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

[rsoxguy]

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.

Please allow me to chime in on this conversation.

I believe it will be a benefit to the common guest with one benefit that negates the need for any other benefit. It is my opinion that it will help to alleviate some of the congestion to the reservation system. I read your blog statement, and I believe that offering conjecture as to the level to which some will either ignore the fee, or circumvent the fee, is regrettably based on speculation. If one were to offer every potential deterrent to every plan in life, we would still be without light bulbs and flushing toilets. Will the new system work? I have no idea; but I know that the abuses to the current system exist, and those abuses help to further clog an already overburdened reservation system. Yes, I think that 180 days is ridiculous. Yes, I dislike the Dining Plans and the problems that they help to exacerbate. My opinion, however, centers on the hope that, although a fee imposed upon those who abuse the dining system will indeed help to further fill the Disney coffers, the side benefit will involve a less congested system for all involved.

This is a "baby with the bathwater" scenario. I must weigh the corporate giant against the little guy, and determine if the little guy's profit warrants the big guy's potential. In this case the little guy can indeed avoid the corporate giant's greed by simply making reservations with a modicum of honesty and personal responsibility. In the end, I believe that the little guy can win with a (slightly) less congested reservation system.

 

[lebeau]

Please allow me to chime in on this conversation.

I believe it will be a benefit to the common guest with one benefit that negates the need for any other benefit. It is my opinion that it will help to alleviate some of the congestion to the reservation system. I read your blog statement, and I believe that offering conjecture as to the level to which some will either ignore the fee, or circumvent the fee, is regrettably based on speculation. If one were to offer every potential deterrent to every plan in life, we would still be without light bulbs and flushing toilets. Will the new system work? I have no idea; but I know that the abuses to the current system exist, and those abuses help to further clog an already overburdened reservation system. Yes, I think that 180 days is ridiculous. Yes, I dislike the Dining Plans and the problems that they help to exacerbate. My opinion, however, centers on the hope that, although a fee imposed upon those who abuse the dining system will indeed help to further fill the Disney coffers, the side benefit will involve a less congested system for all involved.

This is a "baby with the bathwater" scenario. I must weigh the corporate giant against the little guy, and determine if the little guy's profit warrants the big guy's potential. In this case the little guy can indeed avoid the corporate giant's greed by simply making reservations with a modicum of honesty and personal responsibility. In the end, I believe that the little guy can win with a (slightly) less congested reservation system.

Well, until we have a track record for the new policy, all any of us can do is speculate, right? So, yes. I'm speculating. But it's not without some basis in history.

As has been pointed out, Disney has taken steps to stop double booking. they have slowly escalated their measures. And nothing has worked. The people who double book have displayed a willingness to go the extra mile to circumvent the system.

The new policy throws up a couple extra hurdles. But they are also easily circumvented. Based on the fact that the reservation abusers have shown a willingness (and even sometimes pride in their resourcefullness) to do the extra work to keep their options open to the last possible moment, why would this be any different?

I can see it cutting into double booking a bit. But I can't see it doing enough for most guests to notice. I see potential during the 24-hour window for someone to snag a ressie that would have been a walk-up otherwise. But that's about it.

Time will prove this out one way or another. But if you have a compelling argument that suggests your speculation is better than my own, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Master Yoda]

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.

I'll preface this by saying you and I are both stuck in a sort of "What if?" paradox. Neither one of has any really has any irrefutable facts or figures to go on. For want of a better term, we are trusting our guts.

The simple benefit I see is a less congested reservation system. From my point of view double bookings and no shows must be a pretty serious problem for the mouse. If it was not, I see no logical reason for Disney to take this much action to stop it (they have been trying for well over a year now using various systems). If I am correct and this CC thing works Disney should see full restaurants and we might see Ohana ADRs available 179 day out. Will it work? That is really anyone's guess. Personally, I think it, along will all of the other methods already in place, will curb the problem enough to where we see more ADR availability past 180 days.

The bad side is there will inevitably be some completely honest family that will get the shaft. My hope is that Disney will apply their normal shaded of gray rule interpretation and fix those issues on a case by case basis.

 

[Computer Magic]

I think part of this problem is Disney's own success. Park attendance is higher than it has ever been and restaurant expansion has never kept up. AK desperately needs a couple more TS places and MK and DHS could do with at least one more as well. Disney, via the DDP, has also made it to where people who normally would have never set foot in a TS place are now eating at 1 a day. While this has arguably had a negative effect on us regulars, I think it is a good thing for regular guests as dining at WDW is a great part of a visit to WDW. I can tell you from first hand experience that there is nothing like taking a Disney regular to their first TS meal at one of the more Disneyfied restaurants. It was like showing them a path to a part of Disney they never knew existed.

The wife an I have found a good way around this. What we will do is plan what we call food only trips once maybe twice. We plan them more than 180 days out and the entire trip is organized around nothing more than eating at the places we rarely get into.

Disney is a victim of its own success and guests are forced to follow what Disney allows. Sounds like the 90 day noticed might have flooded the gates so they needed to spread out the system by going back to 180 days. I know last Dec, the phones were flooded for the CP dining. Made it crazy for the CM's.

My wife thought I was crazy when I told her we needed to pick ADR 200 days out so I could get up at 7am to book our 180 day ADR :lol Even then, many of the times were taken and I don't go to hard to get places. The 10 day rule causes that. I might change my mind by day 90 or even 10 days out. At least I have a place holder. I can modify later.

 

[rsoxguy]

But if you have a compelling argument that suggests your speculation is better than my own, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, I stayed at a holiday Inn Express.

Seriously, we agree that all we can do is play a guessing game on an internet forum, and nothing else. I believe the common term is "agree to disagree". Perhaps we'll talk it over one day at a restaurant overlooking the World Showcase Lagoon. Dutch!

 

[mickeysaver]

What about old people?

What about disabled people?

What about incontinent people?

Or people who's names begin with the letter Z, or those that simply don't want to make a ressie at all?

I know, I know..."I'm a parent, that makes me special, Disney is all about toddlers, yadda yadda". But if we are really honest, everyone could feel that an exception should be made for them, or that they shouldn't have restrictions imposed.

As a parent, you make sacrifices. Just like any other guest, then you'll have to chalk up the $10/head if you don't make your reservation.

So, let me get this straight, you feel that a Wish Trip Family with an incontinent, disabled, life is gonna be over in less than 6 months toddler and a party of 9 should be made to pay $10 a head because the Wish child had a bad day and ended up in the ER with a raging fever before noon and the family is all gathered at the hospital praying that this child is not going to die tonight? Yeah, you are Mr. Compassion 2011 alright.

Ok, back to less snarky reality....
We have a 21 month old who usually does very well for us at the parks, but she does have days when you just know that your plans for dinner are shot. You don't get a sense of that until around noon to 2 PM at the park, but when it happens, we do cancel our dinner ADR and call it a day early to head back home to Daytona sooner rather than later. Now, with the new rule, if we have plans at one of the places that this policy covers, on top of missing out on fireworks and a special dinner, we would also be out $30 because the little one is having a bad day. That seems pretty unfair to me. If they would decrease the cancellation window down to a 4 hour window, that would be much more guest with young children friendly. I realize that $30 is not a huge sum of money, but it's still wasted money and I don't waste money as a general rule, especially since we are have two mortgages that we are still carrying because we haven't been able to sell our house in GA since we moved to FL due to our need to be here to care for my terminally ill MIL and the need for us to be here to protect and gain custody of the baby to save her from ending up as a sad headline because her parents are not equipped to raise her properly.

 

[Master Yoda]

Yes, I stayed at a holiday Inn Express.

Seriously, we agree that all we can do is play a guessing game on an internet forum, and nothing else. I believe the common term is "agree to disagree". Perhaps we'll talk it over one day at a restaurant overlooking the World Showcase Lagoon. Dutch!

We will need to set that up wayyyyy in advance.:drevil:

 

[lebeau]

I'll preface this by saying you and I are both stuck in a sort of "What if?" paradox. Neither one of has any really has any irrefutable facts or figures to go on. For want of a better term, we are trusting our guts.

The simple benefit I see is a less congested reservation system. From my point of view double bookings and no shows must be a pretty serious problem for the mouse. If it was not, I see no logical reason for Disney to take this much action to stop it (they have been trying for well over a year now using various systems). If I am correct and this CC thing works Disney should see full restaurants and we might see Ohana ADRs available 179 day out. Will it work? That is really anyone's guess. Personally, I think it, along will all of the other methods already in place, will curb the problem enough to where we see more ADR availability past 180 days.

The bad side is there will inevitably be some completely honest family that will get the shaft. My hope is that Disney will apply their normal shaded of gray rule interpretation and fix those issues on a case by case basis.

Yeah, we're all obviously spitballing.

I do think the system will be slightly less congested. You might get O'Hana at Day 179 or even 178 as opposed to 180. There will probably be a few last-minute "hail Mary" reservations that will benefit locals at least.

But I would be surprised if this cuts down on congestion all that much. If people think they are going to get walk-ups for Le Celier, they are going to be sadly disappointed. My guess is the difference will be barely noticeable to most guests.

I don't think any one could argue that this is a guest-friendly policy. It puts the onus squarely on the shoulders of guests. The reason for this is that Disney wants to fill every table every second of every day to the extent that's possible.

I get wanting to maximize profit. But trading the guest experience for efficiency isn't what Disney built its brand name on. And this is a prime example.

 

[lebeau]

Yes, I stayed at a holiday Inn Express.

Seriously, we agree that all we can do is play a guessing game on an internet forum, and nothing else. I believe the common term is "agree to disagree". Perhaps we'll talk it over one day at a restaurant overlooking the World Showcase Lagoon. Dutch!

As long as it doesn't require a cc hold

 

[rsoxguy]

As long as it doesn't require a cc hold

We can use my card for the reservation, but I'm willing to use, you know, you and Master Yoda's cash for the other stuff, if you want. Just sayin'.

 

[mgf]

It seems to me that this is more about incentivizing good behavior as a means to illicit cooperation from those that are naturally inclined to abuse the system. In essence, this all boils down to a moral hazard problem. Under the old system, patrons could make multiple reservations and/or skip meals with no perceived damage to themselves or their vacation. This is due in large part to the anonymity allowed within the system. Moreover, for the vast majority of people, visits to Disney are so infrequent there is little risk of their "abuse" remaining in the "institutional memory" of the restaurant. For you Freakenomics fans, this all should sound very similar to the late fees at daycare. Only in this instance, absent fines, there is not enough of a societal norm established that the behavior of dinners would self-regulate.

As a former waiter, I applaud this change. This is one of those cases where Disney is actually helping to protect its employees. I vividly remember losing an entire Friday night of tables because a 30 top no-showed for a reservation. I lost my time, lost a significant amount of money, and frankly lost morale. Most waiters make FAR less than minimum wage and just one extra table can make a big difference. Even if Disney is able to put reservations back in the system (or take standbys) the damage is already done because of the pacing of seating required to accommodate a reservation.

I will add that from personal experience, I was accommodating with my guests when given a valid reason. There were even times where I knew I stood to make little money but worked extremely hard for my customers because they were genuine with me. No shows, walkouts, and stiffers are just asking for trouble. You might get away with it in a crazy environment like Disney, but your local restaurant will remember. No one I know ever messed with the food, but "blacklisters" certainly did not get VIP service.

 

[lebeau]

We can use my card for the reservation, but I'm willing to use, you know, you and Master Yoda's cash for the other stuff, if you want. Just sayin'.

You are too kind. I should be in Orlando some time in late 2012. 2013 at the latest. See you there! :lol:

 

[rsoxguy]

You are too kind. I should be in Orlando some time in late 2012. 2013 at the latest. See you there! :lol:

I go often, so you never know. By the way (off topic, and perhaps too mushy for manly men who discuss such vital and world-altering topics on a Disney forum), your daughters are about as cute as kids get. I could just pinch the younger one's cheeks. Enjoy their youth because time really does fly.

 

[slappy magoo]

My .02 FWIW...

The problem doesn't tend to be people who cancel reservations - as others have pointed out, there are nearly-always guests who hope to score a table without a reservation, so a cancelled table will get replaced far more often than not.

The problem really lies with people WHO DON'T CANCEL AT ALL, they just don't show up, period.

Were this my call, I'd say, you could cancel up to 2 seconds and not get charged, but people who just don't show up get hit with a $50 PP penalty. It ought to be a significant penalty because there may be one less seating at the end of the night because of their inability to exercise common courtesy...

And sure there will be exceptions. I'm sure someone whose grandma just had a heart attack will not be thinking about canceling reservations. But then again, if you made the reservations, you knew a penalty would be coming, and maybe you would think about canceling. :shrug:

Maybe some enterprising young pup could create a "I'm canceling my ADR app for smartphones. I mean heck, there's now an "I'm being arrested" app for people involved in the Occupy Wall Street protests (not making a judgment one way or the other about the protests, just talking about the app). You type in your emergency contact numbers in advance (family, lawyer, friends, media, whoever) and choose the text. If you get arrested, holding the app "button" down for 2 seconds sends that text to all the pre-planned contacts. A "cancel my ADR" app could allow you to type in the restaurant name, your ADR time and your confirmation number, and if you need to cancel, press the button down and a robocall is sent to WDW-DINE with a robocall message like "Hello, this is a Cancel My Reservation message from {your name}, who needs to cancel a reservation for {restaurant name} today at {time}. Original confirmation number is {number}. Thank you." If you had something like that, the way smart phones are breeding like bunnies the only people who wouldn't cancel an ADR are people who just don't care, or are dead.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

It seems to me that this is more about incentivizing good behavior as a means to illicit cooperation from those that are naturally inclined to abuse the system.

But it doesn't incentivize good behavior. Incentivizing good behavior would be doing something similar to OpenTable's model, where you receive points for showing up to an ADR (which can eventually be converted into restaurant gift certificates). OpenTable also punishes users who are no-shows a few times (by removing all their points and possibly de-activating the account). However, Disney's method has no positive incentives. Instead, this not only punishes the wrongdoers (which is fine), but it also punishes those who are impacted by a freak circumstance or last-minute happening.

24 hours isn't enough time to know if your youngest child will be able to handle a sit-down meal, or if someone elderly/disabled will be too tired to make it to the far side of Epcot, or if there's going to be a freak downpour with dangerous lightning in the area (even though the previous day's weather forecast only anticipated a 30% chance of precipitation). 24 hours is plenty of time for illness to spread (especially in a public place with tens of thousands of visitors where many guests don't wash their hands and could easily contact germs simply by boarding a ride vehicle).

The people who want to double book can still do it. They just have to cancel 24+ hours in advance. However, the people who are impacted are the ones who would've cancelled within 24 hours due to something coming up, but now get charged a fee instead. Double bookings can easily continue. It's those of us who don't double book (but still might see a reason to cancel within 24 hours) who are annoyed.

 

[lebeau]

I go often, so you never know. By the way (off topic, and perhaps too mushy for manly men who discuss such vital and world-altering topics on a Disney forum), your daughters are about as cute as kids get. I could just pinch the younger one's cheeks. Enjoy their youth because time really does fly.

This proud pop can't hear enough good things about his kids. Thanks!

Your advice will not go unheeded.

Now I just have to get over my jealousy of your frequent visits.

 

[mgf]

But it doesn't incentivize good behavior. Incentivizing good behavior would be doing something similar to OpenTable's model, where you receive points for showing up to an ADR (which can eventually be converted into restaurant gift certificates).... It's those of us who don't double book (but still might see a reason to cancel within 24 hours) who are annoyed.

The incentive does not have to be positive in order to illicit good behavior (i.e. getting arrested). There certainly are "unintended" consequences of the policy but it does not make it "bad." The argument really revolves around pricing risk and willingness to pay.

Part one requires the consumer to objectively evaluate the risk of an intervening circumstance (ex: weather, upset child, etc) occurring. If there is a high probability, the "rational" consumer should not get a reservation. Part two involves the consumer's willingness to pay for incorrectly assessing that risk. If the perceived enjoyment of the dinner is greater than the bill plus the potential fine, then the net benefit is positive and the "rational" consumer will take the risk. If the net benefit is negative, then the "rational" consumer would seek an alternative.

That is not to say that the black and white of economics translates to real life. Here one will be required to rely upon Disney to exercise discretion - which I am inclined to believe they will. Disney does profit from these cases, but this policy, at least in design, likely most negatively impacts those "naturally inclined to abuse the system." Given all we know about Disney, they will probably come up with a way to mediate complaints. As I mentioned from my experience in the restaurant business, I gave deference to those who were genuine - which most of these worst case scenarios exemplify.

I would take a wait and see approach, but Disney does need to recoup the cost of the abuse somewhere. A punitive "tax" directly tied to the detrimental behavior is the "best" way.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

The incentive does not have to be positive in order to illicit good behavior (i.e. getting arrested). There certainly are "unintended" consequences of the policy but it does not make it "bad." The argument really revolves around pricing risk and willingness to pay.

...

I would take a wait and see approach, but Disney does need to recoup the cost of the abuse somewhere. A punitive "tax" directly tied to the detrimental behavior is the "best" way.

My point is simply that Disney isn't rewarding good behavior, they're punishing bad behavior and those impacted by freak circumstances. Yes, it motivates a certain course of action among patrons, but the means of how it's accomplished is quite different.

I agree with the previous posters who said the window should be shorter than 24 hours before you're fined. After all, the double bookers will learn to play by the new rules and cancel just before they would be fined. They'll still have somewhere to eat and avoid paying extra. However, it's still unfair to the people who aren't trying to do anything wrong. A 6 hour window is much more sensible IMO, and it still gives Disney time to fill the tables that would be impacted.

 

[lebeau]

I agree with the previous posters who said the window should be shorter than 24 hours before you're fined. After all, the double bookers will learn to play by the new rules and cancel just before they would be fined. They'll still have somewhere to eat and avoid paying extra. However, it's still unfair to the people who aren't trying to do anything wrong. A 6 hour window is much more sensible IMO, and it still gives Disney time to fill the tables that would be impacted.

Quote for truthiness!

 

[wdw71fan]

So, let me get this straight, you feel that a Wish Trip Family with an incontinent, disabled, life is gonna be over in less than 6 months toddler and a party of 9 should be made to pay $10 a head because the Wish child had a bad day and ended up in the ER with a raging fever before noon and the family is all gathered at the hospital praying that this child is not going to die tonight? Yeah, you are Mr. Compassion 2011 alright.

Ok, back to less snarky reality....
We have a 21 month old who usually does very well for us at the parks, but she does have days when you just know that your plans for dinner are shot. You don't get a sense of that until around noon to 2 PM at the park, but when it happens, we do cancel our dinner ADR and call it a day early to head back home to Daytona sooner rather than later. Now, with the new rule, if we have plans at one of the places that this policy covers, on top of missing out on fireworks and a special dinner, we would also be out $30 because the little one is having a bad day. That seems pretty unfair to me. If they would decrease the cancellation window down to a 4 hour window, that would be much more guest with young children friendly. I realize that $30 is not a huge sum of money, but it's still wasted money and I don't waste money as a general rule, especially since we are have two mortgages that we are still carrying because we haven't been able to sell our house in GA since we moved to FL due to our need to be here to care for my terminally ill MIL and the need for us to be here to protect and gain custody of the baby to save her from ending up as a sad headline because her parents are not equipped to raise her properly.

there was wish trip kid that just narrowly made the Disney Dream this weekend in port canaveral... if he had missed it, they would have lost the funds..


just sayin.