Warning - NOT allowed to use available dining credits at Yachtman Steakhouse

[Tink10]

I think part of the problem here is the confusion over the interpretation of the term "non-transferable". I take it to mean that I cannot transfer the PLAN in it entirety to someone else. I DON'T take it to mean that I can't use one of my remaining credits to pay for someone else's meal! . So, if I'm checking out and have 3 remaining TS and 4 CS, I can't assign those credits to someone else, but I should be able to buy another family their lunch if I want to! .

After reading this, my first thought was "What's The Difference?" It really is the same thing. Why not just pay Oop for the meal that you wanted to treat someone to?

Think about it people... if I have that many credits left over it's because I was paying cash for some meals along the way. Nobody is scamming anybody, it will all work out in the wash.

It COULD be a wash, but as we see over & over again here on the Dis, people routinely pay OOP for the less expensive meals & use the credits on the more costly meals. So, dollar for dollar, I'm sure it's not a wash.

 

[Sammie]

Based on the OP's last comments I have to believe this is a case of the OP being blamed for the misuse of the plan by others. I felt all along the creative use, or whatever you wish to call it, was going to cause this.

Which was the very reason I objected to the use of the plan in this manner, that eventually it was going to affect all of us. Even those trying very hard to use the plan correctly, such as the OP.

 

[Lewisc]

I quoted you but this post is isn't just a reply to your posts.

We don't have the slightest idea if the OP is using the plan "correctly". I don't agree.

In the normal cost of a vacation some guests leave without using all their credits. Some guests will use some of their credits in less expensive restaurants and possibly for less expensive meals such as breakfast. MYW Dining requires all guests on the reservation purchase dining for the number of nights of their reservation. These requirements tend to accomplish that and tends to deter guests from using all of their credits in the most expensive restaurants.

Allowing guests to purchase the plan for only one or two nights or allowing guests to use their credits to treat others works against that. Guests treating others will wind up using more of the credits at the more expensive restaurants and will be paying out of pocket for the less expensive meals. Guests who don't (or aren't allowed) to treat others will just use their credits for all/most of their meals.

Dining allows a family to get most of their meals for a fixed price. Disney is generous enough to allow family member to use pooled credits as they see fit. Disney is really offering a restricted all inclusive or cruise type of dining experience. Those types of dining experiences don't allow you to treat others.

There is a big difference in utilization between using dining credits during the course of a vacation and allowing guests to stack the credits for one or two meals.

Although it's possible the manager was rude I suspect the mistake he made was discussing the issue with the OP. Would the manager be rude if he simply said you have 3 adults and 1 child on your plan so you can use your plan to pay for 3 adult meals and 1 child meal and then walked away. My guess is you'd think that was rude for walking away from you.

The issue of non-existent child credits has been discussed to death but what hasn't been discussed is Disney's right to limit guests ability to use credits to treat friends not on the plan and their right to stop guests form paying OOP for child meals at Signature Restaurants, Dinner Shows and Character Meals. It's not really fair for us to think we can take advantage of the plan language when it benefits us but not when it benefits Disney.

Assume 3 nights, 3A 1 C. You paid the adult rate for 9 TS meals and the chid rate for 3. You don't have 9 adult TS meal credits and 3 child TS meal credits. You purchased 12 TS credits to feed your family.

Based on the OP's last comments I have to believe this is a case of the OP being blamed for the misuse of the plan by others. I felt all along the creative use, or whatever you wish to call it, was going to cause this.

Which was the very reason I objected to the use of the plan in this manner, that eventually it was going to affect all of us. Even those trying very hard to use the plan correctly, such as the OP.

 

[JLS]

Just one clarification - if indeed Disney does not allow people on the dining plan to use a credit to pay for food that someone else not in your room/on your plan is eating, that's fine, and you could say that someone trying to use the plan in that manner was not using the plan "correctly" (intentionally or, in my case, unintentionally). However, I do not think it is fair to lump that type of possible "incorrect" usage into the arena of a "scam" - to me, a scam is cheating or somehow acting dishonestly to try to get something for nothing or something for less than its value. In my situation, Disney had my money and the credits had their same value as credits whether I ate a meal or my friend actually ate the food. There is no difference in value / money to Disney if I ate at Yachtsman one night and California Grill the next, or if I use those 4 credits to pay for me and a friend at Yachtsman and skip the CA Grill (obviously just an example).

I just wanted to point this out because some people on these Boards (thankfully not many who have posted to this thread) are very quick to jump to the conclusion that anyone making a mistake with the plan (which we can all agree has some serious ambiguities in the way that it is administered), is trying to scam, cheat or pull a fast one.

To respond to a prior poster's expressed doubt about whether the manager was actually rude to us, I will reiterate that the major problem I had was his attitude and his use of an analogy that directly compared my party to people who willingly and knowingly break the law and only ocassionally get caught. Under no possible interpretation of "customer service" was his attitude, comments or behavior appropriate. If he had in a very polite and respectful way explained why he could not allow us to use the remaining dining credits, I would have expressed surprise and shared with him that that was not my understanding of the plan, but I would have let it go at that, paid out of pocket for the last meal, and probably asked for clarification at the Beach Club concierge just to make sure that the manager was not incorrect in denying me use of my credits. But the way we were treated, accused of wrongdoing, and then to have the manager imply that we had wasted his time as he went off in a huff (literally storming away from our table with a big exaggerated sigh), was an unfortunate end to what was supposed to be a nice meal and what was a really great trip overall. In the event of a discrepancy or disagreement, I believe that the manager is always obligated to resolve the situation while still treating the guests with respect and courtesy. That is not what we experienced.

This is not a moral issue for me. My conscience is absolutely clear in how I used or tried to use the dining plan. I just wanted to share my experience. The overall point is that the application of these rules and exceptions is very inconsistent from place to place so people should be prepared to only be able to use the dining plan for the exact size of the party on your room key.

 

[Lewisc]

The only people who are "scamming" Disney are the few that are inventing phantom guests.

It sounds like the manager was rude. His mistake was trying come up with analogies and reasons rather than saying "these are the rules" and then politely walking away. Some people would interpret a manager as being rude if he didn't make an exception or if he walked away rather than continue a meaningless debate. It sounded like that wasn't your case.

Sammie was the one you said you were using the plan "correctly". I certainly don't think you were doing anything wrong. I have a problem assuming that guests who pool all their families credits are using the plan "incorrectly" and guests that transfer meals to friends are using the plan "correctly".

I don't think you were intending to cheat Disney. but correctly is as Disney interperts the plan.

You have TS credits for every night of your stay. Allowing you to use your credits for extra guests, inevitably means you paid OOP for some of your less expensive meals. I assume you didn't pay cash for a meal at CG in order to have extra credits to treat your friend at the Yachtsman.

This is really the other half of the child/adult issue. Preventing guests from using credits to pay for others and preventing guests from paying OOP for kids meals will limit the opportunity for famlies to "abuse" their kids credits.

I know I'm repeating myself, I DON'T THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO SCAM DISNEY. I don't think it's appropriate to say you were using the plan "correctly" since at least one Disney restaurant disagrees with that interperation.

Just one clarification - if indeed Disney does not allow people on the dining plan to use a credit to pay for food that someone else not in your room/on your plan is eating, that's fine, and you could say that someone trying to use the plan in that manner was not using the plan "correctly" (intentionally or, in my case, unintentionally). However, I do not think it is fair to lump that type of possible "incorrect" usage into the arena of a "scam" - to me, a scam is cheating or somehow acting dishonestly to try to get something for nothing or something for less than its value. In my situation, Disney had my money and the credits had their same value as credits whether I ate a meal or my friend actually ate the food. There is no difference in value / money to Disney if I ate at Yachtsman one night and California Grill the next, or if I use those 4 credits to pay for me and a friend at Yachtsman and skip the CA Grill (obviously just an example).

I just wanted to point this out because some people on these Boards (thankfully not many who have posted to this thread) are very quick to jump to the conclusion that anyone making a mistake with the plan (which we can all agree has some serious ambiguities in the way that it is administered), is trying to scam, cheat or pull a fast one.

To respond to a prior poster's expressed doubt about whether the manager was actually rude to us, I will reiterate that the major problem I had was his attitude and his use of an analogy that directly compared my party to people who willingly and knowingly break the law and only ocassionally get caught. Under no possible interpretation of "customer service" was his attitude, comments or behavior appropriate. If he had in a very polite and respectful way explained why he could not allow us to use the remaining dining credits, I would have expressed surprise and shared with him that that was not my understanding of the plan, but I would have let it go at that, paid out of pocket for the last meal, and probably asked for clarification at the Beach Club concierge just to make sure that the manager was not incorrect in denying me use of my credits. But the way we were treated, accused of wrongdoing, and then to have the manager imply that we had wasted his time as he went off in a huff (literally storming away from our table with a big exaggerated sigh), was an unfortunate end to what was supposed to be a nice meal and what was a really great trip overall. In the event of a discrepancy or disagreement, I believe that the manager is always obligated to resolve the situation while still treating the guests with respect and courtesy. That is not what we experienced.

This is not a moral issue for me. My conscience is absolutely clear in how I used or tried to use the dining plan. I just wanted to share my experience. The overall point is that the application of these rules and exceptions is very inconsistent from place to place so people should be prepared to only be able to use the dining plan for the exact size of the party on your room key.

 

[CathrynRose]

If they want to be more strict on how we use our credits, they need to define it better and use it across the board.

I really dont want to come off as holier than thou - I really dont. Ive parked at The Swan, to avoid parking charges when I was a seasonal pass holder... I'm not perfect... however...

They shouldnt have to define it better. These dining credits are not transferable - and although no one could distinguish between child & adult credits - theyre holding to the 3/A - 1/C stated on card.

(now this is not meant at OP) I dunno - I think that this whole "pooling" A & C credits to use them all as adults, is wrong. My goodness - this is FOOD we're talking about! You wanna ruin a magnificent program (the DDP) just so you can be a pig for a week?

 

[CathrynRose]

The MYW dining plan has allowed us to try restaurants that were not an option in the past. While using the dining plan we skip desserts because we're full, not because I'm watching each dollar.

I really hope the "these are my credits, I can use them any way I see fit" crowd doesn't ruin this plan for the rest of us.

ITA! Just because we know that these credits are pooled, doesnt mean we're supposed to be taking advantage of that fact. You pay less for the DDP for a child - why should you be using those credits on so-and-so from out of town, who isnt even staying in your room, booked on your package or anything else?!? I dont get it.

Im thrilled - THRILLED to be on the DDP! All in my party will be considered adults (2 A / 15 & 11 y/o) - however... the thought of iniviting other people along on a dining plan, that doesnt even include them leaves me baffled.

Why wouldnt you just pay for the "guest" OOP - why insist on using these kids (cheaper) credits for them? They dont belong to your guest! Anyway you look at it - theyre non-transferable.

Im really worried they'll get rid of the fabulous plan - because of "scammers", people trying to beat the system, etc etc. THIS IS FOOD we are talking about....

 

[bicker]

His mistake was trying come up with analogies and reasons rather than saying "these are the rules" and then politely walking away.

You are absolutely correct. This is precisely what the manager should have done.

Some people would interpret a manager as being rude if he didn't make an exception or if he walked away rather than continue a meaningless debate.

Absolutely. A patron could insist that s/he read something online, or was told something by so-and-so, or was able to do this at another restaurant. In the end, you still have a patron painting the manager as both incompetent and rude just for doing his job correctly and politely.

The Dining Plan, as currently structured, is a no-win situation for the staff. It is designed to help usher them to failure at their job of providing excellent customer service.

You once convinced me that exploiting the pooling of credits wasn't wrong, but since then someone else pointed out something that we both must have overlooked. The Dining Plan is non-transferable. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it was ever intended to allow folks to cover meals for anyone other than those for whom the Plan was purchased, so no equivocation about non-transferability is defensible.

And as CathrynRose said, "Just because we know that these credits are pooled, doesnt mean we're supposed to be taking advantage of that fact."

I know I'm repeating myself, I DON'T THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO SCAM DISNEY.

I don't think most of the people exploiting these weaknesses in rationality of the Dining Plan are deliberately trying to scam Disney. I think people are just doing what they heard was okay to do. Yet everyone loses: The staff are overly-stressed because of the lack of coherence. The guests are disappointed each time some inconsistency cuts them the wrong way.

 

[pedro2112]

But what if the adults didn't use their credits earlier in the week? They would still be listed as available, regardless of the number in the party. The receipt lists only TS credits available and if the number matches what you are claiming, there shouldn't be a discussion.

This is incorrect. No matter how many credits have been used, they are not transferable. Consequently, one should never be alllowed (under the rules) to use more credits at a meal than people in the party. Even if this was the first restaurant of the trip, using 4 TS credits for adults is against the rules as they are currently constituted.

 

[pedro2112]

Nobody's disputing that....RIGHT NOW there is no distinction between the two......

Anyone want to put a little wager on when they will start to differentiate the two?

They'd be idiots to "unpool" credits, as they make a heck of a lot more money when people pay out of pocket for their children and stretch thier TS credits to another disney restaurant.

This thread has gone way off track. The issue has nothing to do with pooled or unpooled credits.. rather, the OPs situation was due to the fact that the OP was trying to use the dining plan for someone not on the party, and that it contradticted the information on the front of the card. As most of us have said all along, yes, some CMs are allowing this, but it is against the rules. The dining plan is non-transferable.

If, on the other hand, the OP tried to only use 4 TS credits at the meal for two adults, and pay for the kids out of pocket, there would have been nothing wrong with that and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Simply put, the OP heard on these boards about people being able to pay for others with thier DP credits, and assumed it was "ok." That's why I insist on telling people in these types of threads that while some CMs are allowing, be prepared to find one that follows the rules. The discussion on pooled credits is irrelevant.

 

[bicker]

I wouldn't say "irrelevant" but I do agree that the relevance is only tangential. Keep in mind that if credits weren't pooled, then, by definition, it wouldn't be possible to use TS credits for folks not on the Dining Plan. However, there are other ways to accomplish the goal without totally unpooling credits.

 

[pedro2112]

Folks should be prepared, based on the OP's experience, to always expend credits for regular and child meals limited by what they paid for. While often Disney is more lenient than that, the program materials doesn't promise anything more.

This language is confusing. If you mean that folks should be prepared that a CM will not allow more credits to be used than on the front of the card, then yes, you are correct. If you mean something else, than you are mistaken.

 

[bicker]

I cannot be mistaken because not everyone's visit has happened yet. You have no idea what operational changes will take place between now and then. Given that, all prospective guests can rely on is the explicit promises written in the brochure. Nothing more.

 

[pedro2112]

Given that, all prospective guests can rely on is the explicit promises written in the brochure. Nothing more.

I apologize for not being more clear. I do agree with you, and I thought that it was you that was straying from the brochure when you made reference to the cost of obtaining the dining plan for a child, which is totally irrelevant to what the brochure states regarding the use of credits. Sorry for the confusion Bicker.

 

[bicker]

Yup, the brochure doesn't explicitly state that you can use credits purchased as the child rate for adult meals, so they can impose whatever restrictions they want in that regard, whenever they wish, and can even rest on the fact that it is reasonable to expect such restrictions to be in place.

 

[Lewisc]

I didn't over look it. The plan brochure, and the operation of the plan confirms that all the credits for the family are aggregated. I guess you could say Disney transfers the individual credits to the pool. Each person doesn't receive any credits, rather the total TS credits for the family is equal to the number of nights the family is staying times the number of guests over age 3. I can't cut and paste from a PDF but the language is clear. The plan is purchased by one person, the person who pays for the reservation. Disney could stop aggregating credits, IF THEY DO then the non-transferability features would effectively separate child and adult credits.

Read the fine print in the brochure. Disney can use the non-transfer terms to prevent guests from purchasing meals for people outside the family pool. They can use the terms of the plan to prevent families from paying OOP for kids meals at signature restaurants, character meals and dinner shows. Under the terms of the plan every guest will have 1 or 2 TS credits debited from their account. Basically a family pays OOP for everyone or uses the plan for everyone one.

I'll continue to speculate Disney intends to allow parents to use unused "child" credits, resulting from kids skipping meals, to purchase adult meals. Some kids may skip TS meals, some kids may be in a kids club.

My guess is a system of letting parents pay to "upgrade" a child credit or to refund unused "kid" credits for a 4 year old that never eats or for a 7 year old that is in a kids club most nights would cost Disney more than just letting guests use those credits for adult meals.

Assume a family doesn't use the plan for "outsiders". Assume the family isn't allowed to selectively pay OPP for signature, character and dinner show meals (although Chef Mickey's is the only restaurant that sometimes enforces this rule). How many extra "child" credits will be available.

You once convinced me that exploiting the pooling of credits wasn't wrong, but since then someone else pointed out something that we both must have overlooked. The Dining Plan is non-transferable. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it was ever intended to allow folks to cover meals for anyone other than those for whom the Plan was purchased, so no equivocation about non-transferability is defensible.

 

[Lewisc]

Yup, the brochure doesn't explicitly state that you can use credits purchased as the child rate for adult meals, so they can impose whatever restrictions they want in that regard, whenever they wish, and can even rest on the fact that it is reasonable to expect such restrictions to be in place.

Actually the brochure explicitly shows the credits being aggregated and explicitly says meal usage will be tracked electronically and explicitly talks about just the total number of Quick Service Meals. There is no reference to child or adult credits.

The brochure does say:

components and terms are subject to change without notice

but Disney might not want the complaints that would come from making such a change other than at the start of a new year.

Again assume I put 2 kids in a kids club the last night. Under the present system I can use my remaining 4 TS credits for an adult signature meal. Disney comes out OK. Probably easier than having a price to upgrade 2 of the remaining credits.

 

[bicker]

The plan brochure, and the operation of the plan confirms that all the credits for the family are aggregated.

The brochure doesn't say that. It says a lot of things but nothing that explicitly promises that the credits for adults and children will be aggregated and available to use by any member of that family, without restriction, regardless of the age of the person for which the credit was priced. That's really important to remember. Folks can choose to read-into the brochure whatever they wish, but that doesn't change the fact that the brochure doesn't actually say that.

And the operation of the plan is a transitory concept. It is subject to change, and the brochure does say that.

Read the fine print in the brochure.

I just did. Again. As you said, "There is no reference to child or adult credits." There is absolutely nothing in the brochure, therefore, that provides any indication that credits purchased at the child rate and credits purchased at the regular rate will aggregated.

 

[Lewisc]

The brochure doesn't say that. It says a lot of things but nothing that explicitly promises that the credits for adults and children will be aggregated and available to use by any member of that family, without restriction, regardless of the age of the person for which the credit was priced. That's really important to remember. Folks can choose to read-into the brochure whatever they wish, but that doesn't change the fact that the brochure doesn't actually say that.

And the operation of the plan is a transitory concept. It is subject to change, and the brochure does say that.

I just did. Again. As you said, "There is no reference to child or adult credits." There is absolutely nothing in the brochure, therefore, that provides any indication that credits purchased at the child rate and credits purchased at the regular rate will aggregated.

Go to page one of the 2006 Brochure, read the second paragraph under tracking your meals. It's pretty clear only the total number of credits is tracked.

Go to the first paragraphs of the brochure. It's clear the credits are aggregated and no mention is made of child or adult credits. The plan brochure references the total of number of credits per family. All the references are to the family. The only reference to per person is in respect to how the total number of credits for the family is calculated.

I used the plan twice. The computer system only tracks the total number of TS meals. Disney can't have a system that requires guests to keep records.

Kids can eat from the adult section of a buffet. The same logic would suggest kids be limited to the kids section of the the buffet but we agree that's not the case.

Disney can certainly change the terms of the plan and can enforce the terms of the plan which prevent buying meals for others and limit a families ability to pay OOP for kids meals.

 

[5DisneyNuts]

It was never my intention to "scam" - I had understood that you could use your credits "as you wished." I did not understand non-transferrable as referring to an individual meal eaten by someone dining with you, but rather to the whole plan. If I misinterpreted that, it was my mistake and that's fine. But even if that is the policy, I don't really understand how paying for a friend with your credits could be a "scam" - if I didn't use a that credit to pay for a friend's meal, I could have used it at that or another restaurant the next day for a meal. In terms of cost to Disney, its the cost of a meal - what's the difference who actually eats the meal? It is a violation fo the policy if I buy two sandwiches using CS credits and then give one to my friend who meets us in the park? Is that a scam? We didn't get something for free.

My issue with the manager at Yachtsman was twofold: (1) he displayed a very poor attitude and was rude. Regardless of how he feels about dining plan utilization, it was very inappropriate for him to insult me with his analogy about a repeat traffic offender. Just an insulting and completely inappropriate analogy.

I am also sorry that you had a problem with the manager. I was under the exact same notion as you regarding use of credits. I really did think that as long as you had the credits available, you could use them as you wanted. I never took non-transferable to mean what is being explained here.

I do not believe you were trying to "scam" anyone. I think the interpretation of the plan needs to be more consistent. I appreciate you sharing your story.

This is incorrect. No matter how many credits have been used, they are not transferable. Consequently, one should never be allowed (under the rules) to use more credits at a meal than people in the party. Even if this was the first restaurant of the trip, using 4 TS credits for adults is against the rules as they are currently constituted.

Thanks for explaining that Pedro. As I said, I never thought of the individual credits as being non-transferable but the plan as a whole. It makes sense now.