Why Do So Many People Dislike the Dining Plan?

[Chef Mickey]

Because after I completed an extensive analysis, the dining plan is significantly more expensive and restrictive than buying your meals without it, particularly if eating non character dining such as 50s Prime, Liberty Tree, and Teppan Edo.

This used to not be the case.

 

[rkleinlein]

I agree with all the other posts about reasons to dislike the dining plan (it's not flexible, forces you to order more than you want, choices for kids are incredibly limited and repetitive, doesn't really save money) and will add two more:

It's not refundable for any reason. If, for example, one of your kids get sick on the last day of your vacation and your entire family of four has to miss lunch and dinner at table service restaurants, you still pay for eight uneaten table service meals.

Keeping track of how many meals are deducted and how many you have left to use is more complicated than it should be, especially if errors are made. The one time we used a dining plan SEVERAL mistakes were made in the number of credits deducted from the plan. Those mistakes were corrected but it was a hassle.

Also, it seems to me highly unlikely that Disney would offer dining plans if they did not make more money off guests on the dining plans than guests not on dining plans.

 

[MickeyMomV]

Like others have said, I don't think its a matter of liking it or disliking it. Its all about seeing the value in it. People who see a value in it will get it and will defend it, people who don't see the value will let you know its a waste of money. I for one used to be the person that would post over and over about how it does save you money and is worth it on every trip. Of course when we started going with the plan you used to save 30% on meals with it. Now you save about 10%. So where you used to save about $400 now you are only saving about $125. Since it costs more and you save less you do have to be mindful what you order. You don't have to order the most expensive item on the menu but you do have to order one of the top 3 or 4 priced items. We always love getting the deserts, no we don't eat them all, we usually have a bit or two of each one just to try it. For us the food and the desert is part of the WDW experience and we don't have to clear our plates to feel we got our moneys worth. Now with the smaller discount I don't think we will be getting the dining plan unless it was part of a promo like PSD or "free". Our last trip in April was our first trip in 10+ years without the plan we still had a blast but I feel we missed out on the some of the experiences because we were more mindful of the OOP expenses we spent on food. I know there are examples of the group of 2 that go without park hoppers and stay at a $600+/night deluxe resort room that come out ahead by going with the room only discount instead of the "free" dining but for us we still come out ahead with dining promo's. Staying moderate with a family of 3 and always getting park hoppers gives us a much lower break even point and makes the dining promo worth the extra. Paying full price for the dining plan.... Not so much anymore.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

See, my family would/will never get desert if we go out to dinner normally, but with the Dinning Plan, desert is included so we get one because we can. We like that it gives us an excuse to eat more since that's part of the vacation for us.

You just described why I don't like the dining plan. We usually don't get a desert or, if we do, we share. I don't view it as an "excuse to eat more" as if that's a treat, I view it as a burden. I have to eat more than I want to in order to feel like I'm getting my money's worth.

Next question ... what are the benefits to not getting the DDP. Obviously you only pay for the food you actually want to eat, but let's say you ate 2 snacks, a CS lunch and a TS dinner, plus drinks and a desert at dinner, how much are you saving if you don't have the plan?

Depends on what you order. If you would normally eat 2 snacks, a CS lunch, a TS dinner, plus drinks and desert, and you would normally eat at more expensive restaurants, and you would normally order the most expensive entrees at those restaurants, then the DDP will save you money. If you would normally skip a desert here and there, order a salad if you're not super hungry, or prefer dining at a less expensive restaurant, you stand to save hundreds of dollars (over a week for a family of four) by paying out of pocket for the exact same food.

Last time my family went we actually saved money with the Dining Plan (if we were to buy everything we ate at full price).

That's the "if." You probably wouldn't have bought everything you ate at full price. Yes, DDP versus full menu price of "what you get" can be a good deal. But DDP versus full menu price of what you would have gotten if not for the DDP is likely not.

I don't have anything bad to say about the convenience aspect of the dining plan. It works fine and I've used it myself when traveling with cast members and able to get it at a discount. However, at full price, I can't help but feel like I need to eat a ton of food and order the most expensive entrees for every meal to get my money's worth.

 

[Raineman]

We use the DDP whenever we go, but I wouldn't count myself in either the "yay" or "nay" side of this discussion. It definitely is convenient, as far as not having to carry large amounts of cash or a large balance on a credit card. None of us feel that we have to stuff ourselves to get maximum value out of it, but there are a couple of things about the way it is structured. One-the plan we get provides 1 QS, 1 TS and 1 snack per day; to get three meals per day and more snacks, you have to upgrade to Deluxe or higher, which is more $. The way we do it is to use the QS for breakfast at the resort, the snack at the parks, and the TS for dinner at the parks. If any of us want some lunch, that is coming out of our pocket, so, needless to say, I have never actually eaten at any of the QS locations in the parks. Secondly-if we have a big TS dinner, sometimes we don't want a big dessert. It should be standard practice to allow substitution of a dessert for an extra snack. If this is an option currently, then just forget what I said , but if it is a part of the DDP now, it doesn't seem to be widely advertised.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

We use the DDP whenever we go, but I wouldn't count myself in either the "yay" or "nay" side of this discussion. It definitely is convenient, as far as not having to carry large amounts of cash or a large balance on a credit card. None of us feel that we have to stuff ourselves to get maximum value out of it, but there are a couple of things about the way it is structured. One-the plan we get provides 1 QS, 1 TS and 1 snack per day; to get three meals per day and more snacks, you have to upgrade to Deluxe or higher, which is more $. The way we do it is to use the QS for breakfast at the resort, the snack at the parks, and the TS for dinner at the parks. If any of us want some lunch, that is coming out of our pocket, so, needless to say, I have never actually eaten at any of the QS locations in the parks. Secondly-if we have a big TS dinner, sometimes we don't want a big dessert. It should be standard practice to allow substitution of a dessert for an extra snack. If this is an option currently, then just forget what I said , but if it is a part of the DDP now, it doesn't seem to be widely advertised.

I think they recently changed things where you can sub a side or snack for a dessert. (Forgive me for not providing a link.)

This is the one thing that made me reconsider if it might be worth it. One of the *main* reasons we go to WDW is to enjoy the dining. And we are not shy about eating when we are there. But it's a matter of what we choose to eat vs. what we are restricted to eat on the plan.

You could not pay me to drink soda. I typically drink water with a meal, and if I'm in the mood, an alcoholic beverage. (Some people who read my TR's are now thinking, "When is he not in the mood..?" The point is, the beverage is wasted on me every time, and so is the refillable mug. DH, however, will drink those things, plus iced tea, etc.

We will often split a dessert. We don't usually want two desserts. DH is type I diabetic, so if a restaurant has no sugar-free offering (and we don't want a bowl of berries) it's a total waste, and I won't eat a sugary dessert in front of him while he goes without, as a rule.

So the side-subbing idea at first sounds good, give me another side with dinner instead of a dessert. But then, I'm probably forcing myself to eat a second side that was totally unnecessary. Now, if all of this made our meals come out to a significant savings (like TiW does) then I might consider it. But it seems to be a wash unless you're going to order the highest priced entree and drink soda. Plus I don't typically do snacks during the day. We might get a no sugar added ice cream once a trip, but not every day.

Whatever works for someone else, great. But I am all over bargains, and I can't see how this is a bargain for our particular party - even as part of a room package/freebie offer.

 

[JIMINYCR]

A big reason for the dislike besides the cost factor is that the DDP has made it more difficult to get ADR's or get reasonably timed ADR's. When guests are encouraged to add that feature to their package, thinking its going to save them money, they book ADR's that they normally wouldnt. Especially when the FREE dining plans are released, more people book dining that they normally wouldnt at places they would otherwise have avoided.
We've had trips where we priced each menu out and had some savings and others where we didnt. The big variable for us was being DW's eating desires.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Pre-DDP, QS locations had variety and quality. Post-DDP, QS locations were converted to have mostly the same offerings. Menu prices have also increased at a significant rate, although that could have to do more with the general economics and fiscal decisions made by TDO and TWDC in general (not to mention more political things, which I have absolutely zero desire to go into or discuss). There has been some variety brought back to many QS locations, but it's still a lot of the SSDL(ocation).

Pre-DDP, one could get into many, many TS locations without a reservation. These days, if you don't book an ADR 180 days out you have little to no chance of getting into many TS locations. Not to mention Disney decided to remove gratuity from the DDP years ago while increasing the per-night price.

QS desserts are pre-packaged and are typically the same throughout WDW. Consider us to be in the "NOT FANS OF CHEAP PRE-PACKAGED DESSERTS" camp.

 

[raven]

Why do so many people not like the DDP?

Also, why do some people think the DDP ruined Disney dining in general?

For me it the fact that if you buy a DDP you can make reservations 6 months in advance. That really bites for people this time of year who are just visiting for the day and are told they can't eat at certain restaurants. The other part is that you are limited on the DDP at a table restaurant on what is offered as part of the plan.

 

[Roakor]

Its like everything else in life. If it works for you than its great and everyone should have it. If it doesn't work for you then its horrible and your foolish for getting it. What everyone fails to remember is we are not all the same. So you just have to ignore the hype on both ends of the spectrum and look at what works for you.

The dining plan to me has never really been about saving money (aside from the first year they had it). Every time I go I save the receipts and compare what I would have spent off plan to what I paid on the plan. Now I only go about every 3 years or so but here is what I can tell you.

The first year the plan was available was a year we happened to go and it was a BIG savings. At that time you got a free appetizer and tips were included. The tips alone made the plan a BIG savings. Shortly after that though they changed it (because restaurants were going to drop it since they were loosing money). Tips were no longer included (expect at Cinderella's castle). Then they doped the appetizer too. In my trips since that first time the savings have shrunk to the point that when we went in 2013 we pretty much broke even. Actually if I recall correctly I think we may have lost about $20 or so using the plan. This dec we are going and this time it will just be two of us, past visits we took the kids. But they have grown now. Looking over prices and what we might order (we order what we want not what will save us the most money) I am guessing we are once again going to be lucky to break even, but likely will end up losing a few dollars. Still not enough worth worrying about.

To me the plan means I am not trying to keep track of expenses while on vacation. I don't have to think about ordering a less expensive meal or go to a less expensive place to eat. I can just go where I want and get what ever I feel like. Now I will still save my receipts and see how I came out in the end. I don't just have money to throw away so if it turns out the plan is costing me way more than dinning with out it would I won't be getting it in the future.

I have no doubt that with out the dinning plan I would save a ton of money. But that would be mostly because we would go back to eating breakfast and most dinners off property, and only getting quick service on site. I seriously doubt we would be eating at any of the table services on site. Maybe one meal per trip but thats about it. I know, I am already spending the money now by getting the plan. But I also know me. By nature I am a very frugal person. If i am paying for everything out of pocket its going to be McDonald's for dinner instead of Sanaa. And if we do eat on site I would not be looking at what I want but what is the most affordable. Which is what I think Disney wanted in the first place. To get you to spend money on over priced food you wouldn't otherwise have done. Not to save you money. I don't think anyone saves money on the plan. Mainly because I don't think anyone would actually eat at all the expensive places that they do when they use the plan. As proof to that I offer this. Before the dinning plan most places were walk up seating. with your normal wait time during rush hours. Much like any other popular restaurant back home. After the plan if you did't have advanced reservations forget about it. And the most popular places fill reservations 180 days in advanced.

In closing I do like the plan. Because of it I have eaten at many places I would never have consider before. I have been able to take my kids to many character dinners i likely never would have otherwise. I like having everything paid for up front and don't have to worry about expenses on the trip. But every time we plan a trip I still look at what the plan is costing us and whether or not its really worth it. Not so much whether we will be saving money by using the plan, but whether its worth spending all that money on food. With or without the plan. Is it really worth the money to eat at all the nice places or should we just go back to burgers and fries....

 

[Roakor]

For me it the fact that if you buy a DDP you can make reservations 6 months in advance. .

you don't need the plan to make reservations that far in advanced. Anyone can do that.

 

[Minnesota disney fan]

I've read all of these comments, and I guess I am the strange hybrid that does both at once! How? I don't use the DDP anymore, but we ( just my husband and I) book the sit down meals that we really enjoy and can't miss. This is usually only 3 or 4 of those in a 10 day period. Otherwise, we take advantage of the great QS places around WDW. We don't like to feel scheduled and that we have to eat just because we booked a place 6 months in advance just to be able to eat there. That seems crazy to me. I have used the fdp before 3 times, and like a PP, it fit our type of touring back then. Also, we went with the kids/grandkids, so used the ddp. That dynamic changed our pattern, as the teenage grandkids ate ALOT, so the fdp worked for them. We even used 10 or our QS points for them one time. Teenagers seem to always be hungry
We have found that over the years of the evolving DDP, we save a lot more money just because there are only 2 of us adults. We have smaller appetites now, and usually share a QS once a day, with snacks & small breakfast. We like being able to eat when we want and where we want to. We like to change our plans each evening if we want to, and then eat where we happen to be. We don't feel cheated because we eat at our favorite ts restaurants each trip, and that is enough for us. On the ddp we always felt we had to order the most expensive thing and always eat dessert with meal to get the most out of the plan. We ended up constantly too full to try any of the treats around the parks. So, for us, not having the ddp really works. I can see how families can save money, especially with the character meals. It's all in how you like to tour, how scheduled you like to be, and what you like to eat. The happy medium between the two works for us.

 

[MickeyMomV]

Pre-DDP, QS locations had variety and quality. Post-DDP, QS locations were converted to have mostly the same offerings. Menu prices have also increased at a significant rate, although that could have to do more with the general economics and fiscal decisions made by TDO and TWDC in general (not to mention more political things, which I have absolutely zero desire to go into or discuss). There has been some variety brought back to many QS locations, but it's still a lot of the SSDL(ocation).

Pre-DDP, one could get into many, many TS locations without a reservation. These days, if you don't book an ADR 180 days out you have little to no chance of getting into many TS locations. Not to mention Disney decided to remove gratuity from the DDP years ago while increasing the per-night price.

QS desserts are pre-packaged and are typically the same throughout WDW. Consider us to be in the "NOT FANS OF CHEAP PRE-PACKAGED DESSERTS" camp.

It seems to me the selection at the QS seems to have more to do with the cost of food than it does with the DDP. It is cheaper to buy a semi truck full of chicken nuggets and distribute them throughout the parks than it is to develop a separate menu for each QS location.

With the reservations at TS restaurants IMO a big part of it has to do with park traffic. 4-5 years ago you could still make reservations at most restaurants 2-3 months in advance without a big issue. In the same time, attendance has drastically increased and now it is getting harder and harder to get those reservations. Short of opening up new restaurants or raising prices to reduce attendance I have no idea how to fix the problem.

I agree 100% on the prepackaged desserts. We try to see if they offer something we can take and eat as a snack later. Cracker Jacks at Casey's come to mind.

 

[Brad Bishop]

Next question ... what are the benefits to not getting the DDP. Obviously you only pay for the food you actually want to eat, but let's say you ate 2 snacks, a CS lunch and a TS dinner, plus drinks and a desert at dinner, how much are you saving if you don't have the plan? Last time my family went we actually saved money with the Dining Plan (if we were to buy everything we ate at full price).

I'd say one of the big benefits is that you're not locked into Disney to eat (or lose money). We used to like eating on site but, over time, would hit surrounding restaurants to take a break and change things up. Part of the deal with the DDP is to lock you into eating (and spending money) only at Disney parks & resorts.

 

[MickeyMomV]

you don't need the plan to make reservations that far in advanced. Anyone can do that.

Roaror is absolutely correct that anybody can make the reservations 6 months in advance, no resort reservations required. You just have to have the organization to do it. Speaking from my own experience, every time we have went with the dining plan we had all of our selections written down with day and time options. As soon as that 180 day mark hit we were online making the reservations. The last time we went without the plan we completely forgot about it and missed our date by about a month. Its amazing the difference a month makes. My point is being on the DDP makes those reservations a priority. We don't fault WDW for us missing the date or not have a restaurant that we wanted, it was our own fault.

 

[dreamfinder]

Two things annoy me as someone who dislikes the DDP. The amount of people who now book meals in advance because they have to (especially during free dining periods), particularly at restaurants to maximize the perceived value, regardless of what they would actually eat. And the amount of food that has been homogenized to attract people on the dining plan, who are once again trying to maximize value while the restaurant still turns a profit based on what they get "paid" from the DDP.

Before the DDP, there was no need to have a guaranteed reservation for X number of meals. Now, if you don't the DDP loses value for the guests. So being able to decide at the last minute is heavily gone because everyone wants to ensure they get their moneys worth.
And before the DDP there was variety in menus, with higher quality/more variety in proteins. Pretty sure it was @PhotoDave219 who tracked the decline in the cuts of steak as the DDP got popular.

The drop in includes annoys other people who actually use the plan. Started off a TS credit included gratuity, app, entree and dessert. Now no more gratuity or app.

See, my family would/will never get desert if we go out to dinner normally, but with the Dinning Plan, desert is included so we get one because we can. We like that it gives us an excuse to eat more since that's part of the vacation for us.

But would you a) have paid for that dessert out of pocket and b) had every member of your party order a dessert. I know that when my family goes out, if we do order dessert we are likely to share it. So 4 desserts is way to much.

And while the dessert is included, you still are realizing the cost of eating that dessert. Especially on the CS entitlements, where every location has the same 2/3 desserts. How many pieces of bland chocolate cake can one really eat in a week? By the end of your trip wouldn't you rather get a dole whip or croissant donut?

Next question ... what are the benefits to not getting the DDP. Obviously you only pay for the food you actually want to eat, but let's say you ate 2 snacks, a CS lunch and a TS dinner, plus drinks and a desert at dinner, how much are you saving if you don't have the plan? Last time my family went we actually saved money with the Dining Plan (if we were to buy everything we ate at full price).

Benefits? Not paying for food I wouldn't want, and not being locked into their preset plans. I don't think I've ever ordered a soda for very member of my party at a CS meal, and I've never purchased a CS dessert. And plenty of times I've ordered my entree w/o a side as I wasn't that hungry, which isn't something that the DDP allows for.

If you eat exactly to the plan, you may end up saving money. But you need to eat to the plan, and purposely plan how to do so. Want pasta one night instead of steak? Well, you just blew any savings you had for the day. Or if you ate the corn dog nuggets at Casey's instead of the platter at Cosmic Rays? Just lost like $4 right there.

Some people like it, and it works for some people. But I don't, and I fall in the camp who thinks that the restaurants have dumbed down their menus to appeal. And if you don't take DDP, then you have better have one heck of a schtick, otherwise everyone who is on DDP won't bother coming and paying out of pocket.

 

[Phonedave]

There are really two parts to this question. Is the plan a good value, and has the very existance of the plan caused overall problems.

As for the first, for me, no the plan is not a good value. For some it is, for some it is not. Others have gone into this in detail. If your NORMAL eating habits match the plan, then yes it can save you money. Some people like to have all of their meals pre-paid. While I understand the allure of that, I am not going to pay extra just to have it done.

Now, for the second part, I feel that the DDP has really hurt the quality of eating at WDW. When a person uses the DDP at a restaruant, that restaruant gets a set credit. For arguments sake, lets say $40. That means that the restarunt cannot put any combination of entree and dessert on their menu that costs more than $40, or else they will loose money on the plan. This has "dumbed down" the menus at many of the restaruants. It has also increased the usage of cheaper ingredients. The second way that the DDP has hurt dining is by increasing prices. WDW wants people on the plan. The plan is locked in money for them. To this end they push the plan like crazy, so much so that they even offer free dining at times just to sell rooms. The restaruants see that a large portion of their customers are on the plan. The fact that the DDP people are on a plan and not paying what is on the menu, coupled with the fact that a large portion of the people who are not on the plan are essentially a captive audience, incents the restaruants to raise their prices. When you are getting your dinner for "free" because of the plan, you feel better if the price on the menu says $49 instead of $29. The last reason is that the plan has contributed to the overcrowding of table service restaruants. Back before the plan, you could book most table service places the morning of, or even just walk up. Your average park guest did not eat a table service meal every day. Now because of the plan, you get a table service meal every day - of course there are the two credit places, but overall people are eating a lot more table service than they used to. This increases the crowding in table service restaruants.

So, in summary, the plan can be a benefit for some people. But I also feel that overall the plan has caused the quality of dining at WDW to go down hill. So much so that there are precious few restaruants that I look foward to eating at anymore. Before the plan, I would eat 4 or 5 table service meals at WDW (which I believe was not the norm, many people I talked to ate less, instead eating Quick Service or at the resort food courts - I know that when I first started going, and I was in a much lower tax bracket, I ate only one, or maybe two Table Service meals per trip). Now however, the pendilum has swung again. Because of dismal food offerings, the jacked up prices, and the difficulty of getting into a table service restaruant, we eat at maybe 3 table services during a week long trip. It's just not worth the hassle, and the menus are boring and predictiable.

-dave

 

[Weather_Lady]

Last time my family went we actually saved money with the Dining Plan (if we were to buy everything we ate at full price).

Your parenthetical is very important -- and therein lies one of the reasons a lot of people think the DDP is a misleading waste of time and money.

If you ask yourself, "did we pay less than we would have if we'd bought the same items at the menu price?" the answer will be "yes" some of the time, as it was for you.

For many, however (myself included) the relevant question is not whether the DDP costs less than the same overpriced items OOP. I'd prefer to decide for myself what food options offer me a good value, and not let Disney attempt to convince me that one meal is better than another by virtue of Disney's otherworldly pricing. For me, the pertinent question concerning the DDP is, "did we pay less than we would have if we'd paid out of pocket FOR WHAT WE REALLY WANTED TO EAT, AND NOTHING MORE instead?" That is, if we booked at the restaurants at which we most preferred to eat (regardless of their menu cost or number of DDP credits), when we wanted to eat (not trying to eat only dinners, the most expensive meal at most places), and ordered the food we'd most enjoy (rather than what was priced the highest, or what "fit in" to our meal allotment), and didn't order things we didn't want (e.g., ate snacks only when we really wanted a snack, didn't overeat for the sake of "getting our money's worth," didn't order desserts and fountain drinks that we wouldn't otherwise care to have or for which we feel too full, skipped a meal or had a granola bar in our hotel room when we just didn't feel hungry). If that's the question we ask, and even considering that we still do our fair share of vacation-induced splurging and overeating, my family always comes out way ahead paying out of pocket...

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I've only used it when I got the free offer. Free dining at Pop Century when it was the regular plan, included appetizers, and included tips. Now that was a bargain. It probably offset the cost of the hotel completely.

My personal issues are that it's really too much food. I don't need dessert with every meal but I feel obligated,

It also lacks flexibility. I'm generally offsite at Universal and other places for 3-4 days of a two-week visit. That means I have to seek out 2-credit meals, or scramble to use all of the credits.

 

[thomas998]

See, my family would/will never get desert if we go out to dinner normally, but with the Dinning Plan, desert is included so we get one because we can. We like that it gives us an excuse to eat more since that's part of the vacation for us.

Next question ... what are the benefits to not getting the DDP. Obviously you only pay for the food you actually want to eat, but let's say you ate 2 snacks, a CS lunch and a TS dinner, plus drinks and a desert at dinner, how much are you saving if you don't have the plan? Last time my family went we actually saved money with the Dining Plan (if we were to buy everything we ate at full price).

It all comes down to how your behave as a family along with the ages of the people in your family. We don't do the DDP because it has never made sense. We will probably still do 2 or 3 character meals on a trip, probably eat in a nice place while we are there at least once or twice... but we also know that we will often be going from one park to another or going back to the hotel mid day, so during those times we often get something from a local place... not simply because it is cheaper than Disney (its a whole lot cheaper) but because the quality of most Disney food isn't that great, we can get much better tasting food outside the park than we can in the park. If we did a DDP we would be handcuffed to Disney food which wouldn't be as good as we could get else where. As for desserts, well we might still get one at a Disney place if we want one, but we don't feel obligated to dine off their list we dine off what we want.

Honestly I suggest on your next trip you don't get the DDP... instead just eat when you want and what you want, track all of your expenses and I'll be willing to bet you spend less money doing it that way than you do using DDP whether you eat a dessert or not.