Just need to vent a bit...

[weregoingtodw]

You don't need to attack her!

Wow, was it really necessary to create a new screen name just for the purpose of calling someone out for a perceived attack? (and yeah, everyone can tell by that posts: 1 by your name that this is a new account). Funny, I see more than one name with a big fat "posts: 1" by their name in this thread. Coincidence, yes?

Not classy at all!

Gosh, I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[weregoingtodw]

Sorry ducklite, I don't agree. 5 will always spend more. I still think you are being nasty on this thread.

Well, actually now... no, they don't!

As you'll see from my signature, I went to Disney last year with my mom, BIL, sister, her three kids & my DD. So, two adults & one child and two adults & three children in separate rooms. Guess who spent more money at Disney? Yup, my mom, DD & me. I only have one child, my husband was overseas for a year, I had more money to spend! Whereas my sister & her DH otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford a trip at that time, but were able to do so since they could stay at SoG with us. Money was tight for them, they split one or two kids meals among the three children, didn't order appetizers, etc. We both had a nice vacation, but in the end, the three of us (mom, DD & me) spent more money on food, souvenirs, etc.

 

[disneysnob]

Like I have nothing to do all day but make up 'names'and 'posts'???? Are you serious???? I respond to the posts that seem to agree with my original post (which btw was a venting issue) I felt like I was being attacked, so when the opportunity arrives that someone related to what I was saying, I responded. Who wouldn't??? I'm not sitting here making up names....sorry, I do have a life to live (I guess this must be yours since you do backround checks on all the different posts that are listed.....)

 

[weregoingtodw]

My 2 cents, but before you make sweeping generalizations, you should realize that each family has its own cirucmstances... I am not looking for something for nothing...I just would like more options. In fact, if I were able to get a discounted second room, I would be more likely to stay LONGER and spend MORE MONEY!!!

I think you're missing the point. Disney is in business to make money. Decisions are made by crunching data & analyzing demographics. That involves making those so-called "sweeping generalizations." Disney isn't going to consider every single family's circumstances - they're going to look at what makes money. Bottom line. That's free enterprise!

 

[ducklite]

Wow, was it really necessary to create a new screen name just for the purpose of calling someone out for a perceived attack? (and yeah, everyone can tell by that posts: 1 by your name that this is a new account). Funny, I see more than one name with a big fat "posts: 1" by their name in this thread. Coincidence, yes?

Gosh, I couldn't have said it better myself!

I just want to clarify that I did not, and have never created a second screen name on the Dis to defend myself. I'm capable of defending my positions without resorting to this.

Anne

 

[Sammie]

Business decisions like these aren't based on individual circumstances. They're based on statistical data. Evidently, Disney believes its current lodging offerings result in higher profits than a different selection would. Otherwise, you'd see a different menu of lodging options. That being said, I do think that the limited availability of reasonably priced lodging for larger families drives many of said families off-site. But Disney is in a better position than I am to judge the effect of these decisions.

Very well said and without emotion, my kind of post, just the facts

 

[2infinity&B-ond]

I'm not missing the point, the OP wants more options for families of 5, and so do I. I really don't understand why POR is the only mod. that accomodates 5...other moderates (CBR) have bigger square footage, but only accomodate 4. Why don't those have trundles too??

Yes, Disney is a corporation...and they want to make money....they will and do. Yes, the hotels are booked, and Disney isn't losing sleep over the family of 5 debate....but neither am I ...I just think it would be nice, since Disney is all about family (every size) if we (those with more than 2 kids) had other options... that's all...

(walking away from this debate...and not looking back!! )

 

[Sammie]

I do not see the need for anyone to get upset over this discussion. I think everyone; even me without a family; can understand the "wanting" of more options, but the OP asked:

Can anyone explain to me why Disney, who caters to families and magical gatherings....., does not offer value or even moderates (with the exception of POR) for families of five or more?

And that has been answered, Disney does not see a financial need to offer more than they do. Now some might not agree with but that is why it is the way it is.

Believe me if they see a financial need, not an emotional one, or even a wanting by some, then they will address it. But until the numbers support the change it will remain the way it is. Strickly a business decision.

 

[zagafi]

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.

While some larger families have the means to fund a vacation with all the bells and whistles, it only stands to reason that logocally the average larger family will have smaller disposable income and thus spend less on vacation.

Anne

And what scientific survey are you basing this ridiculous notion on, pray tell? Have you surveyed each family with the extra "lifestyle choice" child on their annual income and ascertained exactly how much disposable income each has and how they choose to spend it on vacation?

Absurd. Why you've co-opted a simple vent into some rant about larger families and their spending habits (which you know nada about--you're merely conjecturing) is beyond me.

 

[weregoingtodw]

I just want to clarify that I did not, and have never created a second screen name on the Dis to defend myself. I'm capable of defending my positions without resorting to this.

Anne

Oh no no no, I didn't mean you! Sorry... I meant the person who was coming down on you for "attacking"! There are a few names on this thread that, anyone who scrolls through can see, that have a "1" by their name, which means, if I'm correct, that this post is the only post they have on the Dis. Strange that a person would create a screen name and immediately find a thread like this to post in, kwim?

 

[weregoingtodw]

Like I have nothing to do all day but make up 'names'and 'posts'???? Are you serious???? I respond to the posts that seem to agree with my original post (which btw was a venting issue) I felt like I was being attacked, so when the opportunity arrives that someone related to what I was saying, I responded. Who wouldn't??? I'm not sitting here making up names....sorry, I do have a life to live (I guess this must be yours since you do backround checks on all the different posts that are listed.....)

::ahem:: I didn't name any names, just mentioned there were a few names out there with "1s" by them.

And again, you don't need to do a background check - although a check to the left is necessary. Would that be a left check perhaps?

 

[ducklite]

And what scientific survey are you basing this ridiculous notion on, pray tell? Have you surveyed each family with the extra "lifestyle choice" child on their annual income and ascertained exactly how much disposable income each has and how they choose to spend it on vacation?

Absurd. Why you've co-opted a simple vent into some rant about larger families and their spending habits (which you know nada about--you're merely conjecturing) is beyond me.

Bottom line it's economics. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. More kids=more living expenses=less money to spend on vacation on an annual basis, based on an averaged family income across the board. I'm comparing apples to apples, not individual circumstances.

Anne

 

[robinb]

There are a few names on this thread that, anyone who scrolls through can see, that have a "1" by their name, which means, if I'm correct, that this post is the only post they have on the Dis. Strange that a person would create a screen name and immediately find a thread like this to post in, kwim?

Oh yes, very interesting. More than one brave soul who chose to respond to this thread as the first one out of the box.

 

[michygoomy]

Bottom line it's economics. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. More kids=more living expenses=less money to spend on vacation on an annual basis, based on an averaged family income across the board. I'm comparing apples to apples, not individual circumstances.

Anne

But, see, I think this basic argument is flawed. It implies that income - taxes - living expenses = disney budget. That may be generally true for disboards fanatics, but I don't think so for your average family. Your average family is going to to say hey, let's go to Disney, come up with a budget and spend that. Not every last penny they have.

Also, since it takes a little while to have more than two kids (generally speaking), larger families tend to be further in their career than those with smaller families. I, personally, am spending twice as much on this trip as my last trip because I'm better off financially. Oh, and I had two kids last trip and three this one.

I don't buy the car argument. I too lazy to find the exact quote, but I believe it goes something like this: you shouldn't get a larger car for free, or at a discount, because you have a larger family. Well, the point to be here is that a minivan doesn't cost double the price of a family sedan. The car companies found a market, exploited it, and made a lot of money off the deal. The smaller families enjoy that benefit, too. I know plenty of two-kids-and-less families that have a minivan. (And for the record--I do not have one. I hate them. Let's just hope an additional "lifestyle choice" doesn't happen upon me, or I may need to leave one back in a burning room in Disney. ).

 

[weregoingtodw]

And what scientific survey are you basing this ridiculous notion on, pray tell? Have you surveyed each family with the extra "lifestyle choice" child on their annual income and ascertained exactly how much disposable income each has and how they choose to spend it on vacation?

Absurd. Why you've co-opted a simple vent into some rant about larger families and their spending habits (which you know nada about--you're merely conjecturing) is beyond me.

Okay, I don't know why I'm even continuing with this debate. Since it makes sense to me but obviously isn't to a lot of others, I doubt I'll do any better, but here goes...

The original comparison was, if I'm correct, addressing two family situations. I'll try to make this one about one family, if that makes things any easier. Say, for instance, a family has one child. Then, they find out they're having twins. Same income, different number of children. So, two different scenarios:

*Family makes $50,000/year and has one child.
*Family makes $50,000/year and has three children.

Expenses per child (including college savings, day care, clothing, etc.) add to $100/month.

Therefore, it would make sense that:

When they have one child, Family spends $1,200/year on child-related expenses.

Once the twins come along, Family spends $3,600/year on child-related expenses.

Assuming that the only change in the family dynamic was the number of children, the Family needs to cut their spending in other areas of their budget to compensate for the difference ($2,400) for the additional children.

Overly simplistic, yes, but that's the premise on which I'm basing my thinking.

 

[BikeFan]

Bottom line it's economics. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. More kids=more living expenses=less money to spend on vacation on an annual basis, based on an averaged family income across the board. I'm comparing apples to apples, not individual circumstances.

Anne

At least in the U.S., with both the Federal child tax credit and the extra dependant deduction, that's not always true, especially for the first several years of the child's life, when expenses are mininal. My 4 children play a significant role in the reduction of our family's tax burden such that disposable income generally hasn't been affected by the arrival of childs 2, 3, & 4. And of course 'joy' income has shot through the roof every year!

 

[Deb & Bill]

For those of you that do not understand fire codes. Normally during a fire evacuation, small children (like under 3) will be carried by their parents away from the fire scene. Thereby not needing to be counted in the space required to evacuate the building and get to safety. However, you get too many of these occupants and suddenly there is no one to carry them to safety. Thus the allowance for one child under the age of three.

The square footage of the room is not part of the calculation, only the width of the doors and exit corridors. So the larger villa size at OKW does not contribute to the calculation of the exit capacity. Only the doorways, stairways and exterior corridors.

I hope you never are occupants of a hotel that is on fire. I hope you all exit safely if you are. It's kind of scary to be awakened at 3AM by the fire alarm going off in the hotel with pounding on your door telling you to get out of the hotel immediately. That has happened to us.

 

[bhoffman]

Okay, I don't know why I'm even continuing with this debate. Since it makes sense to me but obviously isn't to a lot of others, I doubt I'll do any better, but here goes...

The original comparison was, if I'm correct, addressing two family situations. I'll try to make this one about one family, if that makes things any easier. Say, for instance, a family has one child. Then, they find out they're having twins. Same income, different number of children. So, two different scenarios:

*Family makes $50,000/year and has one child.
*Family makes $50,000/year and has three children.

Expenses per child (including college savings, day care, clothing, etc.) add to $100/month.

Therefore, it would make sense that:

When they have one child, Family spends $1,200/year on child-related expenses.

Once the twins come along, Family spends $3,600/year on child-related expenses.

Assuming that the only change in the family dynamic was the number of children, the Family needs to cut their spending in other areas of their budget to compensate for the difference ($2,400) for the additional children.

Overly simplistic, yes, but that's the premise on which I'm basing my thinking.

Sorry but it doesn't always work like this 1 = 1200, 3 = 3600. For one simple example buy the stroller once and all children use it. (not in the case of twins, but you can get the idea) Drink cups with lids used for the first one can be used for the next and so on. But lets go with your idea that for every child it would cost the same. I believe that the OP would be happy. What the OP is Venting about to use your analogy compared to Disney is saying that because your family now has twins instead of one child, the family would now have to buy a second house instead of having the twins share a room.
Again I will say for my 5 person family we choose where we can fit at Disney because we want to be there. I'm thankful for being able to provide this for my family. Disney does offer opportunities for 5 people to be in one "room", I think the OP just is questioning why is it not offered at all price points.

 

[DznyLvr2005]

THis is what I think...

If I have no kids (which I don't) and I go with my DH, I spend say $3000... If I have 3 kids and go with my husband I may spend $4000 or maybe a little more...
After spending 3 grand on a trip, to me, what's another Grand?! If you have the money to spend that much on a trip the extra thousand should'nt make or break you. You're going to DW by your choice and you follow their 'rules'. You can't change DW because a few thousand people want to add the extra kid in the room. Disney doesn't care... They make enough money. It's all about money!
Don't want to offend anyone just giving my opinion

 

[polkadotminnie]

We are a family of 5. Disney is losing money on us. We used to go to Disney 3 times a year. This year we are only going once in March for cheerleading.
We are staying at Universal more often because they sleep 5 for less money in a comparable deluxe resort to the Disney deluxe resorts. Since my youngest has turned 3 last year, we have gone to St. John and Cancun instead of going to Disney.
I would take my dollars back to Disney, if more of the moderate resorts held 5 in a standard room. I would be happy to pay $25 more for a rollaway.
I wish someone would measure the door widths and walkways at POR and CSR for a comparision for fire codes...