New credit card guarantees. Restaurant list, policy & common questions in 1st post

[hannahdrewmom]

I find it most interesting that the included Hollywood and Vine on this list since it is consistently a place that you can do walk ups and that always has same day availability. I understand that there are characters but it just doesn't make sense. It's already a place people don't book without reservation.... just strikes me as weird. (Same with some of the signatures on the list.)

 

[Snurk71]

This is what I don't understand. The Smith family is told when making these ADR's that there will be a fee if they cancel after a certain time or don't show up. They are aware of this.

They have the option NOT to book that ADR, knowing that their child MIGHT POSSIBLY get sick. They have the option to book an ADR that does not have these restrictions. It's all a choice. Everyone has that choice.

If Johnny or Susie get sick there is not much you can do. These things happen. It was a gamble the Smith family took and the choice they made.

Same thing with anything else. There is always the chance you'll be too sick, too tired, too cold, cranky kids, etc. I guess it's all a gamble if & you choose to take the gamble & lose then you pay the price.

OMG!!! None of us are saying Disney isn't going to communicate the policy (though many guests will forget between the 6 months when they made the ADR to when they're taking the hit and it will feel like a negative surprise to them - I know, in your poor customer service world that's their problem for not knowing and abiding by 100% of the law). We just don't think it's a family-friendly, guest experience-focused policy. It baffles me that you don't seem able to comprehend that and keep turning it into something that no one is saying.

It appears your world is very black and white with no greys. I hope you don't work in a customer-facing position or industry. If you do, I certainly wouldn't patronize your business.

 

[maxiesmom]

OMG!!! None of us are saying Disney isn't going to communicate the policy (though many guests will forget between the 6 months when they made the ADR to when they're taking the hit and it will feel like a negative surprise to them - I know, in your poor customer service world that's their problem for not knowing and abiding by 100% of the law). We just don't think it's a family-friendly, guest experience-focused policy. It baffles me that you don't seem able to comprehend that and keep turning it into something that no one is saying.

It appears your world is very black and white with no greys. I hope you don't work in a customer-facing position or industry. If you do, I certainly wouldn't patronize your business.

The policy they have now is very family friendly. And it isn't working for them. It is too bad so many people take advantage of this family friendly policy, and use it to throw away ADRs. Now, because of this, Disney has to do something that some people don't find very family friendly. That is what happens when people are so disrespectful. We all reap what the rude and thoughtless people sow.

Being family friendly is great. Continuing to lose money to stay family friendly at that level would be stupid.

I work for a company that prides itself on its customer service. But recently they have been tweaking some of their polices, and closing loopholes, which are things some people might think are rude or petty. But businesses can't continue to do things that lose them money, and at some point the loss of money outweighs the goodwill you think you are getting. It seems Disney has gotten to the point where the goodwill they have had with their open reservation policy is costing them more than they care to lose.

 

[MELSMICE]

OMG!!! None of us are saying Disney isn't going to communicate the policy (though many guests will forget between the 6 months when they made the ADR to when they're taking the hit and it will feel like a negative surprise to them - I know, in your poor customer service world that's their problem for not knowing and abiding by 100% of the law). We just don't think it's a family-friendly, guest experience-focused policy. It baffles me that you don't seem able to comprehend that and keep turning it into something that no one is saying.

It appears your world is very black and white with no greys. I hope you don't work in a customer-facing position or industry. If you do, I certainly wouldn't patronize your business.

Well, if they don't write down or look at their confirmation paper then whose fault is it if they miss their ADR & have to pay the fee?

Considering I have owned my own SUCCESSFUL small business for over 14 years, my world has had a lot of grey in it.

I have also found that sometimes there is no room for grey & things do have to be black & white. When there is too much grey then your clients do not take you seriously and you will eventually tick someone off with a policy that you've made and are not going to stand behind.

Considering I'm a small business exceptions can sometimes be made without repercussions. I retained many clients because of exceptions, but I've also angered some because of exceptions I was unable to make. In most of these instances after talking to the client and explaining the policy and why we have it they understand and are fine.

So, yes, I do work in a customer-facing position. I face my customers daily face to face, on the phone, through e-mail, through FB & through texts. In fact, my customers are children, so families are involved.

 

[Mkrop]

I agree. Someone mentioned a while back about going to a water park for the day & then not wanting to do an ADR. Not bashing the poster, but, IMO, that's poor planning. Water parks just drain you of all energy, IMO!


This is what I don't understand. The Smith family is told when making these ADR's that there will be a fee if they cancel after a certain time or don't show up. They are aware of this.

They have the option NOT to book that ADR, knowing that their child MIGHT POSSIBLY get sick. They have the option to book an ADR that does not have these restrictions. It's all a choice. Everyone has that choice.

If Johnny or Susie get sick there is not much you can do. These things happen. It was a gamble the Smith family took and the choice they made.


Same thing with anything else. There is always the chance you'll be too sick, too tired, too cold, cranky kids, etc. I guess it's all a gamble if & you choose to take the gamble & lose then you pay the price.

And what we are saying is that a family shouldnt have to gamble on the very thing that is MOST geared towards children, character meals! Give them a decent timeframe.

Plus I have never been to a water park so I would have no idea how it would affect my family.

The policy they have now is very family friendly. And it isn't working for them. It is too bad so many people take advantage of this family friendly policy, and use it to throw away ADRs. Now, because of this, Disney has to do something that some people don't find very family friendly. That is what happens when people are so disrespectful. We all reap what the rude and thoughtless people sow.

Being family friendly is great. Continuing to lose money to stay family friendly at that level would be stupid.

I work for a company that prides itself on its customer service. But recently they have been tweaking some of their polices, and closing loopholes, which are things some people might think are rude or petty. But businesses can't continue to do things that lose them money, and at some point the loss of money outweighs the goodwill you think you are getting. It seems Disney has gotten to the point where the goodwill they have had with their open reservation policy is costing them more than they care to lose.

But the point many of us our trying to make is that WDW went from being family friendly to anti family with this new policy. There was way to come down hard on the abuse which is causing them to lose money and remain family friendly...a shorter window.


I feel like that is the part that many of you for this policy are not hearing us say...most of us are ok with a CC hold, but there needs to be a more reasonable window to cancel, or they need to accept family based reasons for cancelling, although I do agree that many will abuse a sick excuse, so if you get sick before the 3 hour mark, no penalty, after that then yes you do need to eat that cost. To me that is not unreasonable. WDW can fill the table in 3 hours, family goes home happy, and if family doesnt show they get their money. That would be the win for WDW.

 

[SmallWorld71]

I'm sorry but if losing $10 a person will break you, then don't book the meals that require the deposit. No one liks to lose money, but in the over-all cost of a Disney vacation $10 a person is small potatos. If losing it would cause you a real financial hardship, and not just make you mad, then you have no business taking a trip to WDW. Maybe that is harsh, but honstly! Disney is not asking for people to leave their first-born behind. it is $10 a person!

I think that for the majority of visitors, this is probably true. But, there are exceptions, and I would hope that Disney would be understanding about those exceptions. We have several families in town who were sent to Disney via Make a Wish. Those families all happen to be poor. They receive public assistance, their children are receiving free lunch etc... and they also happen to have one child with a life-threatening illness. I certainly don't think those children should be denied the chance of dining with Mickey, Cinderella etc... just because their family can't afford the cancellation fee. Now I realize most families are not there because of Make a Wish, just wanted to point out that there are families who are there where $10 a person is a hardship and I think they have every right to be there. Probably more than you and I actually as their time is so precious. One of the little girls who was able to go with her parents and 3 siblings, died just a few months after her trip, days after her fifth birthday.

Also, for many others, $10 per person may not be a "hardship," but it is a big deal. $50 is generally what my kids each get for a souvenir budget. And while I always have reserve $ in case of emergencies, it's not chump change to me.

 

[Colleen27]

This is what I don't understand. The Smith family is told when making these ADR's that there will be a fee if they cancel after a certain time or don't show up. They are aware of this.

They have the option NOT to book that ADR, knowing that their child MIGHT POSSIBLY get sick. They have the option to book an ADR that does not have these restrictions. It's all a choice. Everyone has that choice.

If Johnny or Susie get sick there is not much you can do. These things happen. It was a gamble the Smith family took and the choice they made.

Really, we all get this. We just don't all like it. I shouldn't have to gamble with hundreds of dollars to have nice meals on a family vacation. And I hate having to think about it that way, but we've had enough trips with some sort of illness that I do have to think "Well, we really loved Artist Point/Flying Fish/Jiko but is it worth paying $50 not to eat if someone gets sick?" That mars our overall vacation experience because being able to have those types of meals without needing to make arrangements for a sitter is one of the things that we find most enjoyable about Disney; we aren't comfortable hiring a sitter on vacation so WDW is one of few places where we can enjoy something a bit more sophisticated than family/casual dining.

 

[Sammie]

just wanted to point out that there are families who are there where $10 a person is a hardship

I think all of us understand limited budget, I know my family does. If not I would not be driving a 10 year old car. However this is only 19 restaurants, I don't think anyone will not have plenty of choices to choose from.

If my budget was really limited, due to the cost of food at these 19 restuarants I would not be eating there anyway.

Avoiding these restuarants should in no way prevent anyone from having a great time at Disney.

 

[MELSMICE]

I think all of us understand limited budget, I know my family does. If not I would not be driving a 10 year old car. However this is only 19 restaurants, I don't think anyone will not have plenty of choices to choose from.

If my budget was really limited, due to the cost of food at these 19 restuarants I would not be eating there anyway.

Avoiding these restuarants should in no way prevent anyone from having a great time at Disney.

 

[Cafeen]

I have no doubt this will be a nightmare for the CMs. I definitely wouldn't want to be them. Hopefully, most people will realize they didn't create the policy & are only doing their jobs.

You must be more idealistic than I am then. I've heard many CM reports of the "special snowflake" syndrome and getting all uppity if their princess can't sit on a fence. Now charging them money for skipping a meal? Yep, the front-line CMs will get pounded.

Of course, the ones who will be most adversely affected by the change aren't likely to be these people. They are more likely to be the quiet families who will simply decide next year to not spend as much time dining, or even at the world. WDW won't likely hear a peep from them.

I can't speak for everyone else, but the way I see it WDW's goal is to make money. Selling magic is a marketing technique. They try to create magic for their guests, as long as it doesn't cut into their bottom line.

Disney's method has always been service leads to profits. The magic they create is what drives those profits. The minute they start limiting it, they have lost their focus.

I've already replied in another post that I never said no shows were the only problem. I don't remember anyone saying that. Without working there, I couldn't possibly know for sure what the true issues are. I acknowledge that. I'm only saying what makes sense to me. If someone in upper management came here to tell me I'm wrong, I'll have no problem being wrong. What is being posted here is all speculation. Some of it makes sense to me some of it doesn't. I'm sure it's the same for everyone. To me, businesses are there to make money. I can't imagine any of them doing anything that would prevent that. This is just my opinion. I've never insinuated it was anything but that.

Except when every alternate possibility is responded to with a "no way that can happen" (paraphrased) without offering any other possibilities, you are implying just that.

If I said that people with red hats were causing the problems, and denied the possibility or plausibility of anyone not wearing a red hat causing problems. I'm then saying that only those people are.

And once again, how long are they supposed to hold on to an empty table, hoping the family who it is meant for, will show up? How long are they supposed to let it sit there vacant, losing them money, while they turn people away who are there and want it?

Simple. They aren't supposed to hold it at all. They "know" someone is showing up at x time, but they aren't scheduled a table yet. If they don't show up, they still aren't scheduled a table. If they call a few hours ahead of time, they know that they won't need to schedule that table for them and can either take another ADR or a walk up in place.

I'm sorry but if losing $10 a person will break you, then don't book the meals that require the deposit. No one liks to lose money, but in the over-all cost of a Disney vacation $10 a person is small potatos. If losing it would cause you a real financial hardship, and not just make you mad, then you have no business taking a trip to WDW. Maybe that is harsh, but honstly! Disney is not asking for people to leave their first-born behind. it is $10 a person!

It's not so much about the money amount (at least for me), but more about the lack of flexibility in a system created for the number 1 family destination in the world. For a location that often overwhelms the first time (and even second time) visitors. For a location that is so expansive that many people completely underestimate how large and busy (busy as in so much stuff to do) the place is.

I'd guess that many first timers have absolutely zero similar experience to base anything they're planning on. Even if they come to a site like this, there is no way to know beforehand just how your own family will react.

Sure, they can decide to skip ALL character meals for their first trip, and I suppose that's going to be in my responses for suggestions and stuff from now on. However, is it really fair to these people to do that? Is it fair to them to deny them the bread and butter of the Disney dining experience? (Food quality aside )

I agree. Someone mentioned a while back about going to a water park for the day & then not wanting to do an ADR. Not bashing the poster, but, IMO, that's poor planning. Water parks just drain you of all energy, IMO!

This is what I don't understand. The Smith family is told when making these ADR's that there will be a fee if they cancel after a certain time or don't show up. They are aware of this.
..snip..

See the above as it applies here too. Simply put, for a first or second timer, there is no way to plan for this. So "poor planning" doesn't cut it as they will likely have no experience on which to base their plans.

I find it most interesting that the included Hollywood and Vine on this list since it is consistently a place that you can do walk ups and that always has same day availability. I understand that there are characters but it just doesn't make sense. It's already a place people don't book without reservation.... just strikes me as weird. (Same with some of the signatures on the list.)

That's what happens when you create a policy without thinking it through. Many of the signatures are not nearly as full as the others either and are able to take walkups most of the time.

..snip..
However this is only 19 restaurants, I don't think anyone will not have plenty of choices to choose from.
..snip..

Avoiding these restuarants should in no way prevent anyone from having a great time at Disney.

And within those 19 restaurants is included every single bread and butter true Disney meal.

No, it won't prevent them from having a great time, but it can prevent them from having as great a time they would otherwise. And it can leave a sour taste in the mouth of someone who is not nearly the freaks that we all are here.

(Sorry if the quotes are a bit snippy )

 

[Mkrop]

I think all of us understand limited budget, I know my family does. If not I would not be driving a 10 year old car. However this is only 19 restaurants, I don't think anyone will not have plenty of choices to choose from.

If my budget was really limited, due to the cost of food at these 19 restuarants I would not be eating there anyway.

Avoiding these restuarants should in no way prevent anyone from having a great time at Disney.

Really these people should be not even consider going to Chef Mickey's or Crystal Palace etc just bc they are on a budget. These meals are designed for children! (not that adults only cant go) Maybe they scrimped and saved for this too bc it would be an easier way for their family to see their favorites, and now they have to gamble on making that ADR. I just think that is poor customer service. A grand gathering may have to think twice about booking that character meal bc of grandma, which stinks bc I know one of my favorite memories was when my mom got suprised that Pooh gave her the time of day, a huge hug and inisisted I take their picture. And it was the highlight of the trip for my mom to see the kids interact with the characters. But I guess budget travels should forgo this according to you

I might not even be complaining as much if this list was just signature restuarants, they lost me when they included the character meals.

 

[maxiesmom]

I might not even be complaining as much if this list was just signature restuarants, they lost me when they included the character meals.

Don't you think that maybe it is because the character meals are the more popular ones, and always hard to gt ADRs for?

If there wasn't a big problem, Disney wouldn't be going to charging a fee for no-shows. As much as people may not like it, there is a problem with no-shows, and Disney has to do something to limit them. And the fee needs to be a relatively small amount, but one that people will still notice, or what would be the point of it?

I don't buy the argument about how the $10 per person cost will be a hardship for some. But I feel the same way when people post complaining about the lack of amenities at the Value resorts. If you want something that costs more, then save longer. I doubt that most of us here can afford everything we would like to have. We all prioritize what we want and then save for it.

Maybe the window of time given for cancellations could be smaller. And who knows, maybe they will adjust it at some point. But I have to agree with Disney. The only thing people seem to pay attention to is getting hit in the pocketbook. And if anything will keep people from making ADRs and not showing up for them, it is that. Having to pay for not showing up.

It is sad it has gotten to this point, but I blame the people who have worked the ADR system and who don't show up for their meals. I don't blame Disney for wanting to earn money instead of lose it.

 

[Snurk71]

If there wasn't a big problem, Disney wouldn't be going to charging a fee for no-shows. As much as people may not like it, there is a problem with no-shows, and Disney has to do something to limit them. And the fee needs to be a relatively small amount, but one that people will still notice, or what would be the point of it?

You speak so definitively, can you share your position within Disney that has afforded you such inside information? I think you've commented a few times how Disney is losing money because of these no-shows and is on the brink of bankruptcy (embellishment). Their last earnings release doesn't seem to jive with that, but I don't have the insider information on the real story that you seem to have.

Or are you just ASSUMING there's a big problem and this isn't a profit maximization strategy???

 

[Mkrop]

Don't you think that maybe it is because the character meals are the more popular ones, and always hard to gt ADRs for?

If there wasn't a big problem, Disney wouldn't be going to charging a fee for no-shows. As much as people may not like it, there is a problem with no-shows, and Disney has to do something to limit them. And the fee needs to be a relatively small amount, but one that people will still notice, or what would be the point of it?

I don't buy the argument about how the $10 per person cost will be a hardship for some. But I feel the same way when people post complaining about the lack of amenities at the Value resorts. If you want something that costs more, then save longer. I doubt that most of us here can afford everything we would like to have. We all prioritize what we want and then save for it.

Maybe the window of time given for cancellations could be smaller. And who knows, maybe they will adjust it at some point. But I have to agree with Disney. The only thing people seem to pay attention to is getting hit in the pocketbook. And if anything will keep people from making ADRs and not showing up for them, it is that. Having to pay for not showing up.

It is sad it has gotten to this point, but I blame the people who have worked the ADR system and who don't show up for their meals. I don't blame Disney for wanting to earn money instead of lose it.

Except I have never been to a character meal that was empty, maybe it is the time of year I go, even though we usually go the first week in Dec and we schedule at least one character meal, we have been in spring and summer as well and they have always been filled with people walking up as well.

Like I said I have no problem charging with no shows, I think $10 per reservation is more reasonable than $10pp, that to me gets pricey.

 

[mcd2745]

With regards to the time frame that so many say is their chief objection to the new policy, I completely understand that. Many have suggested 3 hours is sufficient enough. I don't necessarily disagree with that, and I'd bet many of the powers that be at Disney don't disagree either. But as has been mentioned before in this thread...it would work for lunch and dinner, but is a real problem for breakfast ADRs. I'm sure they didn't want different time frames for different meals. That would definitely be too confusing. So it's likely that they went with 24 hours just so that they could have a clear and uniform time frame for all meals.

 

[Cafeen]

With regards to the time frame that so many say is their chief objection to the new policy, I completely understand that. Many have suggested 3 hours is sufficient enough. I don't necessarily disagree with that, and I'd bet many of the powers that be at Disney don't disagree either. But as has been mentioned before in this thread...it would work for lunch and dinner, but is a real problem for breakfast ADRs. I'm sure they didn't want different time frames for different meals. That would definitely be too confusing. So it's likely that they went with 24 hours just so that they could have a clear and uniform time frame for all meals.

I'd agree that 3hrs isn't ideal for breakfast, however, it's still an improvement over what's in place now. I'd rather see them have something marginally better for 1 meal along with considerably better for the other 2 (and there are more dinners on this list by far). It's not a matter of 3hrs for breakfast not being ideal (it would still work, just not ideal), but a matter of "full day" for lunch and dinner being much more of a hassle for the customers.

I understand the "not wanting to have more than 1 deadline" thing, but to me, they went the wrong way with it.

 

[MELSMICE]

See the above as it applies here too. Simply put, for a first or second timer, there is no way to plan for this. So "poor planning" doesn't cut it as they will likely have no experience on which to base their plans.

Your response above was in response to me talking about going to a water park all day & then making an ADR. I had commented that I thought this was poor planning.

Even if I were home or at some other vacation destination & went to the beach for the day with my family I would not be making dinner reservations for that evening. I know my family and know that they wouldn't want to be committed to a dinner reservation/ADR that evening.

JMO, but saying "you don't know how your family is going to react while at Disney" is a cop out.

I might not even be complaining as much if this list was just signature restuarants, they lost me when they included the character meals.

My guess is that they included the restaurants that were being abused the most with no shows or numerous cancellations. Some are signature, some are character meals.

Like I said I have no problem charging with no shows, I think $10 per reservation is more reasonable than $10pp, that to me gets pricey.

$10 per family would not make an impact. People would continue to abuse the system. I can already hear, "It's only $10, not a big deal. I'm not hungry & I'm really tired. We'll do counter service, so we'll actually be saving money anyway, even with the $10 cancellation fee."

 

[maxiesmom]

Like I said I have no problem charging with no shows, I think $10 per reservation is more reasonable than $10pp, that to me gets pricey.

I think that is the point. Charge only $10 a reservation, and people will have the attitude of oh well, it is only $10. No big deal. But charge $10 a person, and people will feel that, and won't be so quick to skip a meal.

There has to be a penalty that people will notice and not like. Or there is no point to it.

 

[Snurk71]

With regards to the time frame that so many say is their chief objection to the new policy, I completely understand that. Many have suggested 3 hours is sufficient enough. I don't necessarily disagree with that, and I'd bet many of the powers that be at Disney don't disagree either. But as has been mentioned before in this thread...it would work for lunch and dinner, but is a real problem for breakfast ADRs. I'm sure they didn't want different time frames for different meals. That would definitely be too confusing. So it's likely that they went with 24 hours just so that they could have a clear and uniform time frame for all meals.

Though it's not for sure, all signs are pointing to the cancelation is "prior day", not 24 hours - so you can cancel a breakfast at 11:59pm the night prior. Assuming this is the case (it is the current policy for cancelations at a place like CRT), the day prior cancelation really provides no advantage over a 3 hour window for breakfast - who's going to be checking for available ADRs for the following between midnight and 5:00AM?

 

[mcd2745]

Though it's not for sure, all signs are pointing to the cancelation is "prior day", not 24 hours - so you can cancel a breakfast at 11:59pm the night prior. Assuming this is the case (it is the current policy for cancelations at a place like CRT), the day prior cancelation really provides no advantage over a 3 hour window for breakfast - who's going to be checking for available ADRs for the following between midnight and 5:00AM?

Yes, we definitely need full clarification of how the policy will work. My interpretation of it was 24 hours. I guess we'll all know in less than a week, as it should be clearly defined once it goes into effect.

However, even you can cancel up to 11:59pm the night before, now that they have compliemtary WiFi in the rooms (at deluxes, up to this point - but it's expected to go to all resorts), it's possible you will have a decent amount of people checking the dining site on their laptops and iPads for the next morning's breakfast, plus all the people who already use Mobile Magic on their phones. Maybe not a huge amount of people, but quite possibly enough to fill in the cancellations.