Still pooling DP Credits?

[pedro2112]

I have pretty thick skin, so no biggie. I was just trying to be helpful and point out the facts of the dining plan without interjecting personal opinion. I always thought the reasoning behind these boards was to provide travellers to WDW a place where they could get factual information and tips regarding WDW and the Orlando area. So when I see people refer to "child" credits, I want to make sure everyone reading the post realizes that there is no such thing as a child credit, and that the plan allows great flexibility in letting anyone in your party use any of the credits at any time. I think it would be terrible for people not to use the great flexibility of the plan because of some misinformation posted on these boards.

 

[bicker]

They're not "child credits" -- they're "credits purchased at the child price". This underscores how important it is to be precise in how you explain things, because words have specific meanings.

What is most notably inconsistent about the program is that using the tactics some people advocate, people with children who use those credits purchased at the child price for extra adult TS meals could end up spending less money, total, than people without children, who end up having to pay OOP for extra TS meals. The way the program is now, people without children have incentive to report that they have children with them, who actually don't exist, and that's a clear indication that something is wrong with the construction of the program.

There are ethical issues, so what is being discussed are, IMHO, ways to operate within a grey area.

 

[Pedler]

They're not "child credits" -- they're "credits purchased at the child price". This underscores how important it is to be precise in how you explain things, because words have specific meanings.

What is most notably inconsistent about the program is that using the tactics some people advocate, people with children who use those credits purchased at the child price for extra adult TS meals could end up spending less money, total, than people without children, who end up having to pay OOP for lots of extra TS meals. The way the program is now, people without children have incentive to report that they have children with them, who actually don't exist, and that's a clear indication that something is wrong with the construction of the program.

There are ethical issues, so what is being discussed are, IMHO, ways to operate within a grey area.

I agree that the plan does provide an incentive to add fictional children to a reservation just to get the credits at a lower price and in that case it does provide an incentive for fraud. But so does having ticket prices change at age 10 along with the cost of the dinning plan going up at age 10 or for that matter having kids under 3 get in free. All of these provide an incentive for fraud but just because a plan provides an incentive for fraud does not make using it in a legitmate manner a grey area. It also does not mean there is something wrong with the way the program is constructed. It just means that there is a benefit to engage in fraud.

It is true that those with children that use the plan in a manner to maximize the financial benefit of the plan, within the allowable rules, do end up with a lower cost for food than an adult only implementation. That doesn't indicate that there is anything wrong with the plan. By all most accounts the plan appears to be operating in the manner that Disney wants. One could argue that Disney is being unfair in providing an additional potential benefit to families with children under the age of 10 but that is an issue for Disney and the way they segment the market. There are many pricing policies that Disney has that you could argue are unfair. For example the people who go with a child 3 years and 1 day old will pay signifigantly more than the people that go with a child 2 years and 11 months 3 weeks old. 8-10 days apart and suddenly you are paying a few hundred dollars more for your trip. It may not be fair but it is the way it is. It would be nice if everyone were to pay the same amount for the same product but it just isn't the way it is.

If you every want to get a good debate going go on a cruise and ask your table mates what they payed for the cruise. You would be suprised at the wide range in prices and the animosity that conversation can cause!

 

[Lewisc]

They're not "child credits" -- they're "credits purchased at the child price". This underscores how important it is to be precise in how you explain things, because words have specific meanings.

exactly

What is most notably inconsistent about the program is that using the tactics some people advocate, people with children who use those credits purchased at the child price for extra adult TS meals could end up spending less money, total, than people without children, who end up having to pay OOP for extra TS meals. The way the program is now, people without children have incentive to report that they have children with them, who actually don't exist, and that's a clear indication that something is wrong with the construction of the program.

It was rumored or at least speculated, that the Dining program was going to require a pass purchase equal to the number of nights and might even not allow for the no-expire feature. That would have reduced the issue with phantom guests. I suspect that technique is more a topic of conversation than something that's actually being done. At least some of the free dining confirmations are stating that all guests must be present at check in.

There are ethical issues, so what is being discussed are, IMHO, ways to operate within a grey area.

Here I don't agree. Phantom guests is not an ethical issue, I consider it a a question of fraud.

I guess an ethical question would be those families that are booking 2 rooms and list one adult and 4 kids in one room and only book dining for that room.

The majority of the dining questions are from posters that intend to pay out of pocket for child's meals and use those credits later for adult meals. That's permitted by Disney so I don't so how those guests can be accused of being unethical or immoral.

I think the problem some of us have with Disney's generosity and flexibility is jealousy.

 

[bicker]

I agree that the plan does provide an incentive to add fictional children to a reservation just to get the credits at a lower price and in that case it does provide an incentive for fraud. But so does having ticket prices change at age 10 along with the cost of the dinning plan going up at age 10 or for that matter having kids under 3 get in free.

However, in the case of admission, there apprears to be some attempt at enforcement. I think that would be all that would be necessary. Until that change takes place, this situation with credits paid for at the child price versus child credits will continue to be a gray area.

That doesn't indicate that there is anything wrong with the plan.

I disagree. It is precisely what indicates that there is something wrong with the plan.

One could argue that Disney is being unfair in providing an additional potential benefit to families with children under the age of 10 but that is an issue for Disney and the way they segment the market.

And for all their customers who get the short-end of the stick as a result.

 

[Letsbgoofy]

Your response seems a bit harsh. Letsbgoofy isn't stating an opinion he is stating a fact that there are no child credits and that people can use them anywhay they want

I agree and I apologize for saying it in that manner. Sorry Pedro!

So when I see people refer to "child" credits, I want to make sure everyone reading the post realizes that there is no such thing as a child credit, and that the plan allows great flexibility in letting anyone in your party use any of the credits at any time

But the OP cannot use her credits for 3 adult meals when one of the party is a child. Guess that's what I had a problem with in your post, that rule does not apply to every situation.

Posters such as letsbgoofy, but not yourself, talk about ethics and moral decisions

Still waiting to hear from you about where I did that. I consider a moral decision to be one based on what you are comfortable doing. At no time did I express a judgement. Ethics? Never used the word in this thread.

 

[Pedler]

However, in the case of admission, there apprears to be some attempt at enforcement. I think that would be all that would be necessary. Until that change takes place, this situation with credits paid for at the child price versus child credits will continue to be a gray area.

I guess this is an area where we disagree. I still don't see the gray here. It isn't a matter of enforcement. As you have accurately stated it is a case of a TS credit being purchased at a child price and not a child credit. As this is the way Disney views it as well there is nothing for Disney to enforce. I think the real issue is that Disney is providing the ability with children to have more savings on food, in essence providing an potential benefit to guests with children under the age of 10 that isn't available to other guests. No gray here just a dislike of the disparity in potential dinning cost.

I disagree. It is precisely what indicates that there is something wrong with the plan.

If it is that the plan provides an incentive to commit fraud, i.e make up children that do not exist to get the dinning credits, then you must think there is something wrong with any age based plan that provides and incentive to miss represent age to achieve a potential savings. Movie theater tickets, admission tickets to WDW the list goes on. I would guess that you think that those pricing policies also have something wrong with them as the provide an incentive to commit fraud. Heck a good way to start a debate that gets closed is to suggest that you want to lie about your kids age to save on admission tickets. I would speculate that happens more than the use of credits in the manner discussed here. You can have some serious savings if you claim a set of twins that are 3 to be under 3.

And for all their customers who get the short-end of the stick as a result.

I can totally understand why someone that can not partake of a pricing benefit would have an issue with the way Disney has segmented the market.

 

[bicker]

you must think there is something wrong with any age based plan that provides and incentive to miss represent age to achieve a potential savings

In the absence of enforcement, yes. In the other cases you mentioned, there isn't necessarily an absence of enforcement.

 

[KarlaG4Kids]

DH and I are taking 2 young grandsons with very small appetities to WDW in September. We are booked with free dining. Will it be immoral or unethical to allow the DGSs to SHARE a childrens meal and use the extra credit at a later time? OR is it MORE immoral or unethical to waste a lot of food by ordering 2 children's meals????

 

[Pedler]

DH and I are taking 2 young grandsons with very small appetities to WDW in September. We are booked with free dining. Will it be immoral or unethical to allow the DGSs to SHARE a childrens meal and use the extra credit at a later time? OR is it MORE immoral or unethical to waste a lot of food by ordering 2 children's meals????

Personally I don't see anything immoral in either case.

 

[bstnsprts]

And for all their customers who get the short-end of the stick as a result.

I have to disagree that anyone gets the short-end of the stick. Two adults who choose to purchase DDP get exactly what they paid for. They don't loose any value because a Family with young children is able to gain value. If your family and mine each book a standard room a GF, and at check-in your family gets upgraded to concierge, did I get the short end of the stick? I'm still getting what I paid for and your family received added value.

 

[Pedler]

I have to disagree that anyone gets the short-end of the stick. Two adults who choose to purchase DDP get exactly what they paid for. They don't loose any value because a Family with young children is able to gain value. If your family and mine each book a standard room a GF, and at check-in your family gets upgraded to concierge, did I get the short end of the stick? I'm still getting what I paid for and your family received added value.

That's an excellent point. Even if tomorrow they started to separate credits and close this "loophole" it would have no effect on those that could not benefit from it. I sincerly doubt that Disney's pricing model is based on a cost plus basis. The MYW Ticket pricing alone demonstrates that. It is more along the lines of what the market will bear. In that case changing pricing for one market segment to increase revenue or reduce cost, i.e. closeing the "loophole" would have no effect on other market segments.

I think LewisC hit on the head when he wrote that it could be jealousy that is bothering some people.

 

[Lewisc]

In real life I think more people talk about banking child credits than actually doing it. A lot of people just eat breakfast in the room, use CS for one meal and TS for the other.

Too many people use this feature and Disney will rethink pricing. I'm sure Disney's pricing model assumes a limited number of credits paid for at child rates will be used to purchase adult meals. Disney can either raise the pricing for both or can differentiate credits. Customer abuse/use caused the previous plan to become nothing more than a pre-paid discount program, pay something like $20 for $25 worth of food. Some of us are concerned that Disney's response, if too many people "use their children as a license to print money" may be to just gut the plan altogether. Face it, the plan will lose a lot of it's value if the WS restaurants either drop out or go to signature status.

Disney already did that with CRT, has to be one of the worse use of credits on the plan.

That's an excellent point. Even if tomorrow they started to separate credits and close this "loophole" it would have no effect on those that could not benefit from it. I sincerly doubt that Disney's pricing model is based on a cost plus basis. The MYW Ticket pricing alone demonstrates that. It is more along the lines of what the market will bear. In that case changing pricing for one market segment to increase revenue or reduce cost, i.e. closeing the "loophole" would have no effect on other market segments.

I think LewisC hit on the head when he wrote that it could be jealousy that is bothering some people.

 

[Pedler]

In real life I think more people talk about banking child credits than actually doing it. A lot of people just eat breakfast in the room, use CS for one meal and TS for the other.

Too many people use this feature and Disney will rethink pricing. I'm sure Disney's pricing model assumes a limited number of credits paid for at child rates will be used to purchase adult meals. Disney can either raise the pricing for both or can differentiate credits. Customer abuse/use caused the previous plan to become nothing more than a pre-paid discount program, pay something like $20 for $25 worth of food. Some of us are concerned that Disney's response, if too many people "use their children as a license to print money" may be to just gut the plan altogether. Face it, the plan will lose a lot of it's value if the WS restaurants either drop out or go to signature status.

Disney already did that with CRT, has to be one of the worse use of credits on the plan.

I can understand peoples concern that use of the plan in this manner will cause Disney to rethink it. Personally I don't think that will happen given the other benefits that Disney derives from the plan and other changes made last year but you never know.

As for WS places dropping out or becoming signature It think that is independant of the use of credits as discussed in this thread. As credits are pooled they get compensated the same regardless of what credit is used (How the credit was paid for). The real hang up for them is that they enjoy none of the additional benefits that Disney gets from the plan and from all accounts get less than desired compensation. I think that if they could fill seats without the plan they would drop it in a heartbeat. If they could charge 2 credits and fill seats they would do that as well. As I have said in previous postings they are in a very difficult position. Take the plan and reduce compensation per meal. Don't take the plan and risk loosing sales. Remember they were not on the plan initially. I think they only agreed to take it because they saw sales drop.

As for CRT that is the ultimate location, location, location place. Disney obviously decided it could increase prices, via 2 credits and menu changes, and not have a big effect on filling seats. My guess would be that they are correct in that assumption.

 

[bicker]

Too many people use this feature and Disney will rethink pricing. I'm sure Disney's pricing model assumes a limited number of credits paid for at child rates will be used to purchase adult meals. Disney can either raise the pricing for both or can differentiate credits. Customer abuse/use caused the previous plan to become nothing more than a pre-paid discount program, pay something like $20 for $25 worth of food. Some of us are concerned that Disney's response, if too many people "use their children as a license to print money" may be to just gut the plan altogether. Face it, the plan will lose a lot of it's value if the WS restaurants either drop out or go to signature status.

Great points, all, Lewis, and that I think your description will really put the problem in focus for lots of people. Thanks! For all we know, Disney already has factored in the exploitation you refer to into the cost of the plan, a move that disproportionately adversely affects folks paying full price rather than those benefiting from the discount for children.

 

[Lewisc]

I can understand peoples concern that use of the plan in this manner will cause Disney to rethink it. Personally I don't think that will happen given the other benefits that Disney derives from the plan and other changes made last year but you never know.

Prior meal plans were gutted as guests learned how to maximize their value. My suspicion is the real reason Disney continues to aggregate TS credits is more guests talk about banking credits than actually doing it.

As for WS places dropping out or becoming signature It think that is independant of the use of credits as discussed in this thread. As credits are pooled they get compensated the same regardless of what credit is used (How the credit was paid for). The real hang up for them is that they enjoy none of the additional benefits that Disney gets from the plan and from all accounts get less than desired compensation. I think that if they could fill seats without the plan they would drop it in a heartbeat. If they could charge 2 credits and fill seats they would do that as well. As I have said in previous postings they are in a very difficult position. Take the plan and reduce compensation per meal. Don't take the plan and risk loosing sales. Remember they were not on the plan initially. I think they only agreed to take it because they saw sales drop.

Banking credits paid for at the child rate may lead to an increased number of restaurant guests. We also don't know how Disney compensates the restaurant for child meals. The compensation may be less of a loss than adult meals so a restaurant would do better with 2A and 2C who use the plan to pay for 4 meals than if the same family goes to the restaurant twice, paying for the kids meals out of pocket both times. Particularly if the extra seating might be used for cash guests.

My concern is the WS restaurants will take the third choice, gut their menu. Teppanyaki already did this. I think their dessert is basically ice cream. That affects guests who aren't on the dining plan or even dining plan guests that might have been willing to pay a surcharge for some menu items. I'm not sure how many MYW guests order adult beverages but that would certainly help make the plan work better for the WS restaurants.

As for CRT that is the ultimate location, location, location place. Disney obviously decided it could increase prices, via 2 credits and menu changes, and not have a big effect on filling seats. My guess would be that they are correct in that assumption.

Correct but my point is Disney has managed to have made most of their desirable restaurants 2 credits. CRT for location, the dinner shows for entertainment and the signature restaurants for food quality. I don't think Disney is taking a loss at the buffet and all you care to eat restaurants even if the child credits are used to pay for adult meals. The $13 that's paid out of pocket for a child's meal at CM is probably enough money to cover the cost of the food an adult eats.

 

[bicker]

My concern is the WS restaurants will take the third choice, gut their menu. Teppanyaki already did this. I think their dessert is basically ice cream. That affects guests who aren't on the dining plan or even dining plan guests that might have been willing to pay a surcharge for some menu items.

There is some evidence that this has affected Coral Reef as well: Appetizers and entrees with more costly ingredients, like beef skewers, crab cakes, and lamb, have been replaced by less costly options, like pasta, soup, and tilapia.

 

[Lewisc]

There is some evidence that this has affected Coral Reef as well: Appetizers and entrees with more costly ingredients, like beef skewers, crab cakes, and lamb, have been replaced by less costly options, like pasta, soup, and tilapia.

One can assume the restaurant is getting paid 50% less since Coral Reef went from a 2 credit to a 1 credit restaurant. One can also assume the restaurant is getting a lot more MYW Dining guests since a lot of dining guests avoid the 2 TS credit restaurants. I didn't compare the menus but I would have been shocked if they hadn't made those type of changes.

Disney wants to keep the plan "simple" but it's a shame the restaurant can't offer one or two "signature" appetizers, entrées and even desserts and have up charges for those few items. The plan wouldn't be as attractive if soup and salad were the only appetizers but there should be a middle ground. I wonder if some of the menu items were dropped not just because of food cost but also because of the items being more labor intensive to prepare/serve.

 

[Pedler]

One can assume the restaurant is getting paid 50% less since Coral Reef went from a 2 credit to a 1 credit restaurant. One can also assume the restaurant is getting a lot more MYW Dining guests since a lot of dining guests avoid the 2 TS credit restaurants. I didn't compare the menus but I would have been shocked if they hadn't made those type of changes.

Disney wants to keep the plan "simple" but it's a shame the restaurant can't offer one or two "signature" appetizers, entrées and even desserts and have up charges for those few items. The plan wouldn't be as attractive if soup and salad were the only appetizers but there should be a middle ground. I wonder if some of the menu items were dropped not just because of food cost but also because of the items being more labor intensive to prepare/serve.

I think that we can assume that Disney is less concerned with having to reduce the offerings / food quality than it is with selling packages and keeping the less frequent visitors captive on site. The people that will notice the changes in menus are probably not the target market for current marketing plans. I don't think that they are taking anyone for granted but I think they would make changes that the Disney "foodies" may not appreciate to increase overall park attendence and spending. This could be a side effect of the dinning plan in general. It may be that some of the places get watered down a bit as long as the DDP accomplishes Disney's objectives.

 

[keishashadow]

have noticed that many of our favorites have disappeared as well.

Didn't mean to re-open the "tempest in the teapot" w/this thread. I'm past the point of being the dining police.

Just wanted to know if DS could order adult dinner OOP or whether I was stuck eating the child's meal. Suppose I'll just have to ask the server when the time comes.

Thanks to all for your input.

There is some evidence that this has affected Coral Reef as well: Appetizers and entrees with more costly ingredients, like beef skewers, crab cakes, and lamb, have been replaced by less costly options, like pasta, soup, and tilapia.