Disney to expand cancellation fees to all table service restaurants at Walt Disney World

[ToTBellHop]

How is it not guest friendly?

Fines, by their nature, are not guest friendly. They are necessary for horrible behavior, like setting fire to your room, because it's a way for Disney to express its disdain toward such activity (rightfully-so). Now they are expressing disdain toward guest flexibility. Many would view that as not being guest friendly. If you don't like flexibility, this is right up your alley.

 

[flynnibus]

I realize that my experience is probably the exception and not the rule. I'm willing to bet Disney gets it right the majority of the time. But that still doesn't make this a guest-friendly policy in any way shape or form.

So you agree you have a isolated case... yet you are willing to call the entire thing unfriendly because of this isolated case?

What is guest unfriendly about it? The risk of losing money? A risk we just agreed upon shouldn't apply when people have reasonable justification?

The only thing 'unfriendly' about it is asking people to commit themselves before they sign up for a commitment.

That 'unfriendly' is offset by the guest ADVANTAGE that availability should better reflect true availability.. AND will make a clear point in time when people can make a last ditch effort to get an ADR.

The argument in favor of this policy seems to hinge on people's belief that they will never find themselves in a situation where they are charged with the fee through circumstances beyond their control

No, the argument in favor of this is it helps reduce no-shows, ensuring guests have a better shot at getting a reservation by having reservations better reflect availability.

 

[lebeau]

Seems straight forward, if Disney was using this as a revenue source they would not be so willing to not charge the $10.00 fee as has been reported here and in other sites so often.

AKK

The fact that a company is willing to waive the fee when someone asks does not mean that profit is not their motive for charging the fee in the first place. You've jumped to a false conclussion.

A company I am "familiar with" charges overnight fees on a regular basis. However, this company will gladly refund any overnight fee any time anyone asks regardless of the reason. Even if nothing went wrong. Why? Because the profit margin on these fees is so high that the company can afford to waive the fee any time someone asks.

This company makes a killing on these fees. They greatly value that income. They will never let those fees go. But on an individual basis, they will waive the fee every time for any reason.

 

[lebeau]

How is it not guest friendly?

How is charging guests a fee anything but restrictive?

 

[ToTBellHop]

Here's a more guest friendly policy--instead of fining us $10 for missing a resie, take 10 points from Gryffindor every time a resie is missed. The derision that would accompany losing House points would be punishment enough.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

LOL. The bean counters who make policies do not intend for there to be exceptions to the rule. The exceptions come from CMs who haven't had their hearts destroyed by WDW management. If you get one of the CMs on the line who drinks the upper management kool-aid (e.g. someone who says "How can I make your day more MAGICAL?"), you are going to pay the fine.

How do you know it is not the opinion to make exceptions?...the many many reports of exceptions seem to show your in error. Not to mention that CM's don't keep there jobs long by not following guidelines.

Glad you have a opinion, unsupported, but you entitled to it.

AKK

 

[flynnibus]

Fines, by their nature, are not guest friendly. They are necessary for horrible behavior, like setting fire to your room, because it's a way for Disney to express its disdain toward such activity (rightfully-so). Now they are expressing disdain toward guest flexibility. Many would view that as not being guest friendly. If you don't like flexibility, this is right up your alley.

I would counter that systems that are unreliable and give false expectations are more 'unfriendly'. Being sent away because there was no space.. and then walking by and seeing the place under capacity would you off. That is a case that applies to everyone... well intentioned or not.

The 'fines' in this case only apply to those corner cases or people who are sloppy.

So which is really unfriendly?? a choice that negatively impacts 100% of the people.. or a system that negatively impacts a small minority who put themselves in that situation?

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

The fact that a company is willing to waive the fee when someone asks does not mean that profit is not their motive for charging the fee in the first place. You've jumped to a false conclussion.

A company I am "familiar with" charges overnight fees on a regular basis. However, this company will gladly refund any overnight fee any time anyone asks regardless of the reason. Even if nothing went wrong. Why? Because the profit margin on these fees is so high that the company can afford to waive the fee any time someone asks.

This company makes a killing on these fees. They greatly value that income. They will never let those fees go. But on an individual basis, they will waive the fee every time for any reason.

I have a company that put in a docking fee at night if you didn't show up, because it was a problem for the other guests/boaters and they wanted to keep thier boaters happy by making sure the slips were not just reserved and then left empty. The fee are not a revenue issue it was a customer service issue!

Please don't jump top a wrong conclusion yourself!

AKK

 

[ExtinctJenn]

Fines, by their nature, are not guest friendly. They are necessary for horrible behavior, like setting fire to your room, because it's a way for Disney to express its disdain toward such activity (rightfully-so). Now they are expressing disdain toward guest flexibility. Many would view that as not being guest friendly. If you don't like flexibility, this is right up your alley.

I know we've beaten this dead horse many times but I continue to be confused by the view that this in some way impacts a guest's ability to be flexible or spontaneous on their vacation. If you want to have flexibility or be spontaneous one would assume that a reservation isn't what you would want to have to begin with. If the concept is that folks are making these reservations under the pretense of "maybe" eating there at that time, then I feel that is unfair. Those of us who do want to eat there and are sure of it are very often unable to because all the availability is gone.

 

[lebeau]

So you agree you have a isolated case... yet you are willing to call the entire thing unfriendly because of this isolated case?

What is guest unfriendly about it? The risk of losing money? A risk we just agreed upon shouldn't apply when people have reasonable justification?

I'm willing to call it unfriendly because it places the burden on guests.

The only thing 'unfriendly' about it is asking people to commit themselves before they sign up for a commitment.

Not at all.

I know people who won't book reservations at restaurants that require a credit card hold. That alone is not guest friendly.

Out of curiosity, have you ever had to cancel a reservation in less than 24 hours?

Presumably, you are doing so because something has already gone wrong. Typically, the guest is already in a bad situation. On top of whatever they are dealing with, they obviously have to cancel the reservation. But then they are faced with uncertainty about the fee - which is not insignificant.

This is stressful for a lot of people. You feel like you are talking your way out of a traffic ticket even if circumstances were completely beyond your control.

Ideally, the cast member waives the fee with minimal fuss. But that doesn't always happen. I have heard of varying levels of difficulty even in instances where the fee was ultimately waived.

That 'unfriendly' is offset by the guest ADVANTAGE that availability should better reflect true availability.. AND will make a clear point in time when people can make a last ditch effort to get an ADR.

What advantage? I can double book right now if I want to.

The advantage you're referring to is minimal at best.

No, the argument in favor of this is it helps reduce no-shows, ensuring guests have a better shot at getting a reservation by having reservations better reflect availability.

A weak and unproven argument, I think.

I fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never debate with flynnibus when nothing is on the line.

 

[ToTBellHop]

How do you know it is not the opinion to make exceptions?...the many many reports of exceptions seem to show your in error. Not to mention that CM's don't keep there jobs long by not following guidelines.

Glad you have a opinion, unsupported, but you entitled to it.

AKK

LOL. You have no understanding of how this company works. 20 years ago, management had the "whatever the guest would like, he/she will receive" mentality. Now, they do not. Listen to Jay Rasulo's comments a bit and continue to suggest to me that Disney wants anything more than as much money as possible from each guest, in any way possible.

 

[lebeau]

I have a company that put in a docking fee at night if you didn't show up, because it was a problem for the other guests/boaters and they wanted to keep thier boaters happy by making sure the slips were not just reserved and then left empty. The fee are not a revenue issue it was a customer service issue!

Please don't jump top a wrong conclusion yourself!

AKK

I was countering your point. Obviously, not all fees are revenue streams. But you have been asserting that just because a company is willing to waive a fee, that proves the fee does not exist as a revenue stream. I was illustrating the flaw in your argument.

 

[MichWolv]

I know we've beaten this dead horse many times but I continue to be confused by the view that this in some way impacts a guest's ability to be flexible or spontaneous on their vacation. If you want to have flexibility or be spontaneous one would assume that a reservation isn't what you would want to have to begin with. If the concept is that folks are making these reservations under the pretense of "maybe" eating there at that time, then I feel that is unfair. Those of us who do want to eat there and are sure of it are very often unable to because all the availability is gone.

It impacts my ability to be flexible in a very obvious way. My routine has always been to book ADRs as soon as I can for every day of my trip based on my best projections of what we will want to do each day. However, if we wake up in the morning, or decide mid-day, that we aren't in the mood for whatever ADR we have, or that we don't want to go to the park we have ADR in, we cancel the reservation. Quick and simple. Now, I can't do that because I have to cancel 24 hours in advance, not the afternoon of. Or rather, I can do it, but it'll cost me $40.

That doesn't seem confusing.

 

[ToTBellHop]

A weak and unproven argument, I think.

I fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never debate with flynnibus when nothing is on the line.

Princess Bride quotes are always appreciated.

 

[lebeau]

Princess Bride quotes are always appreciated.

I decided to add it to my signature as a reminder. I have made this mistake more than once.

 

[ToTBellHop]

It impacts my ability to be flexible in a very obvious way. My routine has always been to book ADRs as soon as I can for every day of my trip based on my best projections of what we will want to do each day. However, if we wake up in the morning, or decide mid-day, that we aren't in the mood for whatever ADR we have, or that we don't want to go to the park we have ADR in, we cancel the reservation. Quick and simple. Now, I can't do that because I have to cancel 24 hours in advance, not the afternoon of.

That doesn't seem confusing.

Some individuals find any criticism of Disney to be confusing in a "why would you dare say that?" kind of way.

 

[MichWolv]

Some individuals find any criticism of Disney to be confusing in a "why would you dare say that?" kind of way. .

And some individuals find any praise of Disney (or at least TDO) to be confusing in the same way. Moderates are generally confused by extremists on both sides. Hopefully, wdwmagic still welcomes us!

 

[MichWolv]

I decided to add it to my signature as a reminder. I have made this mistake more than once.

Never make the same mistake twice. You should exhibit sufficient ambition and creativity to make different mistakes each time around!

 

[ExtinctJenn]

It impacts my ability to be flexible in a very obvious way. My routine has always been to book ADRs as soon as I can for every day of my trip based on my best projections of what we will want to do each day. However, if we wake up in the morning, or decide mid-day, that we aren't in the mood for whatever ADR we have, or that we don't want to go to the park we have ADR in, we cancel the reservation. Quick and simple. Now, I can't do that because I have to cancel 24 hours in advance, not the afternoon of. Or rather, I can do it, but it'll cost me $40.

That doesn't seem confusing.

To me that's what this system is aiming to stop. I don't believe you should make a reservation at all when you want to be able to wake up in the morning and decide what you want to do/eat. Just my opinion.

 

[jaklgreen]

Here is my 2 cents. I don't see this as a money grubbing scheme for Disney but more of a deterrent for all of those who do book more then one res at a time. We have been fortunate to have never needed to cancel any of our dining reservations, ever. When the kids were little we would always do a late lunch or early dinner because we knew the kids would get cranky later in the evening. And we also have been fortunate to never have gotten sick on any of our trips. That being said, I think 24 hours is a bit too far out for a cancellation. I would like to think that if you had a genuine excuse, like an illness, that they would wave the fee for you. We all know that there are too many no shows and that is a killer for a restaurant. Not only does it affect staffing, but also food ordering. I don't think there are as many walk ups now then there used to be. I know I do not even try at most places because every thing is usually booked up and they turn you away. The only way to truly solve this is to get rid of ADR and go back to first come first served.