deal. That indicates to a business that they're missing revenue opportunities. They've got to fix that. They could raise the price or adjust what they offer to match the price. When deciding between the two, they have to be governed by whether or not customers are price sensitive -- in this case I bet they are.

 

[bicker]

Sounds good, Lewis. We already have enough indications that a great number of guests find the Dining Plan to be a "great value" so there are clearly missed revenue opportunities there. Standardizing appetizers and desserts make a lot of sense. It makes the plan more efficient, while having comparatively minimal negative on the guest experience for a good number of the guests who enjoy the Dining Plan. I like that idea much better than your (?) earlier idea of standardizing the entree choices and/or surcharging certain entrees.

 

[daisy58]

good points BUT while the DDP could be perceived by management as missed revenue opportunities, it actually increases revenue at the resorts, since you have to stay onsite, and with a package (or DVC) to reap the benefits. So the resorts stay full, customers spent more on miscellaneous resort expenses,
souveniers, etc., so it creates instead a captive audience, since they essentially have more of a lock on your expedable budget.
Also, with regards to bringing the program perimeters in line with the actual
market price, that would be self defeating, since with any marketing project
the customer has to have a perceived savings against the value...So then it would instead result in less sales of the DDP package, decreased revenue from DDP upsells such as alcoholic beverages and entree add-ons, and more off site dining and resort stays, and certainly less resort "package" sales overall.

 

[ElizabethB]

A missed revenue opportunity at WDW? No . . . . . really? In a place that charges $9 to park your car?

Well, if there is one nickel yet to be squeezed out of a guest, I guess we must do it. Yes, yes. Let's standardize all the appetizers and dessserts! That will be great. Then, it won't matter where an ADR is available! Anywhere we eat will be just fine (and just like anywhere else).

Gee -- just what I go to WDW for. To have an efficient, standardized experience with no variety, creativity, passion or magic.

Sign me up!

(Does anyone really think that Disney became a market powerhouse by being efficient and standarized? Is that why employees are called Imagineers? Perhaps, WDW should change their title to Efficiency Experts!)

 

[bicker]

good points BUT while the DDP could be perceived by management as missed revenue opportunities, it actually increases revenue at the resorts, since you have to stay onsite, and with a package (or DVC) to reap the benefits.

I'm sorry but I think you misunderstood what I wrote. It isn't the Dining Plan itself that represents the missed revenue opportunities -- it is the mismatch between the price and the value delivered. And I agree with you that, with a price sensitive customer base, increasing the price isn't the right answer. However, it's clear that this customer base, despite a few squeaky wheels, is going to be receptive to the addition of some of the efficiencies we're talking about: stanardizing appetizers and desserts. "You can order anything on the menu" can be replaced with "You can order any entree on the menu" and have practically the same promotional effect on the vast majority of propective customers.