Kids under 3

[WondersOfLife]

So that vintage 1971 Disney thread got many people talking about the age that Disney theme parks are suitable for.. How there used to be no strollers or hardly any toddlers around...

It would seem to me that it's this way now because of the "3 and under are free" rule... Plus all of those parents who lie about their kids age all the way up until they're like.. 5 or 6 years old. It's kind of ridiculous.

If Disney got rid of the 3 and under are free rule, and have them pay the regular child ticket, do you think there would be a significant change in the amount of toddlers/babies and strollers throughout the parks?

 

[Master Yoda]

Yes. The problem, for Disney at least, is it would also reduce the number of paying adults and kids in the park.

Anytime you see a "kids under X are free" anywhere, it is not something done out of the kindness of a company's heart. It is done because market research has shown that it will get more paying people to come to a park, eat at a restaurant, etc.

It is also worth noting that kids under have been free at WDW since it opened in 1971.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Yes. The problem, for Disney at least, is it would also reduce the number of paying adults and kids in the park.

Anytime you see a "kids under X are free" anywhere, it is not something done out of the kindness of a company's heart. It is done because market research has shown that it will get more paying people to come to a park, eat at a restaurant, etc.

It is also worth noting that kids under have been free at WDW since it opened in 1971.

Good point.

 

[Schneewittchen]

When my children could go for free, it wasn't a motivator at all, children free or no, I was going to WDW. For Disnerds that visit regularly or locals with annual passes, it's probably a very minor thing.

For a once in a lifetime visitor, the cost may be a bigger concern. Perhaps you would want your child to remember the experience if you had to pay for their entry. I assume this is the majority. Maybe there would be less babies....

I think the stroller thing is a cultural phenomenon. There's a perception of increased stroller use everywhere. Lazy toddlers strapped into thousand dollar jogging strollers, playing video games on tablets while their mothers sip Starbucks lattes and shop for yoga pants at the Lululemon.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It sounds like your implication is that you have a problem with babies and toddlers. If so, get over it.

 

[WondersOfLife]

It sounds like your implication is that you have a problem with babies and toddlers. If so, get over it.

Actually, it was kind of just a curious question. It sounds like your implication is that you have a problem getting up in the mornings with a grumpy attitude and the only way you can express it is to troll on Disney World threads. If so, get over it.

 

[Weather_Lady]

[Warning: Curmudgeon ahead.]

I'm not so sure that the number of small children in the park has changed -- only the ridiculous number of unnecessary, ugly strollers, which take up so much space that it begins to "feel" as though every guest has three babies with them, when in the "old days," they were far less prolific. This is, in part, because now we're looking at 4 parks (3 of which have giant footprints compared with the original, MK) instead of one, with the addition of park-hopping meaning that families are walking up to 10 miles or more per day. Little legs can handle the Magic Kingdom in a day -- any of the other parks, not so much. I also tend to think that today's toddlers are a little less fit and hardy, and tend to be more coddled, than their forbears, meaning that they're less capable (or their parents tend to think that they're less capable) of walking long distances. Not only that, but our cultural notions of what it means to be a "prepared parent" have changed to the point where strollers are considered "essential" to help carry all the "stuff" that people "have to have with them" for even a short visit to the parks -- God forbid we venture into a First World amusement park with anything less than 10 pounds of Goldfish crackers, three spare outfits per person, a case of bottled water, six camera bags, a portable rain shelter, a full-sized First Aid kit, and a large shipping crate to hold souvenir purchases! (Of course, I am speaking in hyperbole, but I swear I have seen families dragging around Disney World with nearly that amount of excess baggage.)

I support the "3 and under free" rule, because it makes sense and is in line with what other amusement parks and restaurants do, and I don't think it necessarily leads to a larger number of little ones in the parks. As for the flood of strollers for children old enough and well enough to hoof it -- I'm agin' it.

 

[Andrew C]

We going to have the stroller argument again?...If so, don't blame the 3 year olds in a stroller or their parents. Blame the 8 year olds in a stroller and their parents.

 

[Weather_Lady]

We going to have the stroller argument again?...If so, don't blame the 3 year olds in a stroller or their parents. Blame the 8 year olds in a stroller and their parents.

Sorry -- I wasn't trying to stir up a debate. My point is really just that I don't think there are more toddlers/babies in the park now than there used to be -- just more strollers, which makes it seem as though there are more youngsters.

 

[Andrew C]

Sorry -- I wasn't trying to stir up a debate. My point is really just that I don't think there are more toddlers/babies in the park now than there used to be -- just more strollers, which makes it seem as though there are more youngsters.

Oh, no need to apologize...My post wasn't a response to yours or anything. And I was just sort of being funny...but serious at the same time. lol

 

[CaptainAmerica]

[Warning: Curmudgeon ahead.]

I'm not so sure that the number of small children in the park has changed -- only the ridiculous number of unnecessary, ugly strollers, which take up so much space that it begins to "feel" as though every guest has three babies with them, when in the "old days," they were far less prolific. This is, in part, because now we're looking at 4 parks (3 of which have giant footprints compared with the original, MK) instead of one, with the addition of park-hopping meaning that families are walking up to 10 miles or more per day. Little legs can handle the Magic Kingdom in a day -- any of the other parks, not so much. I also tend to think that today's toddlers are a little less fit and hardy, and tend to be more coddled, than their forbears, meaning that they're less capable (or their parents tend to think that they're less capable) of walking long distances. Not only that, but our cultural notions of what it means to be a "prepared parent" have changed to the point where strollers are considered "essential" to help carry all the "stuff" that people "have to have with them" for even a short visit to the parks -- God forbid we venture into a First World amusement park with anything less than 10 pounds of Goldfish crackers, three spare outfits per person, a case of bottled water, six camera bags, a portable rain shelter, a full-sized First Aid kit, and a large shipping crate to hold souvenir purchases! (Of course, I am speaking in hyperbole, but I swear I have seen families dragging around Disney World with nearly that amount of excess baggage.)

I support the "3 and under free" rule, because it makes sense and is in line with what other amusement parks and restaurants do. As for the flood of strollers for children old enough and well enough to hoof it -- I'm agin' it.

What exactly do you suggest is the appropriate way to transport a one year old through a theme park? I agree with @Andrew C. A much bigger problem is the kids who have no business in strollers and are just lazy.

 

[Weather_Lady]

What exactly do you suggest is the appropriate way to transport a one year old through a theme park?

On a donkey, naturally.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

On a donkey, naturally.

It was a serious question.

 

[Weather_Lady]

It was a serious question.

The proper way to transport a child who is not old enough or strong enough walk is in a stroller, or a Baby Bjorn, or whatever other conveyance is sensible and convenient for the child's parents. I thought the last portion of my post (referring to those "old enough and well enough" to navigate the parks on foot) clarified the distinction. My apologies if it didn't.

 

[WondersOfLife]

I'm waiting for the day that the PeopleMover will become an essential form of transportation at every Disney theme park to get guests from one attraction to the other in the middle of the path without having to stand up or walk.

 

[Schneewittchen]

I'm waiting for the day that the PeopleMover will become an essential form of transportation at every Disney theme park to get guests from one attraction to the other in the middle of the path without having to stand up or walk.

I'm thinking everyone will get issued one of the hoverchairs from Wall-E when they check-in to their WDW hotel.

 

[Andrew C]

What exactly do you suggest is the appropriate way to transport a one year old through a theme park? I agree with @Andrew C. A much bigger problem is the kids who have no business in strollers and are just lazy.

I will admit...we had a stroller for our 3 year old when we went in April. It was an umbrella stroller but a fancier one where it declines and stuff, along with some other features that made is a bit more convenient but still compact enough to not be a pain. We tended to park in each land of the park, and make her walk from attraction to attraction. Then when we moved on to the next land within the park, we put her back in the stroller to move on. She also was able to have some good naps in there which gave us an opportunity to ride some of the adult rides while she slept.

Of course, DW and I still played the game where we point out "who should be walking" as we passed other strollers...lol

To go back to the original question from the OP...I don't think the under 3 rule is the issue. It is a combination of strollers being bigger and older kids that should be walking are still in strollers.

 

[WondersOfLife]

To go back to the original question from the OP...I don't think the under 3 rule is the issue. It is a combination of strollers being bigger and older kids that should be walking are still in strollers.

I believe that sums up the answer, to be honest!

 

[Schneewittchen]

I will admit...we had a stroller for our 3 year old when we went in April. It was an umbrella stroller but a fancier one where it declines and stuff, along with some other features that made is a bit more convenient but still compact enough to not be a pain. We tended to park in each land of the park, and make her walk from attraction to attraction. Then when we moved on to the next land within the park, we put her back in the stroller to move on. She also was able to have some good naps in there which gave us an opportunity to ride some of the adult rides while she slept.

I'm worse. I took my 4 and 6 year old this spring as well. We have 2 tiny, disgusting, stained, rusty umbrella strollers for them. When we arrive at 8 AM, we park them at the fanciest toilet on earth at MK (Rapunzel's loo) or Nemoland in Epcot and then just abandon them for the day. We only pick them up at 10ish PM so the kids can fall asleep while we stagger back to Fort Wilderness for the night.

 

[DisneyFans4Life]

My wife and I have a 2 year old and we wouldn't think about going to WDW without a stroller. Our daughter will walk when she wants to, but the stroller is a necessary item as it holds our daughter when we need to get from one place to another quickly, the diaper bag which holds pull ups, snacks, sunscreen, etc., my camera and a small lunch box that we use to keep milk/juice cold.

We're planning on having a second child soon so once that happens, we'll be those parents pushing around a double stroller with a new born and a 3 year old.