Just need to vent a bit...

[Deb & Bill]

...
I wish someone would measure the door widths and walkways at POR and CSR for a comparision for fire codes...

That's done by the architect when the building is designed. Or by a Registered Fire Protection Engineer.

 

[BrerRabbit_fan]

I agree that there aren't enough options for larger families. If there can be trundle beds in POR, there can be in all the mods.

To the poster who said that the little ones would be carried by a parent in case of a fire, I don't believe that for a second. If a parent can snatch a 10 year old, he/she will. If they can't, the fire people will need to find their babies and toddlers too.

Finally, my friend and I make the same amount of money. She has 5 children, I don't have any. She gets a huge tax refund, cheap health care, etc. She ends up with more disposable income then me. Logically, it makes sense that the more kids you have, the more you spend but that is generalizing and all people are unique

 

[rascalmom]

I agree that there aren't enough options for larger families. If there can be trundle beds in POR, there can be in all the mods.

Sure, they could put them in all the mods if they wanted to or saw an economic benefit to their bottom line to do so.

But what about the family of four (or fewer) who would like to use that underbed space for luggage storage? Roll aways are hard on rooms - try moving them around without chipping paint, nicking furniture or providing the staff to move, store & care for them.

By making all mods accomodate 4, you would be taking away that choice (or use of space) for the smaller families who do not need the trundle. And those smaller families continue to be the greater number of Disney's visitors.

Disney regularly fills their rooms. Until that trend changes or some economic benifit to the Disney bottom line arises to make these new choices feasible, the larger families will have to make their choices from what is currently available.

 

[LeahA]

Oh my goodness, enough already!

My brain is spinning from this thread!

Why does every comment that is posted on this board have to become a long drawn out, crazy debate?

It's late, everyone should just go to bed!

 

[Fionasmommy]

These so-called "economics" are laughable. You don't know what the average income of Disney vacationers is, so you're randoming assigning a number that suits your argument. And you're assuming, for what reason I don't know, that they all have the same income and thus can be evenly compared.

And to take it one step further, you've cooked up a bogus statistic that says the more children a family has the lower their income is and thus the less disposable income they have.



Riiiiiiight.

 

[jgallant]

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 hate to get into this debate BUT I CAN KEEP QUIET NO MORE!!!!! I agree with you. People should just be quiet whent they are trying to give their opinion on things they have no idea about!!!! We have four children, and we have been twice in the last year, AND I WOULD BE WILLING to pay a reasonable amount of money so we could all stay in a hotel together. We did book two rooms at POP and it was great ,( I did hear that it was POP that was doing the family suites). We don't spend less money on things b/c we "POOR" people have more than 2 KIDS!!!! Give me a break! We do the same things, it just costs more money! I really feel like some kind of freak when people make such STUPID remarks!!! It boils my blood to no end to be looked down on for having four kids....oh how can you afford it? Well....sure I guess I don't buy $200 pairs of jeans, and spend $100's on hair and nails. I don't buy "top of the line things....but DAMN we live good!!!! Just LIKE the ALL AMERICAN...."hail to you " family.... ( not intended towards you...but I too LAUGH AT THE ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO CLUE!!!!!!)

 

[pedro2112]

And to take it one step further, you've cooked up a bogus statistic that says the more children a family has the lower their income is and thus the less disposable income they have.

.

She did no such thing. She stated that in families that have identical incomes, that the families with more children will have less disposable income because their expenses are higher. Frankly, this is math 101, so I don't know what the big deal is. In any event, even though what Anne stated here is true, I don't think that necessarliy supports her argument. I don't think it is necessary to come to this conclusion in order for Disney to keep the status quo regarding accomodations. The bottom line is that what they are doing now (forcing those with 3 children to POR, two rooms at a value or other mod, a FW Cabin, certain Deluxe resorts and DVC rooms) is working to their financial benefit. They are not "losing" money by any stretch of the imagination. They are making more money in forcing people to do these other options than they are losing money from those few who can't afford it.

 

[Fionasmommy]

She did no such thing. She stated that in families that have identical incomes, that the families with more children will have less disposable income because their expenses are higher.

No, she said:

Frankly I don't think larger families spend any more at WDW--in fact possibly less because I would imagine that overall they have less disposable income to begin with, are less likely to dine at the expensive full service "signature" restaurants, less likely to spend money on the high markup "extras". So that arguement doesn't hold water.

No mention there of identical incomes - which is why it's ridiculous and implies a correlation between income and family size.

 

[ducklite]

No, she said:

No mention there of identical incomes - which is why it's ridiculous and implies a correlation between income and family size.

Actually, I clarified that by stating:

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.

And for the record I NEVER said or even implied that families with more kids have lower incomes. I was talking in averages. WDW uses averages. They could care less what Joe and Mary from Indiana's personal situation is, they care about AVERAGES.

The average family has two kids. They recognize that some have more by offering trundle rooms at POR, FW Cabins, and connecting rooms at the values, as well as the eventually to be opened value suites.

At this point they obviously don't see a reason to offer anything different than that. And they won't until they see an economic advantage for their bottom line. Do they know that they are losing guests off-site? Sure, but at this point it's not a concern, because the resorts are operating close to capacity. In the event that changes, they will look at what they need to fill rooms.

Because it would likely be temporary, they would probably address the issue with offering discounted rates for EVERYONE, which might allow them the greatest potential cross-section of business to fill those rooms. They certainly wouldn't specifically target families with four kids. That would be bad business. And I don't see them spending money on capital improvements to be able to create rooms that hold more guests without being able to charge enough to recoup those costs, which I why I suspect that the value suites are going to be the same cost as two value rooms, perhaps a bit less, but they are not going to be only 110% of the cost of a value. To price them like that would be ridiculous--it's the same amount of real estate as two rooms, and they've had capital expenditures to create them.

Also, for the record I find it laughable that people refuse to get connecting rooms because they are afraid their kids will wnder out in the middle of the night. It's no different than home, You can leave the door open between the rooms so you can hear everything. You can attach a string of jingle bells to the door. There are solutions to that issue (which is really a non-issue).

Anne

 

[DawnaJean]

....More kids=more costs, apart from vacation. There's nothing to disagree on, that is plin and simple a fact. ....
Anne

Anne,

I agree with your more kids equals more costs but not your "apart from vacation". Saying a family having a third child will suddenly spend less on vacation than say a family with two children is not logical. If you choose to stay in a regular Disney hotel room, the average vacation cost per person does seem to decrease when you consider 1 to 4 members of the family because the hotel accomodation is a fixed cost and you are spreading out a fixed cost over more family members, but adding another person (over 2) causes that hotel cost to go up with either the addition of another room or the possible upgrade to a larger room to accomodate 5. The OP just wants more lower cost options for families of 5. It is a valid request and Disney appears to be addressing it by adding the Value Suites.

Dawna

 

[ducklite]

Anne,

I agree with your more kids equals more costs but not your "apart from vacation". Saying a family having a third child will suddenly spend less on vacation than say a family with two children is not logical. If you choose to stay in a regular Disney hotel room, the average vacation cost per person does seem to decrease when you consider 1 to 4 members of the family because the hotel accomodation is a fixed cost and you are spreading out a fixed cost over more family members, but adding another person (over 2) causes that hotel cost to go up with either the addition of another room or the possible upgrade to a larger room to accomodate 5. The OP just wants more lower cost options for families of 5. It is a valid request and Disney appears to be addressing it by adding the Value Suites.

Dawna

It is logical because as your overall annual costs go up, the amount of money you have for discretionary spending goes down. Everyone is looking at this from a micro standpoint, I'm talking MACRO. Big picture.

Less kids=more discretionary funds=ability to spend more money on an averaged, annual basis on discretionary items, such as WDW trips.

Anne

 

[weregoingtodw]

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.

I suppose that would be true for most families. Since our DD is 10, we don't have anything from her infancy and early childhood, and wouldn't feel comfortable reusing it at this point even if we had, from a safety standpoint.

However, I do think that the high dollar expenses (child care & college savings) will definitely increase quite a bit more. Like I said in my earlier explanation, it was overly simplistic for a reason; I wasn't trying to factor in things like that!

Now... if you can figure out how we can reuse a college education for more than one kid, let me know! That would be great news if we do end up having another!

 

[weregoingtodw]

I WOULD BE WILLING to pay a reasonable amount of money so we could all stay in a hotel together.

What amount would you consider to be reasonable?

 

[FayeW]

I'd sure like to know what Disney's putting in the coffee (or the fountains for those refillable mugs) to make paying for 2 rooms at a value, or cramming 5 people into one room at POR, seem like a good option!

Oh, how I wish I could understand the lure of having my entire family sleep in one room for a week, and having to hobble together meals in my room from a cooler filled with ice, or pay for restaurant food the entire time!

Whoever came up with the marketing to sell this must be the same guy who makes the $200. snowglobe at DTD look like a reasonable investment.

The convenience of having my morning coffee in my pyjamas, not having to sit in a dark hotel room while my kids go to sleep, having 3 brms AND 3 bthrms (for less than the cost of a value), and being able to have a snack without trudging to a food court will more than make up for the trauma of having to drive on vacation.

As long as people are willing to pay more for less, I guess I'll always be able to find luxury accomodations offsite.

 

[DisneyDotty]

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.

And this is the heart, I think, of this thread. People are choosing to stay offsite due to better lodging choices/values for the larger family. If this costs Disney some money, they will react accordingly.
Frankly, who wouldn't like more choices overall at WDW (well, maybe not all of us--sometimes decision-making causes my head to spin! )? Til then, we have to look at our options and go with it...Or, we could choose not to go to WDW at all. (Nahhhh. )
And I really don't think anyone was insulting a family's decision to have more than two children.

 

[ducklite]

And this is the heart, I think, of this thread. People are choosing to stay offsite due to better lodging choices/values for the larger family. If this costs Disney some money, they will react accordingly.
Frankly, who wouldn't like more choices overall at WDW (well, maybe not all of us--sometimes decision-making causes my head to spin! )? Til then, we have to look at our options and go with it...Or, we could choose not to go to WDW at all. (Nahhhh. )
And I really don't think anyone was insulting a family's decision to have more than two children.

Exactly! Until Disney finds that they are losing more money in lost guests than it would cost to accomodate a very small market segment, they aren't going to change things. There are 20,000+ guest rooms at Disney hotels. They are operating at a high capacity. If they lose 200 a night to people booking off site due to family configuration, it's simply not affecting their overall bottom line, particularly because those people would have likely booked value rooms to begin with--and the value resorts seem to always be full, so obviously others are taking their place. I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with value resorts, just showing facts based on those in this thread looking for value accomodations for larger families.

Anne

 

[grimley1968]

Well, I'm getting out of this thread, as it has gone unbelievably off-topic from the OP's premise. I just want to reiterate that I agree with the OP: it would be nice to see more options for groups of more than 4. The value suites will help a little, and I hope they're like the suites in CBR, which sound nice. But I'd just like to see more of them. Yes, Disney apparently has not seen a bottom-line need to build them until recently, but they ARE building them now, so apparently their bottom-line needs have been adjusted a little bit to reflect the OP's desire. Note to OP, however: be careful when you vent in the future. A vent is fine. But be sure not to indicate you will be doing something against the rules as a support for your argument.

No sweeping generalizations from me = the same amount of disposable income as I had before I wrote this post = no "straw man" economics arguments that could be refuted by any freshman student of MicroEcon 101 = I'm out of this thread.

 

[jamal]

Wow! This thread got ugly quick! I opened it because I have friends with the same ?s as the OP; I don't think I'll forward it to her now!!

I think I'll go read something fun about Disney

 

[disneyfanfamily]

To the OP - I agree.

I do wish the other mods had the option of POR. Even if they did not want to ADD more rooms for a family of 5, I wish that they would "take" the option for 5 at POR and move them around equally to the other mods. Instead of having lets say 80 rooms for 5 at POR, that it would split the 80 rooms up between ALL the mods. Does that make sense???

I guess I can grumble about it. But when it comes down to it, we WILL stay onsite. So they are not losing my business. I guess that is what it comes down to. Although I do not like the choices, I go and stay anyway...wish I did not like WDW as much as I do!!!

And everyone...we all have our opinions. I do not believe there is a right or wrong. Just an opinion.... We can agree to disagree!!!

 

[J.C.&ALI'SMOM]

It is nice to wish and hope for more options. You can wish all you want for more "larger family" accomodations, but it is highly unlikely and that is the reality. The Pop "family suites" have not been confirmed and the buildings have sat there for years (5?) and nothing has been done.

So the reality of the family with 3+ is Ft. Wilderness (which seems like a great deal to me ), 2 rooms, deluxe or DVC. Why wish for something that is not there or even planned? Lets keep wishing for the monorail expansion, an adults only resort, a 5th gate... Those aren't going to happen either.

And the arguement that WDW is feeling the pinch because families with 3 or more kids are going offsite is a joke The resorts are consistently booked.

If they are having a hard time booking during a time period they will offer discounts. That is how they deal with reduced bookings. There would have to be a huge reduction over a long period before they would build more resorts, especially for larger families

The truth is the majority of guests are families in single rooms. They are making mucho bucks and there is not much of a need to change. That is the current reality.


Edit: Someone tell me why 2 value rooms is so bad???