Just need to vent a bit...

[ducklite]

We are a family of 5 and face the same concern. I find it downright hilarious to actually see someone call having a thrid child a "lifestyle choice".

Why wouldn't you look at it that way? It WAS a choice.

Anne

 

[DisneyDotty]

Actually, It's my DD 7 1/2 that I'm "sneaking" with an air mattress. I'm not hosting a party... I really don't think it should be frowned upon. Maybe Disney could offer roll-aways. That could be a viable alternative. Instead of an extra $10 rollaway charge, They expect one to get a two-bedroom for over $500.00/night. It's a travesty, I tell you

You're going to have a 7.5 y.o. Disney princess fugitive on your hands...
Again, I'm not meaning to be accusatory here--but are you sure POR can't accommodate your family? Isn't the 7.5 year old young enough for the trundle bed? Do you have more than 3 kids?

 

[JennyMominRI]

Jenny, wouldn't you be eligible for SoG? I would think that as long as those kids have dependent cards they are elegible. Those rooms sleep five easily, two queens and a sleeper sofa.

My sister and BIL have four kids, 9, 6, 3, and 10 months, and they've been told they are "legal" to all stay in one room at SoG.

Anne

We actually did SOG in 2003 when they were putting eeryone up at the CR it was great. We have yet to use the actual SOG.. I also qualify as a retired 100% disabled vet..Honestly,I'd rather use my AP and get rates that are close to SOG's and stay at a mod..I like the Disney feel better there.If we could ever find the time and money for all 7 to go we would do SOG... For us,it's less about room cost and more about expenses for 7 people .Food etc..

 

[disneysnob]

No. The family with the lower disposable income will spend les on the vacation. They will eat out less, buy less souveniers, spend less park days, any number of things to spend less money, because there is less to spend to begin with. It's simple economics.

Anne

I still don't understand. If we both save the same amount of money to go on vacation, why would I get away with spending less???? We will still eat three meals a day/as does other families so how to you justify our eating out less? xtra child means xtra souveniers.....It's not so 'simple' when you actually think about it, now, is it??

 

[ducklite]

I'd like to see them make rollaways available, at an extra cost. I'm willing to pay extra for a 5th person, I just don't want to split up my family into 2 rooms. We purposefully stayed at WL/AKL this trip because we knew that in the future our youngest would be over 3, and then we couldn't stay there anymore. I'm from a family of 5, and I spent many trips on a rollaway!

The issue with this is when you bring a rollaway into a smoking room, and then put it in a non-smoking room, it stinks, reeks, and has health impacts to anyone who needs to be around it.

If they could figure out how to offer a limited number of rollaways to non-smoking rooms ONLY for a reasonable nightly charge, I'd be all for it.

Anne

 

[Nancyg56]

We are a family of 5 and face the same concern. I find it downright hilarious to actually see someone call having a thrid child a "lifestyle choice". This entire discussion needs to shift to something no one has brought up and that is customer service. Does Disney value the business of the larger family? If in your opinion it does not than you can "march with your feet" and choose accomodations elsewhere. There are hotel chains that seek out larger families by discounting the second room (at resort properties during the summer you will find that policy at some Four Seasons and Ritz Carlton, Hyatt and Marriott hotels) They are throwing a bone to the family traveler.

And to the poster who implied that becasue I have 3 children, I am less likely than my counterparts with 2 children to eat at a signature restaurant or go parasailing, I am still laughing at your ignorance!!!

I agree. I don't think that the OP was asking for deluxe amenities for value or moderate prices. She was simply stating that there are relatively few options for a family of 5 who want to share the same room. I had three children, and never expected that others subsidize my "lifestyle", however I found that other vacation destinations were able to accomodate my family without my haveing to "upgrade" my level of stay. I also took my family to dinner at very nice restaurants, and was able to afford the many extras that families with less than three children also enjoyed.

This is an observation, not an attack: It is easy to generalize that larger families have lee disposable income than smaller families, but many times the assumption is off the mark. Better to assume that individuals choose to make personal decisions regarding their purchases. I know of several people who have chosen to "parasail" or eat at signature restaurants, but did not choose to bring their family to the dentist. It is impossible to see others finances based on their spending.

 

[MouseWorshipin]

...it only stands to reason that logocally the average larger family will have smaller disposable income and thus spend less on vacation.Anne

The average family - the one that doesn't have a ton of cash to blow, but doesn't have to scrape by. They have a few sit down meals, a few counter service meals, a few snacks, maybe take in a show, and everyone gets at least a T-shirt or a toy.

The family with 3 kids has to buy extra tickets, extra meals, extra snacks and extra T-shirts.

Believe me, the cost (even without the extra room or a suite) goes up with each person you add to the trip.

 

[BYC]

We are also a family of 5, the youngest is 15. We are taking 2 rooms at Pop. From what I understand, based on the room sizes at the Value resorts, the Fire Marshal has established how many are allowed per room. Also, anyone who sneeks kids into the room must realize they are giving up their eligibility for EMH.

 

[ducklite]

I still don't understand. If we both save the same amount of money to go on vacation, why would I get away with spending less???? We will still eat three meals a day/as does other families so how to you justify our eating out less? xtra child means xtra souveniers.....It's not so 'simple' when you actually think about it, now, is it??

I think you are missing the point. I'm looking at this from a top down perpective. The smaller family has more disposable income. We agree on that, right?

Therefore, the smaller family can either: spend more on food/souvies, stay longer (ie spend more on everything!), or take more trips because they don't need to save as long to be able to fund them.

It's possible on a single trip that the two families will spend the same, but the smaller family has the capacity to spend more, and often will--simply because they have the cash in their pocket to spend.

I am not trying to bash large families. I am simply stating that from a pure math perspective, it stands to reason that a smaller family will have more disposable income to spend on a vacation.

Anne

 

[disneysnob]

--but are you sure POR can't accommodate your family? Isn't the 7.5 year old young enough for the trundle bed?

We actually got a really good deal from ebay for OKW. I like the kitchenette idea, too, and ,most importantly ,are the queen size beds. Putting my two boys on a double would cause WWIII during the night Like I said before, it's only for a few nights to get our 'Disney Fix" then we are off to the vistana ...

 

[J.C.&ALI'SMOM]

I really don't get the problem with the accomodations that WDW offers

They have several options for those with 3 kids. Two value or mod rooms would be perfect because of the extra bathroom. Keep the connecting door open and put the chain on the door to the outside! How is that a problem?

The Ft. Wilderness Cabins are a great option for those with 3 kids. Plenty of room and a kitchen!

The deluxes or DVC.

They offer options and if tourists decide to take advantage of it great! If they don't like the options go offsite. It is as simple as that.

I am not sure why WDW should change what they are doing. They are keeping the rooms filled and that proves that people will pay what WDW wants to charge.

They are adding the family suites as a test, but unless they do convert the new section of POP to suites it will be incredibly hard to get a reservation for one, because there are so few. The suites will surely be more expensive than 2 regular rooms anyway.

I think we can forget WDW building any more resorts, for large families or not, in the near future. They aren't going to start anything new when they can't even get POP finished. It has been how long? 5 years?

 

[jarrdisney]

I have to agree with Anne here. We are a family of 7 and have stayed on and off property numerous times. We're forced to stay at WL (no one twisted our arm) and will def pay a pretty penny to do so. When we do go as a whole family we do cut costs and do NOT eat at signature restaurants as often as we do when we come in smaller numbers. Disney is a corporation and they exist to make money. Simple as that. The allstar resorts are similar to a days inn or best western. You'd be hardpressed to find one that would accomodate 5 people. That being said, I would definatley recommend staying off property. WE have stayed at sun country villas plenty of times. They have 3 bedroom/2 bath with all amenities for under $100/night. It sounds as if something like that might be your best bet. Either that or suck it up and spend the extra cash on a deluxe like WL or AKL...

 

[DisneyDotty]

OP--Here's my concern: By putting more people in the room than what is stated on the reservation, Disney can only assume that its accommodations meet your needs. Which is incorrect.
If you were to call Disney and say, "Look, here's our budget for 5 people. What can you do for us?" and Disney says, "Sorry, we don't have anything." Then you can say, "Well, we'll have to take our money elsewhere, then, won't we?"
I guess I'm naive enough to think that if more families of 5 plus stopped staying at WDW and started complaining, Disney would try to fix the problem.
And isn't that what you state in your OP that you want--a solution to the problem?

 

[DisneyDotty]

Double post--sorry

 

[calypso*a*go-go]

There's really no reason to turn this into a debate over the rights/wants of people that have more than four in their family. Bottomline, Disney is losing a whole bunch of money from guests that are forced to stay offsite due to the restrictions involving 5+ in a room. They have obviously seen the light due to the AllStars Family Suites currently in the works. I say "kudos" to them for finally addressing an issue that has been a problem for a very long time.

 

[grimley1968]

We are a family of 7 and have stayed on and off property numerous times. We're forced to stay at WL (no one twisted our arm) and will def pay a pretty penny to do so. When we do go as a whole family we do cut costs and do NOT eat at signature restaurants as often as we do when we come in smaller numbers. Disney is a corporation and they exist to make money. Simple as that. The allstar resorts are similar to a days inn or best western. You'd be hardpressed to find one that would accomodate 5 people. That being said, I would definatley recommend staying off property. WE have stayed at sun country villas plenty of times. They have 3 bedroom/2 bath with all amenities for under $100/night. It sounds as if something like that might be your best bet. Either that or suck it up and spend the extra cash on a deluxe like WL or AKL...

How do you get 7 people in your room at WL?

I assume you got 2 rooms for the week.

WL rooms, unless you spend lots more $$$ for a deluxe room, sleep 4 (5 if the 5th person is under a certain age), unless you're sneaking people in. That happens to be the same amount of people All-Stars or Pop can sleep.

The logic of staying at WL simply so you can get more people in your room doesn't make sense, especially when value rooms sleep the same number of people. One can just as easily get a second room at Pop as at WL (assuming availability is the same). So saying someone needs to "suck it up and spend extra cash" on WL makes no sense in this context. If you want extra amenities, nicer lobby, boat to MK, etc., yes you may have to "suck it up" and spend extra for WL, but room size/capacity really has no bearing on this decision.

Also, how in the world did the OP's original vent turn into a debate on the "lifestyle choice" of having a third child? I'm sorry, but that's a stretch for me.

Finally, OP: please don't "sneak" your DD in! Like the rules or not, I think we should heed them.

 

[weregoingtodw]

NM, ignore this!

 

[sara74]

I think you are missing the point. I'm looking at this from a top down perpective. The smaller family has more disposable income. We agree on that, right?

I have to disagree here. My sister and I have different lifestyles, incomes and families. She wanted one and only one child as she felt she would not be able to financially provide all she wanted to if she had more kids. I am expecting #3 and likely still have more disposable income than she does (we don't exactly sit down and compare tax returns or anything) I know that my third child was a choice. We would not have chosen to have this child if we were not able to raise all three without feeling a pinch. This is just our situation and I know not everyone's but we do have disposable income and we will buy souvenirs for all 3 kids, eat at the nicer restaurants and stay at the nicer hotels if we are able.

However, I am with the OP and others who say we should not be penalized for having a family of five. Paying for 2 rooms is essentially paying for accomodations for 8 when we only need room for 5! I know there are options but what if I don't want the theming of POR? Or a cabin that costs as much as 2 rooms! Asking for one more resort that offers accomodations for 5 is not unreasonable. And as far as the suites in Pop or the all stars go, someone stated that they think they will be priced at around 200% of the cost of one room. Again that is paying for 8 when you are sleeping up to 6. This doesn't seem like a great solution to me!

 

[robinb]

The vast majority of hotel rooms in the US have one or two beds and sleep 2-4 people. Disney is not alone. The difference is that people cannot "sneak" in an extra child or two into Disney resorts and receive all the benifits of staying onsite. People book packages for passes and dining and now even children need a keycard to get EHM wristbands. Disney is defacto enforcing occupancy rules where other hotels do not.

 

[weregoingtodw]

However, I am with the OP and others who say we should not be penalized for having a family of five. Paying for 2 rooms is essentially paying for accomodations for 8 when we only need room for 5! I know there are options but what if I don't want the theming of POR? Or a cabin that costs as much as 2 rooms!

I'm not grasping your logic. Say you have a family of four and drive a mid-sized sedan that seats four comfortably. You find out that child #3 is on the way, so go minivan shopping. Do you ask them to give you a discount on a minivan which seats 7, since you only plan for 5 people to ride in it? Do you ask them to create a new vehicle specifically for you? Should you decide to purchase that vehicle, it would be the same as...

Paying for 2 rooms (a minivan) is essentially paying for accomodations (seats) for 8 (or possibly 7) when we (you) only need room for 5!

Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but I just don't understand why families of five think they should get discounts for having more children. If you look at it from my perspective (a family of three), to me, you're already having one child stay "free" in the room if you're a family of four. If you look at it from a couple with no children's perspective, I have one child staying free and you have two children staying free. But wait, what if you go to Disney by yourself? See what I mean? There's got to be a cutoff somewhere.

Disney is a huge conglomerate. I think many of you aren't giving them credit for knowing exactly what they're doing. They've no doubt run the numbers, and figured out where the cutoff would be as far as room occupancy, factoring in issues such as the fire codes, staffing needs, etc.

Asking for one more resort that offers accomodations for 5 is not unreasonable. And as far as the suites in Pop or the all stars go, someone stated that they think they will be priced at around 200% of the cost of one room. Again that is paying for 8 when you are sleeping up to 6. This doesn't seem like a great solution to me!

If I recall correctly, the new suites in the Values will also have a kitchenette. Surely you can't expect that to be included at no extra cost, simply because the room is made to accomodate more people.