? about adult and child credits

[Ohiodisneyguy]

My 2 cents. If Disney believed that working with your credits was unethical, dishonest or a sign of bad integrity, karma or what ever, THEY WOULD CHANGE IT. Obviously they aren't being hurt by it, or they would. Let's face it, Disney is not in the business of losing $. Also, they will definitely make up for it by charging me the ADULT PRICE for my ten year old, who eats like a bird. Lastly, I, like most who will use the meal plan, do so for convenience, not to try and worry about credits or getting over on anyone or integrity, honesty or any other issues. We go to WDW because we love it. We eat there because we love it. If someone saves $100 going by Disney's rules on THEIR meal plan, so be it. Disney WILL get theirs. Thank you and good night all.

 

[Tinker74]

I totally agree... ..You hit the nail on the head.
I know Iam using it for the convienience...the fact that my 13 yr old will prob order fro the childs menu..doesn't bother me .
We are on holiday we are enjoying ourselves ...thats whats im portant

 

[magicmirror]

I am confused. (Please understand that I am a newbie and go easy on me) I made reservations for the week of Thanksgiving for our family of 5, for our first WDW trip ever I am super excited and trying to read and learn all I can. Childrens ages: DD15,DS12,DD4 We got the dining plan option.
I am wondering this: If we are (for example) having a CS meal, it doesn't seem unethical to me if we pay out of pocket for my 4 year old knowing she wants something like a grilled cheese. She can't even finish one of those and does not eat french fries at all, and doesn't care for potato chips either. I would not see the problem with paying for hers and saving (the 4 yr. old's) CS meal for my 12 year old son to use later, since he eats much more than any of us, several "grown-man" sized meals a day. (and skinny as a rail, if only I could do that). I don't see what the problem would be in doing that with TS meals either. I don't see the point in wasting either the leftover food or the tickets, knowing my youngest eats very small amounts at a time. I'm sure she will get the majority of the snacks, since she eats more often than the rest of us, due to the fact that she's little and a little stomach doesn't hold much at a time. Is this something any of you would consider unethical?? Do you think its taking advantage of the system?? I don't. I am actually, quite an honest person, just wondering what you all thought. Thanks!!

 

[bicker]

The jury is still out on that magicmirror. I'm coming to the conclusion, thanks to folks like Lewis, though, that this isn't really "wrong" but rather just "unfair":

When I was in grad school I spent an entire semester studying Game Theory, the mathematics of games -- well it was more than that, as you'll see... One of the seminars was about Fair Allocation of representation in legislatures. We learned about different allocation schemes for the seats in a legislative body, and learned how some allocation schemes that seem rational and proper actually result in a paradox: Where if a state added population (and the population of all other states remained constant), that state could LOSE representation in the legislature. Clearly, such a paradox would invalidate the allocation scheme as "Fair". (You'll be happy to know that the allocation scheme in effect for the American House of Representatives is Fair. Things didn't work out so well for the French Parliament, though.)

So in Game Theory terms, the way some folks advocate using the Dining Plan is an unfair allocation scheme, because adding a child to your party could conceivable end up decreasing your overall dining costs. Turning it around, having fewer people (i.e., one less child in your party) could end up resulting in you paying MORE for food at WDW.

 

[magicmirror]

Thanks Bicker, for the information.
Upon rereading my post, I realized my question didn't come out exactly as I meant it too.

 

[lowie]

I am wondering this: If we are (for example) having a CS meal, it doesn't seem unethical to me if we pay out of pocket for my 4 year old knowing she wants something like a grilled cheese. She can't even finish one of those and does not eat french fries at all, and doesn't care for potato chips either. I would not see the problem with paying for hers and saving (the 4 yr. old's) CS meal for my 12 year old son to use later, since he eats much more than any of us, several "grown-man" sized meals a day. (and skinny as a rail, if only I could do that). I don't see what the problem would be in doing that with TS meals either.

i see a pretty big difference between the CS and TS meals.. if you switch the credit from a childs CS to an adult CS it's approx the same price. But a childs TS costs about half of an adults TS meal. unless your older child is ordering off the childs menu i think it would be considering 'cheating'.

 

[Tidus]

I'm sorry, but it is just so funny that people want to say that others are being "unfair" or "cheating". Ohio... said it perfectly. Disney would change it if they thought that it was cheating them. Charging a 10 yr. old an adult price is ridiculous. Disney has no problems saying that a 10 yr. old compares with a 20 yr. old. Disney is doing just fine and it really is offensive that some people constantly accuse others of "working the system". Why do you feel the need to do that? You shouldn't be so judgmental. People work hard and are trying to save anyway possible. It is a tough economy for many of us. Does this mean we shouldn't be able to go to Disney? I'm sure some are thinking that we just shouldn't go. However, people want to be able to treat their kids to a wonderful vacation, while trying to save a few $'s here and there. Maybe I should take a class on Game Theory so that I can see how little integrity the rest of us have!

 

[bicker]

You and I disagree Tidus. That doesn't make either of us wrong or right, so please climb down from your soap-box. I believe strongly in honesty, integrity and fairness. I find it very insulting that you question my strongly-held beliefs. They're a reflection of my faith. I'm sure you don't want me questioning your religious principles, so don't question mine.

 

[Lewisc]

I shared your surprise when I learned the rules clearly permit use of "child" credits to purchase adult meals. Not only does the present dining plan permit this but prior plans worked the same way. I think guests who plan their entire trip around that strategy are being greedy and aren't being fair to Disney BUT

I see the point Tidus is making It's not really fair to comment on the honesty and integrity of guests who follow Disney's rules but don't follow the "imaginary" rules that some posters are creating. The rules permit the behavior and CM are encouraging the behavior. It's not our place to add our own rules.

I'll sidestep the issue of fairness. Is it fair that Disney requires parents purchase the dining plan for a 4 year old that doesn't eat much? Disney has addressed the fairness issue by allowing other family members to use those credits. It's not up to us to decide if a policy is fair. How many trips to the buffet table is fair?

You and I disagree Tidus. That doesn't make either of us wrong or right, so please climb down from your soap-box. I believe strongly in honesty, integrity and fairness. I find it very insulting that you question my strongly-held beliefs. They're a reflection of my faith. I'm sure you don't want me questioning your religious principles, so don't question mine.

 

[bicker]

It's not really fair to comment on the honesty and integrity of guests who follow Disney's rules

You've effectively convinced me of that Lewis, over several weeks of discussions, eh? I agree, now, that it isn't an honesty and integrity issue, but only an issue of whether the system is fair. And life isn't necessarily fair. (Of course, life isn't necessarily honest either! )

I'll sidestep the issue of fairness.

I won't. I knew from the start that there was something wrong with the way the program was constructed. As I said, you've very effectively convinced me that it wasn't dishonesty, which made me think about what else could be disturbing me about the system so much, and realized that the problem was as I described above.

Is it fair that Disney requires parents purchase the dining plan for a 4 year old that doesn't eat much?

By that logic (and I'm not questioning it), fairness would dictate that there not be any dining plan -- that everything be a la carte. However, as we know, the amount of food is a very small contributor to the costs a restaurant incurs and a very small contributor to the value a restaurant delivers to its patrons. Things like the cost of customer acquisition and the value of customer service far out-weight any considerations with regard to volume of food ingredients consumed.

It's not up to us to decide if a policy is fair.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.

 

[Lewisc]

It's up to Disney to set the rules. Many of the rules don't look fair to those of us that don't benefit from them. Is it fair that children who are tall enough pay a reduced admission price but still get to ride the expensive attractions? The policy on child credits doesn't look fair to those of us who aren't bringing children but that's life.


Let's look at this from another point of view. Disney is feeding families for a fixed dollar price. Disney acquires a customer when the reservation including dining is made. Since food is a small part of the cost it's almost irrelevant how the family divides up the credits. Assume the family use the TS credit for dinner and the CS credit for lunch. "Banked" credits are being used for breakfast, not a very good use of your credits, or signature meals, also not a very good use of credits. Disney may not be taking the beating some of us first thought.

Look at any Disney run restaurant. MYW Dining guests don't get a "steal". Buffets and fixed price meals are better than break even but not by much.

By that logic (and I'm not questioning it), fairness would dictate that there not be any dining plan -- that everything be a la carte. However, as we know, the amount of food is a very small contributor to the costs a restaurant incurs and a very small contributor to the value a restaurant delivers to its patrons. Things like the cost of customer acquisition and the value of customer service far out-weight any considerations with regard to volume of food ingredients consumed.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.

 

[Stitch65]

My 2 cents (now, please, this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to cast judment on anyone!)

In the brochure for the dining plan it states:

"Guests ages 3 to 9 must order from the child’s menu where available."

However it ALSO states:

"Use your meals and snacks in any order and in any amount throughout your
package stay until your total is depleted.

For example, on the day of arrival your party could use four (4) Quick Service
meals, and then on day 2 your party could use four (4) Table Service Meals, four (4) Quick Service Meals, and two (2) Snacks. You can continue using meals any way you like for the rest of your package stay until the number of meals/snacks are depleted."

Now, we're doing the dining plan and there are instances where we may use one of my son's child credits to buy him an adult meal. He has food allergies and in some cases nothing on the child's menu is OK for him. And yes I'm working with the resteraunts to get him food, and yes sometimes he may need to order an adult meal. Do I feel bad about this? NOPE! I'm working with the Disney restaurants and I'm not going to hide what I'm doing. I'm not "working the system" in order to get the most bang for my buck. I just want my child to have food he can actually eat. If I can manage to get food for him off the child's menu everywhere we go, then I will do that. But if not, so be it. I relate to this whole "it's not fair" thing, but get real. I pay $5 for a gluten-free, dairy-free, soy-free, yeast-free loaf of bread for my son and he likes sandwiches as much as the next kid, so our grocery bills are very scary sometimes, but I digress...

I believe they do it the way they do since not ever retaurant has a child's menu, so in that case your child would need to order off the adult menu.

Ok, my 2 cents are overspent so I'll slink back out the thread now.

 

[bicker]

The policy on child credits doesn't look fair to those of us who aren't bringing children but that's life.

Agree.

Disney acquires a customer when the reservation including dining is made. Since food is a small part of the cost it's almost irrelevant how the family divides up the credits.

This makes a lot of sense. It's probably the single best explanation for why the dining plan is at it is. The cost of customer acquisition is shared between two parents and two children, while practically-speaking Disney has to incur the cost of acquisition for each of two couples staying together.

 

[Pedler]

FYI to the OP if you ever have a question on how many credits you have left or where they went you can go down to the front desk and get a print out of the balance and use so far.

 

[Pedler]

So in Game Theory terms, the way some folks advocate using the Dining Plan is an unfair allocation scheme, because adding a child to your party could conceivable end up decreasing your overall dining costs. Turning it around, having fewer people (i.e., one less child in your party) could end up resulting in you paying MORE for food at WDW.

Bicker,

I could see how the 2 adult couple could end up paying more per adult on the dinning plan than 2 adults with 2 children and paying out of pocket for the kids. That could be construed as an unfair plan created by Disney in that it provides a means to lower overall adult eating cost to those people that have children with them. But because a plan is designed to provide a potential benefit to one group of users that is not available to another group does not make the use of that benefit unfair. Use of the benefit in this situation does not increase the cost of plan to the adult only group, it really has no direct impact on the adult only group at all. I base this on the fact that Disney has not changed the plan and other than a small price increase to increase the tipping rate has not signifigantly changed the plan. So use of the plan by the adults with children to maximize their savings has no impact on the adult only group. If use of the plan has no demonstrated negative impact on the adult group how can the use of the plan in this manner be considered unfair?

Admittedly the the plan appears to have had an effect on some places that have altered thier offerings but that appears to be related to the low reimbursement rate to non Disney owned restaurants.

 

[magsmom]

This makes a lot of sense. It's probably the single best explanation for why the dining plan is at it is. The cost of customer acquisition is shared between two parents and two children, while practically-speaking Disney has to incur the cost of acquisition for each of two couples staying together.

That's right. Also consider the following: up to now, you have to pay rack rate for your room and you have to buy at least a 1 day ticket on order to get the meal plan. I've costed it out - AP holders are generally better off to get the discount off of the room and pay OOP for their meals with the DDE card.

As far as families with kids getting a break on the dining points, Disney does OK. Disney may lose a few $ on the credits but they KNOW they will make it up on many other ways - pins, charm bracelets, autograph books, pressed coins, etc.etc.etc. Adults "generally" don't buy this stuff and the profit margins are huge (OK I've bought a pin or 2 myself).

The interesting thing will be how the DP will evolve going forward now that it is being offered to those staying DVC.

 

[bicker]

If use of the plan has no demonstrated negative impact on the adult group how can the use of the plan in this manner be considered unfair?

In order to demonstrate this, let's imagine admission worked just like the dining plan: So instead of admission passes being good for the entire day, each admission credit was good for a third-day period. For a six night stay, you would therefore get 6 CS credits, 6 TS credits, and 12 admission credits. And of course, all these credits are to be used "however you wish, between the members of your party". See where I'm going with this? So Family of Four gets 48 admission credits, half paid for at the adult rate and half paid for at the child rate. They use these credits to get the two adults in to the parks for all 42 thirds-of-a-day during their 7 day stay. The remaning 6 admission credits are used for the kids, and the remaining entry for the kids is purchased, at a child rate, OOP. So those adults got into the park at a substantially lower price, just because they had children with them. A couple would have incentive to lie about having children, just to get the credits at that lower price. So adding members to the party reduces the price: That's clearly an unfair allocation scheme: liars are rewarded.

 

[5boyz]

Tidus.....That is what I have been thinking all along!!! Just didn't know how to put it!!!! Great job!!!!

 

[5boyz]

Forgot to put in last posting .......there didn't seem to be a problem back in one of the threads when someone said they were paying adult price but their 10 yr old would probably eat off of the child's menu!!!!! The next posting was "yes you can do it"!!! Disney is benefiting there!!!!!

 

[Pedler]

I still don't understand the specific negative impact on the adult only party of using the dinning plan in the manner described regarding children. I can see your point that it is unfair that the family with children that use the plan in this manner pays less for adult meals than the adult only group on the dinning plan. But that is an issue with the way Disney has setup and administers the plan. The use of the plan as intended in itself is not unfair.

I think a better analogy would be our tax code. In general single people that do not own a home pay more in income taxes than a single person with kids and that owns a home that makes the same amount of money all other things being equal. I can see the single person without kids saying it isn't fair that they pay more but that doesn't mean the person that has kids and is taking the deduction is acting in an unfair manner. It just means they are using the system as allowed.

That in essence is my view of the dinning plan. One could argue that it isn't fair of Disney to provide this benefit to people with children under 10 but that doesn't mean the people using this benefit are acting in an unfair manner. The issue is with Disney not the persons using the plan. The persons with children using the plan in this manner do not have any impact on the persons that do not use the plan in this manner. Nothing would change if they did not use the plan in this manner.

In order to demonstrate this, let's imagine admission worked just like the dining plan: So instead of admission passes being good for the entire day, each admission credit was good for a third-day period. For a six night stay, you would therefore get 6 CS credits, 6 TS credits, and 12 admission credits. And of course, all these credits are to be used "however you wish, between the members of your party". See where I'm going with this? So Family of Four gets 48 admission credits, half paid for at the adult rate and half paid for at the child rate. They use these credits to get the two adults in to the parks for all 42 thirds-of-a-day during their 7 day stay. The remaning 6 admission credits are used for the kids, and the remaining entry for the kids is purchased, at a child rate, OOP. So those adults got into the park at a substantially lower price, just because they had children with them. A couple would have incentive to lie about having children, just to get the credits at that lower price. So adding members to the party reduces the price: That's clearly an unfair allocation scheme: liars are rewarded.