Changes to table service dining cancellation policy - credit card requirement expands

[lebeau]

Funny, I was just going to put out the same thought. The 90 day mark gives everyone a level playing field, so to speak (most people have some sort of plan in place by the 90 day mark) but is this a good thing!?! Like you said, the OCD ones amoung us get to book at the 180 day mark, with the rest of the guests following along at the 5 month mark, 4 month mark, etc. It kind of spreads out the bookings and those who do plan far in advance are rewarded (in a way).

That's true. But "double bookers" tend to also fit into that OCD group. The 180-window benefits them as much or more than anyone.

If Disney truly wants a level playing field and to stop double bookers, shortening the window would be a great first step. But that's not their goal. They want to avoid ever having an empty table. And if they can make a few extra bucks on the side, so much the better.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

If that's the case, why not charge the fees for no shows. No one would object to that.

A two hour window seems fair enough.

24 hours is absurd.

And even if they plan to grant exceptions, why set up a policy you know you won't uphold? Why make your guests jump through those extra hoops? That's bad customer service.

I didn't come up with the policy, so I don't know (and like I said, I am not really all for this procedure). However, my guess is that all of the "what if" scenarios that have come up in this thread don't happen nearly as often as people believe they do. Most people probably have decided more than 24 hours ahead of time if they are going to show up for an ADR or not. Disney also wants to compel people who will try to beat the system to cancel earlier so they can try to rebook those time slots. So my belief on 24 hours is that it gives them time to try and fill more tables. But this is why I also believe that if you give them any sort of reasoning they won't charge you. Say your kid was sick or that you're car broke down and I just have a feeling you wouldn't see that charge on your card. Will people abuse that still, of course they will...but I don't think that Disney is looking to harm anyone who has a compelling reason for not showing up.

 

[lebeau]

I didn't come up with the policy, so I don't know (and like I said, I am not really all for this procedure). However, my guess is that all of the "what if" scenarios that have come up in this thread don't happen nearly as often as people believe they do. Most people probably have decided more than 24 hours ahead of time if they are going to show up for an ADR or not. Disney also wants to compel people who will try to beat the system to cancel earlier so they can try to rebook those time slots. So my belief on 24 hours is that it gives them time to try and fill more tables. But this is why I also believe that if you give them any sort of reasoning they won't charge you. Say your kid was sick or that you're car broke down and I just have a feeling you wouldn't see that charge on your card. Will people abuse that still, of course they will...but I don't think that Disney is looking to harm anyone who has a compelling reason for not showing up.

I hope you're right.

But if you are, I still say it's a bad policy. Cheaters will catch on quickly that it has no teeth. So then Disney is just inconveniencing everyone with no additional benefit.

 

[Master Yoda]

I thankfully get to avoid rushes now, because I don't really worry about eating at any of the restaurants that require it. Also, like I said, my trips are never pegged that far in advance. I also understand the nature of the beast now, and know that I might not be getting into Ohana if I don't book it light years in advance. But, by that logic, why not just open dining reservations when they release package prices for the year? If someone is willing to book there Dec 2013 vacation in June (or Aug) 2012 then why not give them the benefit of making ADR's that far out. I also don't have to book client ADR's anymore so the window doesn't affect me as much

No idea how true this is, but I have been told it is more of a database issue than anything else. Supposedly, 180 days worth of reservations is about as much data as the system can take without becoming unstable.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

No idea how true this is, but I have been told it is more of a database issue than anything else. Supposedly, 180 days worth of reservations is about as much data as the system can take without becoming unstable.

I guess I can believe that. However, with as reliable as Disney's systems can be I am surprised that they can handle more than a week out :lol:

 

[COProgressFan]

AEfx is (intentionally I suspect) missing the point. It's not about the $40 fee or the $10 bucks they charged for the baby. It was the principle of the matter.

Agreed, it's completely about the principle of the matter. I don't know why people keep thinking it's such a wonderful idea to charge penalties/fees even for guests who try to do the right thing. It's just crazy to me that people are going out of their way to defend Disney for a charge that will punish guests like this. I mean, does anybody really think it's ok to charge $10 for an infant who was part of the reservation, and clearly wasn't going to eat anything? How can anyone legitimately defend that?

Much like how people are upset with airline baggage or change fees, or Bank of America debit fees, its not just about the money (at least to the customers). The bottom line is it reflects how Disney values and treats its customers. It's clearly not about "exceeding guest service." And when you have a legitimate concerns about the policy, you're likely to get "I'm sorry to hear that" from some poor CM who probably realizes the policy may not be fair, but are powerless to do anything about it.

 

[COProgressFan]

No idea how true this is, but I have been told it is more of a database issue than anything else. Supposedly, 180 days worth of reservations is about as much data as the system can take without becoming unstable.

I would imagine it is also due to not having schedules/park operating hours that far out.


But seriously, what would be the harm in having a 90, 60, or 30 day reservation window?

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I hope you're right.

But if you are, I still say it's a bad policy. Cheaters will catch on quickly that it has no teeth. So then Disney is just inconveniencing everyone with no additional benefit.

I would personally love to see a system that is tougher for frequent offenders who are clearly gaming the system. If it is someone like you who missed one ADR because of a circumstance, then there should be leniency. The only problem is that Disney can't be seen as playing favorites in a situation like that because of the potential repercussions.

 

[Master Yoda]

Agreed, it's completely about the principle of the matter. I don't know why people keep thinking it's such a wonderful idea to charge penalties/fees even for guests who try to do the right thing. It's just crazy to me that people are going out of their way to defend Disney for a charge that will punish guests like this. I mean, does anybody really think it's ok to charge $10 for an infant who was part of the reservation, and clearly wasn't going to eat anything? How can anyone legitimately defend that?

Much like how people are upset with airline baggage or change fees, or Bank of America debit fees, its not just about the money (at least to the customers). The bottom line is it reflects how Disney values and treats its customers. It's clearly not about "exceeding guest service." And when you have a legitimate concerns about the policy, you're likely to get "I'm sorry to hear that" from some poor CM who probably realizes the policy may not be fair, but are powerless to do anything about it.

While I do not think it is a wonderful thing, it is a necessary evil. Every single person on this planet pays for the stupidity and selfishness of others. Our insurance rates go up partly because people file frivolous law suits and claims. Nearly every page you sign in a mortgage is there because someone found a way to exploit the system. There are lap bars on Splash because people will not obey a simple rule. The list goes on and on. Disney is not doing this because they want to. They have tried numerous other ways to fix the problem that were all but invisible to the average guest and they did not work. If you want to release your venom, release it on those that caused the problem, not the one doing what they have to do to try and fix it.

 

[Master Yoda]

I would imagine it is also due to not having schedules/park operating hours that far out.


But seriously, what would be the harm in having a 90, 60, or 30 day reservation window?

It congests the number of people trying to make reservations at one time by a good bit. If 10,000 guests are making ADR's at 180 days out you very well might have 100,000 trying to do the same thing at 90 days out. I know when Disney briefly went back to 90 days when they were switching systems getting through on the phones and online was darn near impossible. At 180 days the rush at the gates is much less severe and is manageable.

 

[COProgressFan]

While I do not think it is a wonderful thing, it is a necessary evil. Every single person on this planet pays for the stupidity and selfishness of others. Our insurance rates go up partly because people file frivolous law suits and claims. Nearly every page you sign in a mortgage is there because someone found a way to exploit the system. There are lap bars on Splash because people will not obey a simple rule. The list goes on and on. Disney is not doing this because they want to. They have tried numerous other ways to fix the problem that were all but invisible to the average guest and they did not work. If you want to release your venom, release it on those that caused the problem, not the one doing what they have to do to try and fix it.

There is no venom, I just don't buy the defense that its ok for Disney to charge a penalty for a no-show infant who was likely to sit on a parent's lap the whole time and not eat anything. That has absolutely nothing to do with paying for others' stupidity or abuse of the system.

 

[lebeau]

I would personally love to see a system that is tougher for frequent offenders who are clearly gaming the system. If it is someone like you who missed one ADR because of a circumstance, then there should be leniency. The only problem is that Disney can't be seen as playing favorites in a situation like that because of the potential repercussions.

You're right. That's why I don't think punishment is the answer. You're either going to be issuing empty threats or punishing valued guests who tried to play fair.

 

[Master Yoda]

There is no venom, I just don't buy the defense that its ok for Disney to charge a penalty for a no-show infant who was likely to sit on a parent's lap the whole time and not eat anything. That has absolutely nothing to do with paying for others' stupidity or abuse of the system.

Like I have said many times, I do not think that was correct. However, I due feel that the new $10 policy is needed and justified.

 

[RSoxNo1]

It's been enforced in the past. Trust me!

But if they don't enforce it, isn't that just as bad. Then you're just creating more hoops for guests to jump through with no additional benefit.

It's a loose/loose for the guest no matter how they enforce the policy.

I'm pretty passionate about this policy. Having thought about it for an additional 24-hours, my thoughts have crystalized. This feels like a cash grab with no benefit to guests. I have written up my full thoughts on the subject at my blog.

Very well put in your blog. I just checked all my reservation bookings for my upcoming trip, including those at the Crystal Palace, and none of them mention a $10 per head fee if someone can't make it. We initially booked all of these reservations assuming my fiance would be able to make the trip with us, then she wasn't able to, and now thankfully she can again.

Having said that, these reservations include children - you never know when a child will have to be taken out of a park for any reason whatsoever. I also travel with my autistic brother who carries with him that same caveat. $10 a small fee per head - but this is setting a very dangerous precedence and could possibly result in more complaints than the Yeti, Fantasmic cuts, and anything else combined.

On a recent trip I encountered a travel agent complaining quite audibly about getting a refill on her orange juice at Kona Cafe. The Dining Plan policy for that particular restaurant is one glass of juice for breakfast per customer. This lady argued that the waitress and the manager were misinformed, but did so in a less than civil manner. Now, this woman was incorrect and I did my best to explain (we sat next to them) that the likeliest explanation is that most breakfast reservations are buffets so all drinks will be included.

The only people that like the dining plan are suits that don't have to implement it, and people that don't care about the cost and like to prepay their vacation. Those people that use it that don't fit into the previous category are amongst those that stress out trying to get the value out of it, or are ignorant of the fact that they're overpaying for the "convenience". To further clarify, I'm not saying that those people themselves are ignorant - I'm merely saying that they either wrongfully assumed that it was a good value, or were sold on it by a travel agent or Disney themselves.

The Dining Plan is largely to blame for the 6 month reservation period and the decline in walk up availability. The other problem is simply poor technology on Disney's part. It is quite simple to create an electronic system that links all of the restaurants. I would also think that it shouldn't be difficult to link the tickets of the people to their restaurant bookings either at the evolution of Next Gen or now. By doing this, you can more accurately charge people that are abusing the system.

Admittedly, not all of this is Disney's fault - some people will try to abuse any system, but as a Global entertainment company, Disney should be well aware of this. The issue here is comparable to the lapbars at Splash Mountain, they are bandaid solutions to problems. It will probably deter a few more people, but ultimately if people want to get around these loopholes they will. The issue then becomes when do these types of regulations become oppressive?

Disney needs to end the Dining Plan. I'm sure that execs will argue that from the business side this help spreads out the crowds to the less popular restaurants. I'll just through this out there, perhaps improving the quality of those restaurants would also accomplish the same thing.

 

[NewfieFan]

While I do not think it is a wonderful thing, it is a necessary evil. Every single person on this planet pays for the stupidity and selfishness of others. Our insurance rates go up partly because people file frivolous law suits and claims. Nearly every page you sign in a mortgage is there because someone found a way to exploit the system. There are lap bars on Splash because people will not obey a simple rule. The list goes on and on. Disney is not doing this because they want to. They have tried numerous other ways to fix the problem that were all but invisible to the average guest and they did not work. If you want to release your venom, release it on those that caused the problem, not the one doing what they have to do to try and fix it.

But do you think a 24hr cut off is going too far? How about a 2hr, a 6hr, heck, even a 12hr cut off?

 

[lebeau]

While I do not think it is a wonderful thing, it is a necessary evil. Every single person on this planet pays for the stupidity and selfishness of others. Our insurance rates go up partly because people file frivolous law suits and claims.

Off topic: Watch the documentary Hot Coffee sometime. I was amazed to find out the truth about some famous "frivolous law suits". If you see that poor old woman's skin grafts, you'll never joke about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit again. It looked agonizing! And the poor thing was made into a national laughing stock. Shameful.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Off topic: Watch the documentary Hot Coffee sometime. I was amazed to find out the truth about some famous "frivolous law suits". If you see that poor old woman's skin grafts, you'll never joke about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit again. It looked agonizing! And the poor thing was made into a national laughing stock. Shameful.

That one probably was more legit than people give credit for. However, I don't think we can argue that there are many many frivolous lawsuits that we all get stuck with paying for one way or another. But that is another topic for another time :ROFLOL:

 

[lebeau]

Like I have said many times, I do not think that was correct. However, I due feel that the new $10 policy is needed and justified.

I have nothing but respect for your opinion. But I don't see how this is "justified" or "needed". As easy as it is to circumvent, how do you feel it will improve the situation?

I suppose you can argue it will cut down on no-shows and that's good for Disney. But do you see any benefit for guests at all?

Obviously, I don't. But I'll shut up and let you explain the potential upsides to me.

 

[lebeau]

That one probably was more legit than people give credit for. However, I don't think we can argue that there are many many frivolous lawsuits that we all get stuck with paying for one way or another. But that is another topic for another time :ROFLOL:

Yeah, I don't want to have that conversation here. I'll just say that if anyone is interested, Hot Coffee was an eye-opening documentary. After watching it, I would dispute the commonly held beliefs about tort reform and "frivolous lawsuits".

Back to Disney...

 

[Master Yoda]

But do you think a 24hr cut off is going too far? How about a 2hr, a 6hr, heck, even a 12hr cut off?

Depends on how strictly it is enforced. If 24 hours is stated but they do not enforce it until 8 or so then I am good.

Off topic: Watch the documentary Hot Coffee sometime. I was amazed to find out the truth about some famous "frivolous law suits". If you see that poor old woman's skin grafts, you'll never joke about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit again. It looked agonizing! And the poor thing was made into a national laughing stock. Shameful.

I never have joked about it and never will. That story was instrumental in developing my complete and total distrust for the news reporting media. When that story first hit all you heard was "Woman sues McDonald's because she was burned by hot coffee that she spilled on herself!". When I looked into it, the facts of the case were completely different than what the media had reported (ie 3d degree burns, repeated warnings and complaints, ignoring safety guide, etc). From that moment on I have fact checked any story that I heard on the news and was interested in. More often than not I find that the news has spun the story to make it more interesting and usually flat out false.