Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi - I'm hoping to take my two to Florida next year when they will be 4 and 7. There seems to be so many options and I'm confused about where to start. We're going to combine it with some time on the Gulf Coast which I've been to many times so I'm ok about that part. It's the time in Orlando that I need help with.

Is it best to stay in a Disney-run hotel and be near the parks? If so, can anyone recommend a good, not too pricey one? The other option would be to rent somewhere nearby and drive to the parks. Again, any recommendations? We will probably alternate a few days at the park with the odd day by the pool as I imagine that we will get very tired. Also not sure whether to look at package/flight options or just buy flights and sort out accommodation ourselves.

Any handy hints/tips gratefully received.

We went last Easter when our two were eight and five and had the BEST TIME EVER, despite my partner and I having been quite cynical about Disney beforehand. We stayed about a 10=minute drive from the park in one of those apartment resorts (Sheraton Vistana - huge apartments). It was a bit cheaper and it was absolutely fine - it's v easy to drive in and out of the Disney resorts and the parking system was unbelievably well organised. You do spend extra time transferring into and out of the park but for us it was not a problem. We got a package via Virgin but I'm sure it would have been fine booking it separately (we booked our own Disney tickets separately as we found them cheaper online).


We went to Disney World twice, plus Animal Kingdom and one of the water parks (and Universal Studios too). Loved it. Yes, you do get tired but the time difference works in your favour so you can get there early when it's not so busy then leave at 4pm and crash out back in your room. We organised the whole trip like a military exercise and even worked out which rides we wanted to go on, so that we could target the most popular ones early in the day. There's heaps of information online so you can research it all first.


The best thing about the holiday was that the kids loved it so much they never whinged/moaned/fought each other for the whole two weeks we were in America. A miracle. They still talk about that holiday now (mind you, I think we're still paying for it now too, but that's another story?).


Hope you have a great time!

We went at Christmas...kids were 4 and 6.5 and it was FANTASTIC. We stayed at a disney hotel but only because the condo we wanted was booked up.

This is the FB page of a US friend who organises Disney Holidays. He is an amazing guy who is incredibly knowledgeable about the parks and all they offer. He does this trip planning as a side business/hobby he loves Disney that much. He helped us out with planning our trips and gave us lots of info that made our trip more enjoyable. Knowing best times for various activities and which rides/shows not to miss, etc. https://www.facebook.com/TripswithChip

Also a link to the condo https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.216070198591120.1073741830.216007031930770&type=1

Have a great time and start booking now if you want character meals etc. We had breakfast at Cinderella's castle and met the princesses there which was one of the highlights of our trip but you need to book ASAP as reservations go fast. If they are already booked up it is definitely worth it to keep trying. We managed to get ours after a few weeks of checking back and it wa so worth it for our kiddies (and the grown ups.)


Enjoy!

Might be worth looking out for accommodation in Kissimee (? Spelt correctly).


I went as a teenager in 1990 with my family & we stayed in a hotel apartment (but think there's lots of independent rentals around there too) there and were less than 10mins drive to Disney, were some nice places to eat and few things to look around at locally (still dream of Dennys breakfasts!)

Would you say it's worth it if your kids aren't mega into Disney / Princesses etc. My two like the films but have a healthy skepticism of the branding - although I'm sure they could be reeled in when they're surrounded by it. They also don't like wild rides - my 8 year old is happy with the carousel at Gambados!!


They talk about wanting to go (thanks to the incessant adverts on TV) but I'm not sure they really know what's involved. Nor do I to be honest.

nunheadmum - my youngest is really into Disney stuff but my oldest isn't at all and never has been - hates princesses and anything girly. But she loved all the exciting rides and the animal-related stuff and just the whole atmosphere - I know it's cheesy but pretty much every member of staff from the balloon sellers to the people driving the little trains from the car park really do make a fuss of every child that's there. So we all kind of got sucked into it, even my extremely cynical husband! That said, we only did three days at Disney (four if you include the water park) which was enough for us. There's inevitably a lot of queuing, even with all our planning, which drove me nuts after a while. But yes, there's heaps to do for every age and bravery level - there seems to be less emphasis on scary rollercoasters at Disney, compared to Universal.


Townleygreen - I'd agree that Universal is better for older kids but ours weren't so enamoured. There was a Dr Seuss bit for v young kids which was fun, but other than the Harry Potter area (which was rammed) there wasn't as much for the 5 to 8-year bracket, I thought. And it didn't have quite the magic of Disneyland somehow. But maybe we were just exhausted by this point!

What would people consider the ideal ages? We are considering a trip in the next couple of years (maybe!) but thought it would be best to wait until our two boys are at least 6 and 8ish...


And is it gruesomely hot in the summer? Is Easter a better bet?

The rides (especially in the Magic Kingdom) aren't that scary - as red jam says, it's the overall atmosphere & welcome you get from everyone there that becomes infectious. I was (an albeit "young") 13yr old when we went & had such a fab time I came home wanting to go and work there!! There's lots to see around the park with random costumed characters popping up and the parade - I can't remember much about the rides (except space mountain, oh & being in a dumbo that wouldn't fly!) but this thread has left me nostalgic for how happy a holiday it was :0)

Yes, I too went as a kid, age 6, which was why I was so keen to recreate it for my own kids as I still remember it as my best-ever childhood holiday. My parents went with us again this time round too so it was a lovely intergenerational thing - a real once-in-a-lifetime trip. I saw lots of other grandparents out there too.


I can still remember loads about that holiday (the first one I can remember) so for that reason we waited till my youngest was nearly 6 before doing it. We didn't want to shell out all that money for her to not even remember it properly in later life! So snowboarder, I'd say 6 and 8 is perfect. They are old enough to amuse themselves on the flight too at that age, which makes life much easier.

Wow thank you all for the great advice. I went in 1982 when I was 8 and my brother was 5 and we had the time of our lives. I remembered it for years to come which is why I wanted to go in the next couple of years before my sons get too old to appreciate the magic of it all. We are aiming for Easter. Our summers are very hot and humid in Florida. The perfect time for Florida in my opinion is November but not much good for those of us tied to school holidays. Christmas would be good too weather-wise but I imagine mega expensive. I think I have a lot of research (and saving up) to do!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...