Exclusions ???

[bicker]

By the same token, the objective of the Dining Plan is to maximize the profitability of restaurants at WDW. So therefore, having different classes of restaurants instead of a confusing system of exclusions and exceptions, to the extent it increases profitability, helps achieve what Disney was trying to achieve.

 

[jm1008]

Specifically what desserts are excluded at Teppanyaki? Also, am I understanding this correctly the only excluded appetizers are sushi. And after all the talk about lobster and add ons I am confused. Can I get a combination dinner which does not include lobster?

 

[Pedler]

By the same token, the objective of the Dining Plan is to maximize the profitability of restaurants at WDW. So therefore, having different classes of restaurants instead of a confusing system of exclusions and exceptions, to the extent it increases profitability, helps achieve what Disney was trying to achieve.

This is where I think we disagree. I don't think the objective of the dinning plan is to maximze the profitability of the restaurants at WDW. Just looking at the kids pricing you are getting somewhere in the the range of 30-50% of of the food. For example: CM Breakfast for a TS meal. With tax and 20% tip aproximately $14.00. Add in a CS kids Meal at Cosmic Rays with Desert, aproximately $7.00 after tax. (3.99 kids meal $2.50 brownie plus tax. When we went they were giving the brownies as desert for the kids meals.) Then add in the snack credit of $2.00 and you get $23 worth of food for the price of a child ont the dinning plan. I don't think they intend for this plan to make it just on the food service alone. That is why they have attached the the conditions to getting the dinning plan.

First you must stay on site. That makes sense because it sells rooms. Second you have to purchase it for everyone on the reservation for the length of stay. This in essence requires you to purchase all of your meals up front. This provides a bit of a disincentive to eating off site. (Combined with the DME which is also designed to reduce the number of people going off site.) Lastly, DVC excepted, they require at least one days park admission to get the plan. With the revised as of 2005 MYW Ticket pricing a one day ticket is a horrible deal. The best per day costs start to kick in around 5 days.

So take the family of 4 that goes for 6 nights. If the family of 4 had planned on going to Universal say for one or two of those days Disney has made the cost of going there vs. staying at WDW parks very high. If you get the dinning plan your food cost are just about taken care. With the new ticket pricing the extra admission for the entire family of 4 is just a few dollars. Contrast that with going to Universal and paying for transportation there, admission and food. Universal would cost that family of 4 probably close to if not more than $300 to go for two days where as staying at Disney would cost less than $20 for the extra two days. (Keeping in mind either way you are paying hotel room cost) Suddenly it becomes a more difficult decision. Is two days at Universal worth $300 over the cost of staying at Disney? Looking at the results it appears that a decent number of people have saide no and stayed on site.

This is why I don't think the dinning plan was meant to be or can be judged on food service cost alone. Setting aside all the talk of loopholes and exclusions I don't see where it is a good deal to give an across the board discount of at least 30% if not more on average. In particular when they sell a discount card to AP members that only gives 20% off.

 

[Lewisc]

Specifically what desserts are excluded at Teppanyaki? Also, am I understanding this correctly the only excluded appetizers are sushi. And after all the talk about lobster and add ons I am confused. Can I get a combination dinner which does not include lobster?

ASK YOUR WAITER OR A MANAGER BEFORE YOU ORDER. Teppanyaki is the restaurant with the most restrictions and they seem to change from week to week. It is one of the few restaurants that doesn't offer a DDE discount.

Some people have posted only being allowed ice cream for dessert but I wonder if what they meat was ice cream was the only allowed dessert that they were interested in or if it was the only dessert on the children's menu.

 

[Lewisc]

By the same token, the objective of the Dining Plan is to maximize the profitability of restaurants at WDW. So therefore, having different classes of restaurants instead of a confusing system of exclusions and exceptions, to the extent it increases profitability, helps achieve what Disney was trying to achieve.

There are almost no exclusions and exceptions. The obvious; no adult beverages, no specialty coffees and no souvenir mugs/glasses/glowing ice cubes. Trust me you'll have ZERO complaints with the plan, if you ever try it. Really two or three non-Disney owned restaurants are the source of most of the questions. The restaurant in Japan doesn't even offer a DDE discount. They probably should drop the plan since that's really where most of the "guest abuse" and now complaints seem to occur. Disney even allows guests to use credits paid for at the child rate to purchase adult meals. My complaint is really the opposite, by having so few rules and restrictions I wonder if Disney will be willing to continue the plan, at a reasonable price.


I think the objective of MYW Dining and DME is to get guests to stay on property, without the deeply discounted room rates and spend more of their total budget, including food, at Disney restaurants. My cost for MYW dining is probably more than I would have spent if I wasn't on the plan. When I don't have dining I tend to split more meals and eat fewer TS meals than when I'm on dining. I even bought my refillable mugs even though I think only twice did I use it when the drink wasn't already included.

 

[pplasky]

I've never seen a price fixed meal plan that didn't have an up-charge for the more expensive items. Even cruise ships and all inclusive resorts frequently charge extra for lobster.

My family has taken several cruises and been to multiple all inclusive resorts and have never had an up-charge. As a matter of fact, my husband often orders two lobster tails or dinner entrees, and has always been accomodated. There should be no exclusions to the dining plan, either the restaurant is participating or it is not. I was not aware, until I read this thread, that there were any exclusions.

 

[bicker]

This is where I think we disagree. I don't think the objective of the dinning plan is to maximze the profitability of the restaurants at WDW.

Well, to maximize the profitability of the Disney Company, really.

 

[Pedler]

Well, to maximize the profitability of the Disney Company, really.

Right. And in this case I think they are willing to accept less profit from dinning and a outright loss on transportation to gain more from other areas like increased hotel occupancy and keeping people on site spending more overall at Disney. All in so far the changes they made in 2005 are really an impressive coordination of marketing and repackaging of the product mix to not only increase overall revenue and thus profitability per guest but also have an impact on thier competition.

 

[dm220]

we plan on using the dining plan for the cinderellas royal table character breakfast, i understand this uses 2 credits up, my question is do we get the picture package with the princesses included at no additional cost?

 

[bicker]

Right. And in this case I think they are willing to accept less profit from dinning and a outright loss on transportation to gain more from other areas like increased hotel occupancy and keeping people on site spending more overall at Disney.

Yes. Any by the same token, any restrictions or changes that result in higher overall profit (even if it means lower patronage for restaurants) should and almost surely will be adopted.

 

[Lewisc]

Yes. Any by the same token, any restrictions or changes that result in higher overall profit (even if it means lower patronage for restaurants) should and almost surely will be adopted.

The reality is too many restrictions and guests will just go back to paying for what they eat. Having guests think they can "beat the system", appealing to a little greed, is one of the factors that sells the plan. We both know the actual food costs is only a fraction of the cost of running a restaurant. One of the prior meal plans was a pre-paid discount. You paid something like $20 for $25 worth of food. That plan wasn't popular.

I think having a surcharge for a few of the more expensive entrées like lobster makes sense. Based on the posters here I'm wrong and Disney is right. Don't give guests a reason not to buy the program. Cover everything on the menu and just drop the items that don't work. The restaurant in Japan is the only restaurant that seems to be having major problems and they don't even offer a DDE discount.

 

[bicker]

Seems like the best compromise would be to make any restaurant that needs exclusions into a Signature restaurant.

 

[Lewisc]

Seems like the best compromise would be to make any restaurant that needs exclusions into a Signature restaurant.

Disney doesn't seem to have a problem with the present rules, even with the child vs adult credit issue. I only had two exclusions, desserts at PM and the dessert sampler platter at Chefs. The dessert sampler platter was more than twice the price of the other desserts and was clearly designed to be shared. The reality is all those posts are people complaining in advance of an imagined new policy or people complaining about a very few number of non-Disney owned restaurants. Exclude Japan and desserts at Pepper Market and you've gotten rid of virtually all the exclusions.

A signature restaurant is just a likely as a "regular restaurant" to have one or two very expensive menu items that they might want to surcharge MYW Dining guests rather than dropping them from the menu for all customers.

 

[Pedler]

Seems like the best compromise would be to make any restaurant that needs exclusions into a Signature restaurant.

That would make sense but it is rough for those places that don't quite fit into the two credit slot. California Grill and CRT make sense not only because of the cost but the demand. Those places are in high enough demand and don't have the same price elacticity of some of the other restaurants.

The places that have it tough are like the restaurant in Japan. The would probably like to be a Signature restaurant but probably couldn't withstand the hit in reduced patronage if they went to two credits. As an added problem they don't get any benefit from the other effects of the Dinning plan in terms of occupancy rates and such. As I said before I would think that some of the non Disney owned places would probably rather the dinning plan didn't exist and that they could compete on an even playing field with the other places. Unfortunately for them I don't think Disney has that much concern about this as long as they get all of the other non food service benefits.

 

[NMW]

My family has taken several cruises and been to multiple all inclusive resorts and have never had an up-charge. As a matter of fact, my husband often orders two lobster tails or dinner entrees, and has always been accomodated. There should be no exclusions to the dining plan, either the restaurant is participating or it is not. I was not aware, until I read this thread, that there were any exclusions.

I don't think I understand what you've written. Are you saying that your husband orders 2 dinners and they give him 2 dinners? For free? Is this at Disney with the MYW dining plan or somewhere else?

BTW, I agree that there should not be exclusions to the dining plan. The restaurants should either participate or not participate. It would be less confusing, stop patrons from getting upset and taking it out on CM's, etc. The only thing I can understand is the desserts or appetizers that are made for 2 people. Two people should have to order it, that makes sense.

 

[Lewisc]

Cruise ships and all-inclusive resorts will frequently let you order all you want. Same idea as a buffet but with waiter service.

Many cruise ships and all-inclusive resorts are starting to either charge extra for the better steak and lobster or are only serving those meals in special a la carte restaurants that have an extra charge.

I don't think I understand what you've written. Are you saying that your husband orders 2 dinners and they give him 2 dinners? For free? Is this at Disney with the MYW dining plan or somewhere else?

BTW, I agree that there should not be exclusions to the dining plan. The restaurants should either participate or not participate. It would be less confusing, stop patrons from getting upset and taking it out on CM's, etc. The only thing I can understand is the desserts or appetizers that are made for 2 people. Two people should have to order it, that makes sense.

 

[pplasky]

I don't think I understand what you've written. Are you saying that your husband orders 2 dinners and they give him 2 dinners? For free? Is this at Disney with the MYW dining plan or somewhere else?

BTW, I agree that there should not be exclusions to the dining plan. The restaurants should either participate or not participate. It would be less confusing, stop patrons from getting upset and taking it out on CM's, etc. The only thing I can understand is the desserts or appetizers that are made for 2 people. Two people should have to order it, that makes sense.

That statement was in referance to cruise lines and all-inclusive resorts. I did not mean to imply that Disney should let you get two meals for one credit. It was just to emphasize that excluding things like lobster and certain appetizers or desserts(unless they are designed for two people) should not happen. You are paying for the plan, either a restaurant should participate or not.

 

[Lewisc]

That statement was in referance to cruise lines and all-inclusive resorts. I did not mean to imply that Disney should let you get two meals for one credit. It was just to emphasize that excluding things like lobster and certain appetizers or desserts(unless they are designed for two people) should not happen. You are paying for the plan, either a restaurant should participate or not.

I understood what you meant. Many Disney restaurants are either buffet or are all you care to eat. Customers with large appetites have more than enough choices.

Many of the cruise lines have added extra cost a la carte restaurants, sometimes the extra cost is listed as a service fee. Those restaurants are now where the more expensive entrées are offered.

 

[Kirsten77]

I understood what you meant. Many Disney restaurants are either buffet or are all you care to eat. Customers with large appetites have more than enough choices.

Many of the cruise lines have added extra cost a la carte restaurants, sometimes the extra cost is listed as a service fee. Those restaurants are now where the more expensive entrées are offered.

Lobster is always offered in the main dining room at least one night (I've been on Holland America, Disney and Norwegian). There are certain restaurants were there is a small fee usually between 5-20 dollars a person, and these restaurants will offer Kobe beef filet, instead of just regular filet, or a much larger lobster tail verses the small one you get in the main dining room. That being said I think having lobster excluded is fine because lobster is usually the most expensive dinner entree on a menu. I also agree with desserts or appetizers meant for two people. I don't think the degree of difficulty it takes to create an item on the menu should be taken into account.

 

[Pedler]

Many of the cruise lines have added extra cost a la carte restaurants, sometimes the extra cost is listed as a service fee. Those restaurants are now where the more expensive entrées are offered.

We were on RCL last fall and they had an upcharge for Johnny Rockets! Fortunately we were Crown and Anchor members and had coupons to waive the upcharge.