Please tell me why Dessert but no appetizer with Dining plan?

[havoc315]

That won't solve the problem of table turnover. People don't eat salads at the end of the meal,they eat them before the meal. You get a party of two, one substitutes the salad before the entree, the other gets the dessert after the entree, and they share. Then they spend longer at the table without shelling out any extra cash.

There is speculation of that being the reason appetizers were removed. I don't know if that's why or not --- Personally, I think it was just a matter of cost savings for Disney. Just like they eliminated the tips being included, which clearly has no impact on table turnover.

But I disagree that allowing a salad hurts table turnover. Dessert is not even ordered until after the main meal is finished. And people will "linger" over a dessert much longer than they will a salad. And finally, a salad can basically be served simultaneously with the entree.
Overall -- considering the families/couples that will skip the dessert and just get salads instead, those people will turnover faster than dessert tables. So while some families turn over slower, other families would turn over faster.

But fine -- Then how about allowing a side-dish to be substituted for dessert? Side dishes cost the same amount as desserts. And side dishes do not hurt table turnover.

For example, at Les Cellier, the $4.99 wild mushroom risotto instead of the $6.99 cheesecake.

 

[tony67]

68% of Americans are obese or overweight. I'm sure the plan works for the majority of these people.

Of course the standard for overweight changed over the years did it not?

For example a very healthy Marine or Paratrooper can be classified as overweight by the current standards even though they are not.

I am not going to get into the politics of this change.

You do not have to overeat to get value from the food plan.

Also all people who are overweight are not overeaters.
There are many others factors involved so to generalize like that is unfair to many people.

 

[TDC Nala]

I believe that such a plan would have a very wide appeal.

I don't, for a simple reason. Most guests want character meals. All character meals are either buffets or all you can eat family style. I don't think large numbers of Disney guests are going to go for a prepaid dining plan that excludes all character meals. Maybe if you're planning to suggest something to Disney you could suggest they start a character meal that isn't unlimited food.

At any rate, the dining plan is what it is. Some people like it and they'll always get it. Just because the plan is on hard sell doesn't mean guests have to buy it or are going to buy it. If they're already inclined to healthy eating and it won't be a good deal for them, they're just not going to buy it. And if you do buy it, you are not being forced to eat the dessert - it's still a choice.

 

[havoc315]

On the second point, I definitely agree it would be nice to sub the salad for the fruit... and if I the regular DDP could be tweeked to provide for this, it would be a nice enhancement... though it won't happen

Agreed, and that's really what I'm getting at. I'm not saying it is impossible to eat reasonably at Disney. I'm not saying it is impossible to eat reasonably on the meal plan. And in rare cases, it is even possible to eat reasonably on the meal plan, while still getting some value.

What am I saying, is that overall, the meal plan is designed in a way that limits reasonable choices.

I think someone compared it to a cruise -- that cruises also encourage irresponsible eating... all you can eat, chocolate buffets, etc.
Very true -- But on the cruise, the responsible eater can also get "all you can eat" salads, vegetables, whole grains.
On the Disney dining plan, the "all you can eat" is basically just desserts -- 2 "official" dessert per day, plus a snack. The the QSDP and DxDP, it's as many as 4 desserts per day.

 

[havoc315]

Of course the standard for overweight changed over the years did it not?

Using today's standard -- and applying it historically, Americans are more obese than any time in history.

Scientifically, a person who is overweight, using current definitions, has the same effect on their life expectancy as a light smoker (half a pack per day or so).
A person who is obese, hurts their life expectancy to the same degree as a heavy smoker (2 packs per day)

 

[havoc315]

I don't, for a simple reason. Most guests want character meals. All character meals are either buffets or all you can eat family style. I don't think large numbers of Disney guests are going to go for a prepaid dining plan that excludes all character meals. Maybe if you're planning to suggest something to Disney you could suggest they start a character meal that isn't unlimited food.

At any rate, the dining plan is what it is. Some people like it and they'll always get it. Just because the plan is on hard sell doesn't mean guests have to buy it or are going to buy it. If they're already inclined to healthy eating and it won't be a good deal for them, they're just not going to buy it. And if you do buy it, you are not being forced to eat the dessert - it's still a choice.

Character meals are popular with families with young children. Last time I went to Disney was about 10 years ago, with just my wife, before we had children. We had absolutely no interest in character meals. Many, many, many people that go to Disney consist of couples, young adults, or families with older children -- to whom character meals have limited appeal.

And of course, there would always be the option of paying OOP for a character buffet, while sticking to the meal plan for your other meals.

And you're right, guests don't have to buy it, despite the hard sell. But with the hard sell, consumers may not realize that the meal plan only provides value to irresponsible eating, until after they have been ripped off. (I'm an intelligent person, and I completely misunderstood the meal plan when I booked it, as the booking website was rather vague on many details).

 

[clanmcculloch]

havoc, I'm not sure why you see this at Disney ripping people off. Consumers have a responsibility to understand what they're buying. Disney does not hide anything about the DDP and in fact publishes an easy to follow brochure on each dining plan. Menus are published online as well. Any consumer can take a look at what they're buying before hand and make an informed decision. It's called personal responsibility. Nobody's being forced to make the purchase and nobody's being tricked. Marketting is intended to make an item that's for sale seem attractive. Disney is brilliant at marketting. Intelligent consumers research what their purchasing to determine if what's being marketted to them is in their best interest before spending lots of money on that item. If consumers don't do this then it's the consumer ripping themselves off.

 

[pilferk]

I would like to see them get rid of the dessert with the QS meal and add another snack.

We've sort of done that.

Usually there is some sort of fruit option for dessert, or some sort of packaged cookies/crackers (If memory serves, there's often Goldfish crackers, if you ask?) that they either have as a dessert option or will let you substitute for your dessert.

We typically take those along "for the ride", basically adding an extra snack to the day. With our kids (who will eat anything you put in front of them, but aren't "big eaters" in one sitting), that's worked out best.

 

[tony67]

Using today's standard -- and applying it historically, Americans are more obese than any time in history.

Scientifically, a person who is overweight, using current definitions, has the same effect on their life expectancy as a light smoker (half a pack per day or so).
A person who is obese, hurts their life expectancy to the same degree as a heavy smoker (2 packs per day)

I (and many others) feel that today’s standards put far more people into the overweight category than should be.
VERY health soldiers are classified as overweight when using the simple standards, I see that as a problem.

As for applying it historically, can you really?
For example there were no programs to feed the poor, they just went hungry.
Other factors include wars, rationing, crop failures, the depression etc…

In the end though no one disagrees we are heavier as a world population, but I do not agree with the standards.
By classifying more people as overweight you have a talking point for your agenda, like banning certain foods or ingrediants.
Peopel should be able to make the choices themselves, just like with alcohol.

As for the study, it is just a likely that another study will some out at some point and refute that.
For example a recent one that says heavy drinkers live longer than non drinkers, that goes against everything we thought in the past.

That study you referenced was most likely the one with men living in Sweden.
54% of light smokers had a increased rate of mortality
33% of the obese had a increased rate of mortality
BTW: The extremely underweight also had a 33% increase.

I don’t see 54% and 33% as the same, even statistically.

I do see being extremely underweight as bad as being overweight.

Also had the study been done in England or the USA or Canada or even Japan the results may not be the same.
It does not take into account stress, diet, gender, climate, genetics, they type of foods they ate, the poverty in the country etc...

 

[MSLRAC]

And you're right, guests don't have to buy it, despite the hard sell. But with the hard sell, consumers may not realize that the meal plan only provides value to irresponsible eating, until after they have been ripped off. (I'm an intelligent person, and I completely misunderstood the meal plan when I booked it, as the booking website was rather vague on many details).

I found the booking website more than informative about the meal plan and knew before I booked it exactly what we would be getting. I then took the time to read through all of the online menus and made our ADRs accordingly. The meal plan was a HUGE value to our family and we did not eat irresponsible at all! It's called self control and making good meal choices (which there are a ton of at Disney). In fact, we all came home weighing less than when we arrived and we did indulge in dessert at almost every meal.

People need to start being accountable for their actions and choices and stop blaming anything and everything on someone else.

 

[havoc315]

havoc, I'm not sure why you see this at Disney ripping people off. Consumers have a responsibility to understand what they're buying.

Here is what popped up from Disney as I was booking my reservation:

"Would you like to save on dining?

For less than $42 per adult per night, you can upgrade your package to the Magic Your Way Package Plus Dining which includes the Disney Dining Plan!"

So very few details at first, and the price is actually listed incorrectly. I had input peak 2011 dates -- the price is really $47 per adult, I believe. And it is never corrected on the website. Instead, you are just shown the "total" for all the members of your party, for all the dates. You don't realize you are actually being charge $5 more than the advertised price, unless you pull out a calculator.

But, putting aside the initial teaser.. click for more information, and here is what you get:

"Save up to 20% per adult on Disney dining! For each night of your reservation, the Disney Dining Plan provides one table-service meal, one quick-service meal and one snack per person with over 100 participating restaurants to choose from!"

No correction on the price is listed. Nothing to indicate that desserts are included, but that salads are not included. Nothing to even indicate that gratuities are not included.

Only when you start reading through the fine print, do you realize that tips are not included, and Disney's definition of a "meal." And you don't realize that the price was wrong, until you really stare closely at the bill! In fact, even staring at the bill, you wouldn't know that you were charged more than $42 per adult, since you don't know how much was charged for the children. I didn't realize I had actually paid $47 per adult, until I came to this message board!

I'd say it's pretty easy for even a smart consumer, to feel ripped off.

 

[pilferk]

I (and many others) feel that today’s standards put far more people into the overweight category than should be.
VERY health soldiers are classified as overweight when using the simple standards, I see that as a problem.

BMI (which is the standard being used in the studies, above, I suspect) is a hopelessly outdated and increasingly irrelevant metric.

The issue is that it's inconsistent, as a measure, in men (because of issues with bone density and muscle mass distribution) and it has issue with women who are far afield from the average height (either over or under) because of the way it scales. RI (Rohrer's Index) is better, but even that's not perfect...because tall people are NOT simply "scaled up" versions of shorter people.

I don't mean to minimize the issue, either. Obesity is an ongoing issue in our society. But by the same token, some of the studies done are not based on the most reliable of science, either.

 

[havoc315]

I (and many others) feel that today’s standards put far more people into the overweight category than should be.

That's like disagreeing with the word "cancer." Whether you call it cancer, or something else, it can kill you.

A person who is "overweight" -- whether or not you personally consider them overweight -- has a health problem.

American standards have become so distorted, that we have come to accept overweight as being a new normal.

I'm overweight (but working to fix it). Very few people would look at me, and classify me as "fat" or overweight. I don't have a big beer belly, I don't have hanging fat. But yes, my belt *should* close another notch or 2. And my excess weight, though fairly mild, and not really visually noticeable, it does put me at extra health risks. Just like nearly 70% of Americans.

 

[pilferk]

That's like disagreeing with the word "cancer." Whether you call it cancer, or something else, it can kill you.

A person who is "overweight" -- whether or not you personally consider them overweight -- has a health problem.

American standards have become so distorted, that we have come to accept overweight as being a new normal.

I'm overweight (but working to fix it). Very few people would look at me, and classify me as "fat" or overweight. I don't have a big beer belly, I don't have hanging fat. But yes, my belt *should* close another notch or 2. And my excess weight, though fairly mild, and not really visually noticeable, it does put me at extra health risks. Just like nearly 70% of Americans.

Actually, medically speaking, that's not ENTIRELY true. There are conditions exacerbated by Obesity. There have also been studies that show there is less mortality among overweight individuals when it comes to OTHER conditions.

Look...nobody is going to say that being overweight is good for you. It's not. But the stigma associated with it, and the paranoia that has surrounded it, is also somewhat overblown and exacerbated by our very image conscious society.

REAL Morbid Obesity can be a big issue. It can make some conditions worse (COPD, Respiratory disease) and the contributing factors that CAUSE the Obesity (overeating, eating a diet high in fat) can also cause issues.

Carrying around an extra 10 or 20 lbs (depending on your frame) usually isn't. There have been studies showing that "overweight" (as classified by the atrocious BMI standard) individuals actually have little, if any, correlation between medical conditions/complications and their weight. In fact, they typically have better morbidity and mortality rates over individuals who are classified as having an "ideal" body weight...and MUCH better than those who are classified as "underweight". They see fewer long bone breaks, they better withstand treatment in medical settings....

Again, I'm not trying to minimize this issue. Morbid Obesity is a big problem (when it really exists and isn't just being "diagnosed" by a flawed metric). It's one we're going to have to face, head on, as this population continues to age. But it's NOT as prevalent as much of the media would try to lead you to believe.

 

[havoc315]

I'm not going to get into a debate of whether it is unhealthy to be overweight.

Clearly, if someone doesn't think being overweight is much of an issue, then they aren't going to think a few days of irresponsible eating is a great concern either.

But the idea that being 10-20 pounds overweight --- Not just 10-20 pounds over the ideal weight, but 10-20 pounds over the ideal weight *range* -- is "ok" is similar to people from a prior generation who thought that smoking a half-pack per day, is "ok."

(For full disclosure, I'm in that range -- I'm about 10 pounds over my ideal weight range, and I do believe that is a health concern).

 

[Disneyadore]

That is definitely one way to handle things. If an individual ordered mid-level items (in terms of calories and fat) for their meals, including appetizers and desserts, and ate less than half of their food, they would be eating reasonable portions.

But looking at it from a cost basis, if you're only eating less than half the food, it would be far cheaper to just pay OOP and share plates.

For us the pre paid aspect of the plan works fine. We like to dine at two credit restaurants and we can order streak,veal and lobster without even looking at the prices.
We are fully happy with the Deluxe plan and as we also stay club level with free food and drinks I'm sure some of the poster will tell me that the devil will put me in his special "Burnt Toast Department".

 

[pilferk]

I'm not going to get into a debate of whether it is unhealthy to be overweight.

Clearly, if someone doesn't think being overweight is much of an issue, then they aren't going to think a few days of irresponsible eating is a great concern either.

But the idea that being 10-20 pounds overweight --- Not just 10-20 pounds over the ideal weight, but 10-20 pounds over the ideal weight *range* -- is "ok" is similar to people from a prior generation who thought that smoking a half-pack per day, is "ok."

(For full disclosure, I'm in that range -- I'm about 10 pounds over my ideal weight range, and I do believe that is a health concern).

For full disclosure, I work in the healthcare industry, at a large, world renowned, institution. I work on THIS ISSUE (among others), along side some pretty reputable researchers and members of this field (both in the field of bariatrics and other, related, fields).

This isn't an "I think" issue, for me. It's a "the research shows" thing. And there's plenty of it out there, some of which I've actually helped put together.

Research (the stuff that WASN'T funded by the tobacco industry) showed smoking was hazardous to your health.

Research shows that being Morbidly Obese (real, diagnosed Morbid Obesity...not Morbid Obesity as defined exclusively by BMI) is hazardous to your health.

Research shows that "overweight" (and the 10 to 20 lb range is using average male height and frame) really isn't.

None of that is opinion.

I'll not drag the thread off topic any further. But, again, our image conscious society and our over eager media do tend to blow some things out of proportion.

Edit: A little light reading:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704464704575208082569868428.html

 

[ReneeA]

If the dining plan doesn't work for you...don't buy it. Everyone should do some research before booking to find out exactly what they are paying for and decide from there if it's a good deal for them.

If Disney designed a plan for every single person that the dining plan didn't exactly fit, there would be 1,068 plans to choose from...with about that many price points. Can you imagine how hard it would be to navigate such a offering? CM's now don't often know what they are offering...they'd really have no clue at that point, not to mention what chaos it would be at the registers once you get on site.

Honestly, MANY people go on vacation with the plan to overindulge. I know we do (and I am smack dab in the middle of healthy weight according to the BMI chart with my kids being woefully underweight due to their crazy tall height for their ages). While I eat very healthy and moderately at home, I eat like a hog on vacation (and enjoy it). We purchase the DDP and share some CS meals in order to grab some CS breakfasts to share. It works for us. Would I like to drop the CS dessert to receive an additional snack for later? Sure. Is it worth griping and whining about? Absolutely not.

If it works, add it. If it doesn't, don't. It really is just as simple as that. Millions of people trod into Disney yearly without the DDP and manage to find nutrition in some form while they are there. It's not unheard of to go without a plan.

 

[pilferk]

Honestly, MANY people go on vacation with the plan to overindulge. I know we do (and I am smack dab in the middle of healthy weight according to the BMI chart with my kids being woefully underweight due to their crazy tall height for their ages). While I eat very healthy and moderately at home, I eat like a hog on vacation (and enjoy it). We purchase the DDP and share some CS meals in order to grab some CS breakfasts to share. It works for us. Would I like to drop the CS dessert to receive an additional snack for later? Sure. Is it worth griping and whining about? Absolutely not.

We're in the same boat. I'm slightly over my ideal BMI (but clincicially, pretty darn close to my ideal weight), but I'm 6ft 3 with a larger frame/broad shoulders. I've got 3 VERY tall kids, too...they run in the 99th% for height, and around the 60th for weight. And they eat just fine.

When we go to WDW, given we're on vacation, we tend to do a bit more splurging. We don't throw caution to the wind...but we're not exactly counting calories and looking at fat content, or employing any sort of strict portion control.

The DDP largely works for us because, while the adult pricing has risen and the benefits have declined...the children's value is still REALLY good. Once our oldest falls into the "adult" DDP, we'll probably start paying OOP again.

 

[ReneeA]

The DDP largely works for us because, while the adult pricing has risen and the benefits have declined...the children's value is still REALLY good. Once our oldest falls into the "adult" DDP, we'll probably start paying OOP again.

That's exactly what we've decided, too. Our kids are 7 & 8 and we'll probably return next year when they are 8 & 9. It'll be the last year of them being "children" on the plan. At that point, we'll have to crunch the numbers and make a decision re. DDP or no DDP. It'll probably be advantageous for us to get the adult DDP for DS8 when he turns 10 since he out eats me now, but DD7 will never eat that much. But those scenarios just prove the point that the plan doesn't work for everyone all of the time. This year it works for us, it 2 years...it probably won't.