Dining plan cost OUTRAGEOUS for 2012

[havoc315]

Well done, however there is also the value of the refillable mug as well as 5 snacks a day to take into account.

For many families, my own included, the mugs are next to worthless. We don't drink gallons of soda. While I do like a cup of coffee in the morning, we go straight to the parks from the room often. I don't want to walk over to the food court for coffee, and then have to either return the mug to the room, or carry all day. Especially where there s already free coffee in the room -- the coffee maker.
Can't use the mugs in the parks -- the only place that they might actually be a bit useful. There are zero beverages available for my children -- I don't allow them to drink soda or artificial juices.
And if there actually is a rare occasion when I happen to be at the resort and really in the mood for a soda, I have to weigh it against walking all the way to the food court.
Plus, if we do a Garden Grocer order, then I can buy more soda than my family could possibly drink for a week, and always have it cold and in the room, for around $5-10.

So for my family, in terms of actual use, the 4 mugs for a week are valued at $0-10. (recognizing we may use them 1-2 times).

 

[distherapy]

But inside the kid will be boiling.
Fact is that a kid is not "designed" to last more than 20 minutes at any table or meal. It's all about physiology. 20 minutes after beginning a meal, our body begins sending messages to our brain basically saying that you are satiated. And if adults are used to make meals last, kids do need their routine.

So if you want things to be perfect, try not to hold the kid in a restaurant more than 20 minutes, and you may realise that this timeframe woudln't even get you through your entrée, let alone dessert.

Spending time enjoying lunch/dinner in a restaurant is grown-ups' stuff. The kids need to get things moving and cannot focus for long periods of time, they're kids, let them be kids, especially at Disney's.
They may try to please you by staying calm and focused, they may even lie outright by saying that they enjoyed it. But do not get fooled. It's only your conception of perfect, from your grown up point of view. But from a kid's point of view, sitting down at a table is time wasted, and you know that when you realise that restaurants do have play areas for kids. There wouldn't be if kids enjoyed staying at the table while the adults have THEIR very own perfect time.

Grab the kid a burger or a couple of chicken nuggets and some fries, and off you go to the perfect things like Dumbo, Tea Cups, It's a small world and stuff like that

my own 2 cents anyway

Wow! Thanks! I had no idea my kids were so miserable. You've just saved me thousands in therapy bills.

Seriously, though, as I said before, I can appreciate that this doesn't work for some families. For us (and that means ALL of us, little ones included), the time sitting at a table service meal is a welcome break from the hustle and bustle outside. It's a chance for us to talk about what we're enjoying, what we'd like to do next. The kids like the coloring pages on the menus, to look over the pictures we've taken, and to take in what is often a lovely view (sunset from CA Grill, for example, had them enthralled). When we plan our trips, they are as excited about picking the places to eat as the resort and come running up to me with their favorites. They are, by the way, your average active kids, but mine would have had trouble spending 12+ hours on the go without those breaks and they would have become overtired and cranky. The relaxing (and that is truly what they are to us) meals were great. But, like people have said, kids are different, families are different. To paint all with one brush is a poor choice.

 

[bledsoedoc]

I mostly agree.
Not on the character part though. For instance, my son is only afraid by the queen of hearts, but really enjoys the other characters (he's 4 and goes to Disney's since is 1 1/2)

But I do agree on the sit down restaurants being quite boring for kids under the age of 6 or 7 (and even almost into their early teens)
Of course your kid might be very well behaved, and will sit down quietly and patiently to please you. But inside the kid will be boiling.
Fact is that a kid is not "designed" to last more than 20 minutes at any table or meal. It's all about physiology. 20 minutes after beginning a meal, our body begins sending messages to our brain basically saying that you are satiated. And if adults are used to make meals last, kids do need their routine.

So if you want things to be perfect, try not to hold the kid in a restaurant more than 20 minutes, and you may realise that this timeframe woudln't even get you through your entrée, let alone dessert.

Spending time enjoying lunch/dinner in a restaurant is grown-ups' stuff. The kids need to get things moving and cannot focus for long periods of time, they're kids, let them be kids, especially at Disney's.
They may try to please you by staying calm and focused, they may even lie outright by saying that they enjoyed it. But do not get fooled. It's only your conception of perfect, from your grown up point of view. But from a kid's point of view, sitting down at a table is time wasted, and you know that when you realise that restaurants do have play areas for kids. There wouldn't be if kids enjoyed staying at the table while the adults have THEIR very own perfect time.

Grab the kid a burger or a couple of chicken nuggets and some fries, and off you go to the perfect things like Dumbo, Tea Cups, It's a small world and stuff like that

my own 2 cents anyway

Wow. My child does fine at sit down meals. But we are responsible parents. Sit down meals are a welcomed and NEEDED time out from the chaos of the parks and overstimulation. We use them as such. We read stories. We color. We play simon says. We bring card games and memory games and other small games to keep us all occupied. We also do conversations as a family. Remember that lost art? And if the waits are lengthy, we do walks, and eye spys and who can tell the silliest joke contests. Get a grip. Kids are not dumb. I give my son credit for what he is capable of doing and is his blossoming.

 

[bledsoedoc]

I mostly agree.
Not on the character part though. For instance, my son is only afraid by the queen of hearts, but really enjoys the other characters (he's 4 and goes to Disney's since is 1 1/2)

But I do agree on the sit down restaurants being quite boring for kids under the age of 6 or 7 (and even almost into their early teens)
Of course your kid might be very well behaved, and will sit down quietly and patiently to please you. But inside the kid will be boiling.
Fact is that a kid is not "designed" to last more than 20 minutes at any table or meal. It's all about physiology. 20 minutes after beginning a meal, our body begins sending messages to our brain basically saying that you are satiated. And if adults are used to make meals last, kids do need their routine.

So if you want things to be perfect, try not to hold the kid in a restaurant more than 20 minutes, and you may realise that this timeframe woudln't even get you through your entrée, let alone dessert.

Spending time enjoying lunch/dinner in a restaurant is grown-ups' stuff. The kids need to get things moving and cannot focus for long periods of time, they're kids, let them be kids, especially at Disney's.
They may try to please you by staying calm and focused, they may even lie outright by saying that they enjoyed it. But do not get fooled. It's only your conception of perfect, from your grown up point of view. But from a kid's point of view, sitting down at a table is time wasted, and you know that when you realise that restaurants do have play areas for kids. There wouldn't be if kids enjoyed staying at the table while the adults have THEIR very own perfect time.

Grab the kid a burger or a couple of chicken nuggets and some fries, and off you go to the perfect things like Dumbo, Tea Cups, It's a small world and stuff like that

my own 2 cents anyway

Oh, and the food is much healthier, especially because they make it for you with the requests that you need. That alone helps my kid make it through the parks for 2 weeks every year, at a minimum, without meltdowns and nutty behaviour.

 

[chmurf]

you're both right. What kids need is to spend some quality time with their parents. And as you both pointed out, the best part in the restaurant thing is not the eating at all, but all the games and activities you get to do with your kids at the restaurant.
In that respect you are right.
But such quality time could be achieved (should be achieved) anywhere else. And since the thread is about how outrageous the cost of DDP is, don't you think it's a little expensive to have a sit down and play/fool around with your kids.
Of course I could argue myself that nothing is too expensive when it comes to my kid, but you get the notion.
Meals should be a fun time, but I tend to teach my kid that there is a time to eat and a time to play, and not mix both.

Anyway, I guess will agree to disagree

 

[eliza61]

I mostly agree.
Not on the character part though. For instance, my son is only afraid by the queen of hearts, but really enjoys the other characters (he's 4 and goes to Disney's since is 1 1/2)

But I do agree on the sit down restaurants being quite boring for kids under the age of 6 or 7 (and even almost into their early teens)
Of course your kid might be very well behaved, and will sit down quietly and patiently to please you. But inside the kid will be boiling.
Fact is that a kid is not "designed" to last more than 20 minutes at any table or meal. It's all about physiology. 20 minutes after beginning a meal, our body begins sending messages to our brain basically saying that you are satiated. And if adults are used to make meals last, kids do need their routine..

Spending time enjoying lunch/dinner in a restaurant is grown-ups' stuff. The kids need to get things moving and cannot focus for long periods of time, they're kids, let them be kids, especially at Disney's.
They may try to please you by staying calm and focused, they may even lie outright by saying that they enjoyed it. But do not get fooled. It's only your conception of perfect, from your grown up point of view. But from a kid's point of view, sitting down at a table is time wasted, and you know that when you realise that restaurants do have play areas for kids. There wouldn't be if kids enjoyed staying at the table while the adults have THEIR very own perfect time.Grab the kid a burger or a couple of chicken nuggets and some fries, and off you go to the perfect things like Dumbo, Tea Cups, It's a small world and stuff like that

my own 2 cents anyway

Where did you get this great perception from? My kids would have stabbed you with a knife at 7 years of age if you tried to rush them through a meal in 20 minutes and thank god we never ever gave our kids those nasty chicken nuggets. those things should be banned on every continent on the planet.

Sorry maybe I've got disfunctional kids but they love dinner time as much as we do. and I really must have weird kids because they love dessert and they manage to want it after every meal, but then even at 7 they were able to concentrate for more than 20 minutes at a time. Horrors of horros we even manage to take them to "adult" restaurants where the food actually took longer than 20 minutes to cook

could it be that you have to give your kids constant stimulation that they seem to not be able to make it through a meal longer than 20 minutes?

So by your analogy you never take your kids to a museum because ***gasp*** they actually have to look at stuff and read? no twirling teacups to keep the stimulation going so they don't get bored.

Sorry I have to add my voice to the choruses of "not happening with my kids". Even as babies they were used to long sit down meals with family. My dh's parents are European and meals are never ever 20 minutes. No italian worth their salt is going to allow a kid to get up from the dinner table 20 minutes into dinner LOL.

Kids learn what they are taught. If you teach them that Mcdonalds, chicken nuggets and fries are the extent of dining that's what they learn. If you teach them and expose them to sit down meals where you talk, laugh and go over the day, they get accostume to that also.

 

[WillAustin]

Sorry maybe I've got disfunctional kids but they love dinner time as much as we do. and I really must have weird kids because they love dessert and they manage to want it after every meal, but then even at 7 they were able to concentrate for more than 20 minutes at a time. Horrors of horrors we even manage to take them to "adult" restaurants where the food actually took longer than 20 minutes to cook.

When asked what their favorite parts of our Disney trips have been, my kids (8,6,and 6) shocked me by telling people that, while the parks were really fun, it was swimming at the hotel pool (BLT, mind you, not something like Stormalong Bay) and eating at the different nice restaurants that they want to make sure we do again. We don't spend all day in the parks, and the kids honestly don't want to. All kids are different. When they feel like they'd rather go swim at the hotel, we go.

As long as you are enjoying it, there is no wrong way to do Disney World. I'd agree the Dining Plans are certainly expensive, but they are also certainly convenient. We have had terrific experiences at the Disney World restaurants and can't wait to go back.

People like to defend their particular method as the best, but it's not always the case for others and their different situations. Everyone has to figure out what works best for their family.

 

[chmurf]

Where did you get this great perception from?

pediatricians and nutritionists actually ...

could it be that you have to give your kids constant stimulation that they seem to not be able to make it through a meal longer than 20 minutes?

It's not a question of ability, it's a question of biological clock.
When you start to eat, your intestine will secrete cholecystokinin. It's a peptidic hormone which, among thing, will act as a hunger suppressant.
This "suppression mechanism" is designed to avoid "over-eating".
The 20 minutes mark is a length where the brain is instructed that the meal has lasted long enough.

Of course people, kids and grown-ups are able to go over that 20 minutes limit, and they specially can do that if they have a good time and if the meal is broken into segments (with games in between)

But as you learn to ignore the message sent by this hormone, you risk to allow a wide range of eating disorders to settle in. Because you no longer listen to the warning signals your body sends. Of course this doesn't mean that you WILL get such disorders, but this is the right path to take if you're looking for trouble.
And if I'm stressing this point out, it's because I was raised in a family where meals were lengthy, and at 38, I stood 5'4'' and 350lbs ... now down to 250lbs just learning to listen to my body again (no fancy diet or WW crap)

Sorry I have to add my voice to the choruses of "not happening with my kids". Even as babies they were used to long sit down meals with family. My dh's parents are European and meals are never ever 20 minutes. No italian worth their salt is going to allow a kid to get up from the dinner table 20 minutes into dinner LOL.

And many european families end their family dinner with a smoke, this doesn't mean it's healthy just because it's a tradition

anyway, now I feel sorry for saying out loud what I think ...

 

[pilferk]

For many families, my own included, the mugs are next to worthless. We don't drink gallons of soda. While I do like a cup of coffee in the morning, we go straight to the parks from the room often. I don't want to walk over to the food court for coffee, and then have to either return the mug to the room, or carry all day. Especially where there s already free coffee in the room -- the coffee maker.
Can't use the mugs in the parks -- the only place that they might actually be a bit useful. There are zero beverages available for my children -- I don't allow them to drink soda or artificial juices.
And if there actually is a rare occasion when I happen to be at the resort and really in the mood for a soda, I have to weigh it against walking all the way to the food court.
Plus, if we do a Garden Grocer order, then I can buy more soda than my family could possibly drink for a week, and always have it cold and in the room, for around $5-10.

So for my family, in terms of actual use, the 4 mugs for a week are valued at $0-10. (recognizing we may use them 1-2 times).

Exactly the same for us.

To boot, we're DVC members. We have a full kitchen...and we can stock our fridge relatively inexpensively.

The mug doesn't add one whit of value to the plan for us.

The rise in costs for kids, as well as my oldest "graduating" to the 10 and up pricing level, pretty much means our use of the DDP will end. Which, to be honest, is something I've been expecting as our 3 kids get older.

 

[eliza61]

pediatricians and nutritionists actually ...




It's not a question of ability, it's a question of biological clock.
When you start to eat, your intestine will secrete cholecystokinin. It's a peptidic hormone which, among thing, will act as a hunger suppressant.
This "suppression mechanism" is designed to avoid "over-eating".
The 20 minutes mark is a length where the brain is instructed that the meal has lasted long enough.

Of course people, kids and grown-ups are able to go over that 20 minutes limit, and they specially can do that if they have a good time and if the meal is broken into segments (with games in between)

But as you learn to ignore the message sent by this hormone, you risk to allow a wide range of eating disorders to settle in. Because you no longer listen to the warning signals your body sends. Of course this doesn't mean that you WILL get such disorders, but this is the right path to take if you're looking for trouble.
And if I'm stressing this point out, it's because I was raised in a family where meals were lengthy, and at 38, I stood 5'4'' and 350lbs ... now down to 250lbs just learning to listen to my body again (no fancy diet or WW crap)





And many european families end their family dinner with a smoke, this doesn't mean it's healthy just because it's a tradition

anyway, now I feel sorry for saying out loud what I think ...

Never feel sorry for voicing your opinion but may I say your post did not make it sound like an opinion. and as you pointed out every one is different.

Healthy living is a combination of factors. My kids spend hours at the dinner table and are reed thin. Diffently not knowldegable enough to know the human anatomy part of it but all I can say is I've sat at the table for long periods of time and I don't think I "ignore" my bodies signals. I'm pretty good at telling when I'm full and when I'm not. I've never been obese or any thing other than maybe 5-10 lbs over weight but I do believe, physical activity, what you eat (aka no junk food ala chicken nuggests), portion sizes (maybe that 20 minute mark cranks in because we feel the need to supersize every thing and in Portugal our portion sizes are tiny so we don't have that full effect the minute food hits our stomach) and genetics play just as big a part as "body" signals.

 

[pilferk]

But I do agree on the sit down restaurants being quite boring for kids under the age of 6 or 7 (and even almost into their early teens)
Of course your kid might be very well behaved, and will sit down quietly and patiently to please you. But inside the kid will be boiling.

Fact is that a kid is not "designed" to last more than 20 minutes at any table or meal. It's all about physiology. 20 minutes after beginning a meal, our body begins sending messages to our brain basically saying that you are satiated. And if adults are used to make meals last, kids do need their routine.

So if you want things to be perfect, try not to hold the kid in a restaurant more than 20 minutes, and you may realise that this timeframe woudln't even get you through your entrée, let alone dessert.

Spending time enjoying lunch/dinner in a restaurant is grown-ups' stuff. The kids need to get things moving and cannot focus for long periods of time, they're kids, let them be kids, especially at Disney's.

They may try to please you by staying calm and focused, they may even lie outright by saying that they enjoyed it. But do not get fooled. It's only your conception of perfect, from your grown up point of view. But from a kid's point of view, sitting down at a table is time wasted, and you know that when you realise that restaurants do have play areas for kids. There wouldn't be if kids enjoyed staying at the table while the adults have THEIR very own perfect time.

Grab the kid a burger or a couple of chicken nuggets and some fries, and off you go to the perfect things like Dumbo, Tea Cups, It's a small world and stuff like that

my own 2 cents anyway

Sorry...that's just flat out wrong. On many, many levels...not least of which that it's a gross generalization.

I have 3 kids...all under the age of 10. We engage with them to help plan all the family activities, INCLUDING meals.

They have no problem sitting for a meal....character or otherwise. They're not boiling (trust me, I can tell when my kids get antsy). They keep themselves engaged, either with table activities (coloring, etc) or through conversation about our day in the parks. They're not sitting there to please me, or my wife. They're not just "behaving" out of rote or fear of punishment. They're doing what we usually do at home: Having a family meal (usually at dinner). Talking about our days. You know...spending time together.

Which is rather the point.

 

[angelmav]

Exactly the same for us.

To boot, we're DVC members. We have a full kitchen...and we can stock our fridge relatively inexpensively.

The mug doesn't add one whit of value to the plan for us.

The rise in costs for kids, as well as my oldest "graduating" to the 10 and up pricing level, pretty much means our use of the DDP will end. Which, to be honest, is something I've been expecting as our 3 kids get older.

The mug is one of the tricks they are using to claim savings though, but like you point out, for most its nothing but a cheap souveniere to bring home (room permitting).

The title of this thread is how in 2012 the dining plan prices have reached outrageous levels, yet people keep posting that 'gosh, when we added up our receipts in past years its always saved us money'.

The entire point of this thread is to point out that STARTING in 2012, the dining plan needs to be looked at much closer, because most people will lose money by buying this plan.

 

[pilferk]

you're both right. What kids need is to spend some quality time with their parents. And as you both pointed out, the best part in the restaurant thing is not the eating at all, but all the games and activities you get to do with your kids at the restaurant.
In that respect you are right.
But such quality time could be achieved (should be achieved) anywhere else. And since the thread is about how outrageous the cost of DDP is, don't you think it's a little expensive to have a sit down and play/fool around with your kids.
Of course I could argue myself that nothing is too expensive when it comes to my kid, but you get the notion.
Meals should be a fun time, but I tend to teach my kid that there is a time to eat and a time to play, and not mix both.

Anyway, I guess will agree to disagree

Studies have shown family meals are GREAT for child psychological development, confidence, social interactions, and a whole host of other things. They also promote open lines of communication with parents, as the children age, which prove invaluable in dealing with the problems of adolescence. WHERE they take place is less important (family kitchen vs restaurant, for example) than how frequently they occur.

And feel free to agree to disagree. But that's rather the point. What works for you and your family (or what you think about you and your kids) doesn't necessarily hold true to the broad generalization you painted in your first post.

 

[TwistGrl101]

The dining plan is a must for us, and we thoroughly enjoy trying different restaurants, and the kids have a blast at all of the character meals that we choose. It also gives them time to be in the AC, out of the hot Florida sun (we go in August), and to cool off before we walk another 10 miles around Disney!

I think my kids would be miserable if we only did counter service meals, and it's easier for us to do buffets with our kids being so young anyway.

 

[pilferk]

pediatricians and nutritionists actually ...

I sit 15 feet from a pediatrician, a pediatric nurse, and a pediatric social worker.

They all said the same thing: "Nope, never heard of that".

It's not a question of ability, it's a question of biological clock.
When you start to eat, your intestine will secrete cholecystokinin. It's a peptidic hormone which, among thing, will act as a hunger suppressant.
This "suppression mechanism" is designed to avoid "over-eating".
The 20 minutes mark is a length where the brain is instructed that the meal has lasted long enough.

The biology isn't wrong.

The conclusion (relating to meal times) isn't borne out by the science. At least no science that I've seen, nor any science the folks I've just talked to have seen. In fact, the OPPOSITE (meal times being to short...20 minutes or less) has been connected to obesity...because the "full" feeling doesn't hit fast enough.

Nobody I've spoken to has seen any research indicating your conclusion. If you have links to any publications, I'd love to see them and share them around the office.

Of course people, kids and grown-ups are able to go over that 20 minutes limit, and they specially can do that if they have a good time and if the meal is broken into segments (with games in between)

But as you learn to ignore the message sent by this hormone, you risk to allow a wide range of eating disorders to settle in. Because you no longer listen to the warning signals your body sends. Of course this doesn't mean that you WILL get such disorders, but this is the right path to take if you're looking for trouble.

I can't count the number of times I've sat at a table, socializing (and not eating) while waiting for others to finish.

Sitting at a table, at meal time, doesn't mean eating the entire time.

anyway, now I feel sorry for saying out loud what I think ...

The problem isn't that you think it (or that it might apply to your family). It's that you painted your point with far too broad a brush....

 

[pilferk]

The mug is one of the tricks they are using to claim savings though, but like you point out, for most its nothing but a cheap souveniere to bring home (room permitting).

The title of this thread is how in 2012 the dining plan prices have reached outrageous levels, yet people keep posting that 'gosh, when we added up our receipts in past years its always saved us money'.

The entire point of this thread is to point out that STARTING in 2012, the dining plan needs to be looked at much closer, because most people will lose money by buying this plan.

In past years....the kids plans saved us money. The adult plan we just about broke even (saved maybe 20-30 bucks, TOTAL, over a 10 day stay for 2 adults).

THIS year....we'd lose money on the adult side (because of the mug and because there's no way my oldest daughter eats an adult sized portion + dessert...and we wouldn't use the mugs, at all) and it would be a LOT closer on the kids side (because, again, we'd make no use of the mug).

That 30% increase on the kids side does a number on any value, especially if you're not using the mug.

What I do find amusing is: The mug is $15-ish OOP, right? So, if you're staying for 10 days, like we are, you're seeing an approx $50 increase in total cost, per kid, for the DDP. That's one expensive mug!

 

[harpetj]

We are DVC members and usually have a split stay between resorts each trip. For the last 3 years we have added on the DDP for 3-4 nights of our 8-13 night stays. We cook our 3 meals a day for the nights we aren't on the DDP, especially with 2 small children it is easier/cheaper for them to eat in the room. However, we do like to enjoy 2-3 character meals and a couple other TS options. I am on vacation and don't want to cook every meal ! I priced and re-priced our ADR's this year with DDP and the TIW. "IF" we were coming back again on our APs this year, TIW would have won out, but this is our last trip for about a year or so as we live on the West Coast. Our ADR's are Chef Mickey's dinner, Ohana dinner, Akerhaus breakfast, and Cape May dinner. Fortunately, or not as it may be, these are fairly expensive meals and our kids are under 9, so it worked out for us for 4 nights. It would not have worked out if we had other choices for ADRs. Plus, we do like the convenience factor for those few days of "treating" ourselves to some snacks in the park without worry of the cost. I also made the decision to save extra money over the last few months, including disney rewards $$$, gift cards we received and a couple of gift cards I won to pay this, so no OOP cost.

 

[pilferk]

The dining plan is a must for us, and we thoroughly enjoy trying different restaurants, and the kids have a blast at all of the character meals that we choose. It also gives them time to be in the AC, out of the hot Florida sun (we go in August), and to cool off before we walk another 10 miles around Disney!

I think my kids would be miserable if we only did counter service meals, and it's easier for us to do buffets with our kids being so young anyway.

Our kids would revolt. Largely because, by the end of the trip, they'd be revolted by the food. We have a hard time, on a 10 day trip, doing A kids QS lunch every day and keeping them interested. We have to really look hard at the places we choose so we can keep them happy (ie: a minimum of chicken nuggets, burgers, and mac and cheese).

 

[cmurray234]

Some families can save a small amount by purchasing the dining plan...by the ways already outlined very eloquently by other posters. If you eat lots of buffets, have kids that fall in the 3-9 bracket or you eat steak every night.

For our particular family, the dining plan would be a terrible purchase for the following reasons:

1. The dining plan causes us to eat food we wouldn't ordinarily eat. I would NEVER buy a dessert at a counter service lunch. Ever. And only on rare occasions do we get dessert at sit down meals either.

2. I wouldn't choose to do a sit-down every day. I like SOME sit down meals, but especially in Epcot, there are more than enough interesting counter services for us.

3. My daughter is only just considered an adult by Disney standards. She is simply not capable of eating $51.54 worth of food every day.

4. We don't use the refillable mugs and can't come up with any scenario in which our family would consume 4 snacks every day.

5. We are taking a day to go to IoA to see Harry Potter.

But even with all of that, I still *might* consider getting it if I didn't have to pay adult rates for my daughter.

 

[havoc315]

The title of this thread is how in 2012 the dining plan prices have reached outrageous levels, yet people keep posting that 'gosh, when we added up our receipts in past years its always saved us money'.

The entire point of this thread is to point out that STARTING in 2012, the dining plan needs to be looked at much closer, because most people will lose money by buying this plan.

Even adding receipts is quite misleading. You also get people who say, "I'm pricing out this combination and it still looks cheaper than OOP..." -- But the combination they price out, is almost always based around the dining plan. CS for lunch every day, TS for dinner every night, with desserts at every meal, etc.

How I encourage people to look at it, is like this:
Design your IDEAL dining scenario-- considering the type of food, the location, the times... everything *except* price.
Some wise-guy will now say "Ok, Victoria's & Albert's every night" -- But again, being realistic -- At most, I'd only want to eat at V&A for 1 night. Having nothing to do with price, I wouldn't want to devote that much time to dinner every night, and I wouldn't want that type of food every night.

So I look at exactly what I would want to eat, if the dining plan didn't exist, and if money was 100% irrelevant.

THEN -- I calculate the price of my perfect ideal, with and without the various dining plans. And only if the price really outpaces my budget, then I scale back.

The reality is --- My personal ideal is more expensive than the basic DDP... but the DDP doesn't save any money on it. The DxDP saves me a few dollars, as long as both my kids are Disney children. Not much of savings, but barely enough to make it worthwhile.

But truthfully, if people designed their ideal dining schedule -- without basing it around the dining plan -- then I think it's pretty rare that the DDP would turn out to look like a savings.

After all --- using as an example, a 5 day/5 night trip --- If you weren't designing a plan around the DDP -- You might end up with 7 TS meals, and 4 CS meals... as an example. And it would be pretty hard for the DDP to save you money under such a scenario. (You'd have to pay for 2 TS meals OOP, and you would have to waste 1 of your CS credits). Or you might end up wanting just a sushi roll at California Grill (for around $23, a total waste of 2-credits).
When people price out their plan -- if they already have a DDP in the back of their mind as they design their plan, it's no surprise that it looks like they will save money.

For people who truly want a ton of character meals and steak and dessert every day-- the basic DDP can still be a legitimate savings.

For people who want a ton of TS and signatures (myself included)-- The DxDP may or may not legitimately be a savings, and needs to be priced out.