2017 Dining Plan Changes: Is the QS now officially overpriced?

[tirian]

For 2017, the DDP has a significant change that may alter the way you eat. Combined with the steadily increasing prices, has the QS dining plan officially become overpriced for its value?

The biggest change is that quick service meals no longer include dessert. Disney has added one additional snack to the QS and regular DDPs to "compensate" for the dessert, but this really means that guests are still out one side item.

If you haven't used the DDP in years, you may think this isn't a big deal because you didn't eat the questionable theme park QS desserts anyway. However, at some locations such as resort dining and Be Our Guest, this is a significant loss. Plus, Disney had become VERY flexible over the last few years, and you could frequently exchange your dessert for a side salad or large fruit cup.

A few years ago, the QS plan included a refillable mug, two snacks, and two meals with an entrèe, drink, and dessert. Then the DDP dropped one of the snacks. Now they've dropped both desserts but restored the lost snack.

The QS DDP is currently about $45/day, and table service is $64.

Unvelievably, some guests are thanking Disney in their comments because the previous plans had "too much food anyway." The dining plans have almost doubled prices within 8 years, folks. If Disney had lowered the 2017 prices to account for less food compared to the 2009 QS plan, you could thank them. For now, there's no reason to thank Disney except for proving the public can be bamboozled.

I can justify the TS plan because a character meal can be almost $60 on its own, but QS is looking less appealing.

 

[sxeensweet]

You're not losing a side item because you can use that extra snack credit to get that same exact side item if you want it. You're not losing anything they just made it more flexible. We will still continue to purchase the regular plan as me and DH like using it and pre paying for most of our food and usually it saves us some or we at least break even so it's a great option for us.

Edited: your to you're as pointed out I missed that one. Hahaha!

 

[IanDLBZF]

Shouldn't this belong in the WDW Restaurants and Dining thread?

 

[MichWolv]

You're only losing something from QS plan. On the regular plan, you're losing a QS dessert and picking up a snack. I'd actually call that a win. At $64 per day, I'm not buying it anyways. But given a choice of a dessert or a snack, I'd pick the snack due to flexibility.

 

[tirian]

Your not losing a side item because you can use that extra snack credit to get that same exact side item if you want it. Your not losing anything they just made it more flexible.

You're only losing something from QS plan. On the regular plan, you're losing a QS dessert and picking up a snack. I'd actually call that a win. At $64 per day, I'm not buying it anyways. But given a choice of a dessert or a snack, I'd pick the snack due to flexibility.

You're still losing the second side item. It's not an even trade and it isn't more flexible. Again, for its first couple of years, the QS plan included two snacks anyway.

BTW, @MichWolv , I like your Mark Twain tag below your name.

 

[tirian]

Shouldn't this belong in the WDW Restaurants and Dining thread?

Not yet. Right now, it's news.

 

[DisneyFans4Life]

Losing a dessert from your QS meal and gaining an additional snack is worth it in my opinion. Sometimes I don't feel like I could eat the dessert anyway and would much rather save that for later in the day for another snack.

 

[sxeensweet]

You're still losing the second side item. It's not an even trade and it isn't more flexible. Again, for its first couple of years, the QS plan included two snacks anyway.

BTW, @MichWolv , I like your Mark Twain tag below your name.

Well I don't get the QS plan anyway I get the regular plan mostly so I'm not losing anything. Lol

 

[tirian]

Losing a dessert from your QS meal and gaining an additional snack is worth it in my opinion. Sometimes I don't feel like I could eat the dessert anyway and would much rather save that for later in the day for another snack.

Then they should have added two more snacks or slightly reduced the plan's price.

 

[NelsonRD]

Didn't the Deluxe Dining Plan actually decrease about 11 percent?

 

[UberPlannerMom]

In the quick service plan you lose 2 desserts and gain one snack. That's why he said it is the quick service that has lost additional value.

 

[DisneyFans4Life]

Then they should have added two more snacks or slightly reduced the plan's price.

I'm referring to the DDP...not the QS plan. When we go...we get the DDP...so this would actually be a win in our books. For the QS plan...I would say it's a loss.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Dining plan lost its value many years ago IMO. Tables in Wonderland is still the way to go, again IMO

 

[DisneyJoe]

Didn't the Deluxe Dining Plan actually decrease about 11 percent?

Yes!

 

[tirian]

In the quick service plan you lose 2 desserts and gain one snack. That's why he said it is the quick service that has lost additional value.

Thank you for reading.

 

[tirian]

I'm referring to the DDP...not the QS plan. When we go...we get the DDP...so this would actually be a win in our books. For the QS plan...I would say it's a loss.

Yes, it does make the DDP slightly more valuable. However, as @DisneyDebRob pointed out, Tables in Wonderland can be a better overall value if you're an AP who doesn't do character meals.

There's no doubt about it: if you want to do lots of character meals, get the DDP. Otherwise, you can save money by eating normally and not getting a plan at all.

 

[sxeensweet]

Thank you for reading.

I read your post completely but just wanted to mention,well for us we are not losing anything and unless you get the QS plan that's the only way you somewhat are if you go by when it first came out. But frankly I would still buy the QS plan if that's what I liked best or just upgrade and start purchasing the regular plan which is better anyway for only about $20 more you get a TS meal instead of a QS one which is not bad at all IMO.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Yes, it does make the DDP slightly more valuable. However, as @DisneyDebRob pointed out, Tables in Wonderland can be a better overall value if you're an AP who doesn't do character meals.

There's no doubt about it: if you want to do lots of character meals, get the DDP. Otherwise, you can save money by eating normally and not getting a plan at all.

Let's not forget the TIW also includes those overpriced adult beverages, which brings them down to a more reasonable price.

 

[sxeensweet]

Yes, it does make the DDP slightly more valuable. However, as @DisneyDebRob pointed out, Tables in Wonderland can be a better overall value if you're an AP who doesn't do character meals.

There's no doubt about it: if you want to do lots of character meals, get the DDP. Otherwise, you can save money by eating normally and not getting a plan at all.

I'm AP and DVC and for us we still prefer the dining plan over TIW even though we don't do many character meals either. We do a lot of 2 credit meals well a good mixture of 1 and 2 credit meals. So yes it varies greatly what is best for each individual person or family. We like the all inclusive feel and frankly TIW when I did the math dosent save us enough overall or is not such a big difference than using the dining plan. One day TIW may be better for us but for now we prefer the dining plan.

 

[COProgressFan]

Dining plan lost its value many years ago IMO. Tables in Wonderland is still the way to go, again IMO

But even that is much less of a value than it was.

At $150 or more it's now double what it was 5 or 6 years ago (when it switched from DDE). It no longer offers a free card for spouse/partner, and technically no longer allows for splitting the check for larger parties.

Add to that the fact that even with the discount food is still obscenely overpriced, and the huge increases in AP costs: like much of what WDW offers these days, it's a pale shadow of what it once was, at a significantly greater price. It was a great deal for us in the past, but no longer.