New policy: No young kids at Victoria & Albert's

[kaytieeldr]

If one feels their meal at V&A's would be spoiled if they were subjected to unruly children

The policy change has little, if anything, to do with a meal being spoiled by unruly children - see the post on page 11 about unruly ADULTS in a restaurant.
It was very likely instigated by complaints from Guests about Victoria & Albert's not offering a childrens' menu, or not offering a lower price for children under ten (which almost every other restaurant at Disney does offer), or a combination of both.

V&A is a part of WDW as the various cruise ship areas are a part of the cruise ship. Comparing V&A to one of the CL restaurants is fine, but just as you can't equate Palo to WDW, you can't equate V&A to the Wonder or Magic.

Uh, okay - and why would anyone compare an adults-only land-based restaurant to an entire cruise ship AND an adults-only restaurant on that cruise ship to an entire theme park? That would be the epitome of comparing apples to orangutangs. Talk about convoluted thinking...

 

[_queenie_]

With the way that seating is at some of the Disney restaurants, you can't help but notice. I'm not sure how it is at V&A, but at Chefs de France, I was sitting closer to the neighbor child than I was to my dining mate. And the neighbor child wanted to sit on the floor between our 2 tables (what little space there was) and eat his food there. So he was basically sitting on my feet and every time he stood up, would hit our table. Apparently this was a common thing for the child because after awhle, the father saw that it was disturbing us (I will give him that credit), however instead of telling the child to sit in his seat, the father told him to come and sit on the floor next to him on the other side of the table. But now, of course, he was sitting in the aisle and was a hazard for the waiters.

Maggie

I would never let my kid sit on the floor while at a restaurant! If my DD3 ever started doing that (which she knows WAY better than to do) I would make her get up right away, not just tell her to "move over". That's pretty inexcusable (how old was the kid anyway?), of course it's more of the parent's fault than the kid's fault anyway. If the kid can't even sit in a chair he either needs to have his parents make him learn or shouldn't be dining there.

 

[chobie]

I would never let my kid sit on the floor while at a restaurant! If my DD3 ever started doing that (which she knows WAY better than to do) I would make her get up right away, not just tell her to "move over". That's pretty inexcusable (how old was the kid anyway?), of course it's more of the parent's fault than the kid's fault anyway. If the kid can't even sit in a chair he either needs to have his parents make him learn or shouldn't be dining there.

I saw 2 kids sitting on the floor at Flying Fish and didn't see anything wrong with it. They did have a corner table and the kids were on the floor in the corner away from other tables and away from where servers would be walking. And they did not eat on the floor, they just played with their dolls. At the time I thought if some Disers would see this they would be livid, but it didn't bother me.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

And then there's the parents that will lie about their kid's age to get them in. Sure, a 3 year old won't pass for a 10 year old, but you know kids younger than 10 will get in. It's not like Disney can do anything to verify the age, and you know they won't want the publicity of denying somebody and then finding out the kid actually was 10 but was very small for some reason.

However, if people are on vacation and wanting to dine at V&A they are more than likely not only staying on property but probably on a package that includes tickets. And all reservations for packages the date of birth of children is requested, and is in the Disney Computer System.

So if the parents bought a child's ticket for their children there are two possible scenarios. One is they were honest and the child is less than ten years old and the other is the child is ten or old and the parents lied to save money and buy an age 3-9 ticket. In either case it is in Disney's system that the child is under ten. And let's see the parents argue that!

 

[LuluLovesDisney]

EXCELLENT analogy. Any parent who is complaining about this rule should think about how they would feel if alcohol was to start being served at MK. Parents would not appreciate it if their kids' lunchtime at Cinderella's Round Table was disrupted by loud drunken humor going on at the table next door or some guy telling his friend an "adult-content" joke or story.

Can you imagine the look on a mother's face if a random drunk person spilled beer all over their 4-year old right while getting her picture taken with Cinderella??

Just like a husband and wife enjoying their 5 year anniversary dinner or some guy about to propose to his girlfriend gets interrupted by a kid throwing a temper tantrum. Young children, in general, have poorer self control and self-adjustment. That has nothing to do with good/bad parenting (well, the degree to it might), that's just child development. I don't get angry with kids for throwing tantrums in the parks-I understand (from a teacher's point of view), that they are growing and learning and working through the kinks of controlling their actions. I can only hope that their parents are handling it appropriately. The parks are loud chaotic environments so I expect that. I can't even get angry if a kid disrupts my meal at a casual restaurant. Again, it's WDW, I go there expecting to see kids. But I can (and do) get very angry when my meal is disrupted at upscale restaurants that are designed to create a quieter grown-up atmosphere in the first place. And some people might say, "Well go to a bar if you want to be garunteed a meal without kids", but I don't want to be around a rowdy drunk crowd either. If I did, I would have chosen to go to a restaurant that is marketed as a rowdy and drunk environment instead of one that markets itself as being grown-up, peaceful, and eloquent. So, it's not exactly the "no-kids" meal I am seeking in these places, it's the "no-kids behavior."

The fact is that, as a vacation spot, WDW may have started out at being mainly for kids, but it caters just as much to adults nowadays. Otherwise, they wouldn't have created upscale restaurants with quieter and adult themes in the first place-they would have only had places that are geared towards children. There are always going to be clashes. The only way for these things to be solved is for both sides to sacrifice something and get to a common ground or agreement.

I think the true magic of WDW is that it's diverse in it's offerings-it caters to and appeals to all ages and most interests. Yes, they do market themselves as offering a "family experience" but "family" does not always equal children. There are all different types of WDW guests who go for all different types of experiences-some G-rated, some romantic, some over-21ers like to party or drink at night, some people smoke.....not everyone agrees to it, but Disney tries to accomodate to all of it.

The redundant theme in this thread seems to be "there's a time and a place for everything"

I wish the OP had created a poll to go with this thread, I'm curious to know how many people actually disagree with the new "no children" rule at V & A.

Definitely well stated.

There are rides, restaurants and experiences available for every age, interest and ability.

I was engaged at WDW and my now-fiance had plans to propose at Jiko and then at AP, which were scrapped once due to something I said and once due to other guests' behavior (a child AND adult). I am glad Disney is holding firm that one place should be reserved for an all-out grown-up experience. I have had a beautiful meal at Cali Grill ruined by squealing and screaming and I wouldn't want that to happen after I dropped $300 at V and A's!

If any adult cannot act grown up, I'd hope they would be escorted over to the Food and Fun Center for punishment, too.

 

[LuluLovesDisney]

Granted, but the DCL is a much smaller animal than WDW. It's a niche while WDW is the most visted resort destination in the world. They can't be run the same way. Further, the overall cruise market is a more adult-oriented market in the first place, when compared to WDW.
.

There are tens of thousands of families without young children and young and older couples who visit WDW annually. There are at least three guidebooks specifically designed for WDW *without* children. There is a *huge* market for an adult only restaurant in WDW, illustrated in part by the huge number of favorable responses.

You are right DCL is much smaller. On DCL, Palo represents 1/5 of the total sit down dining options, while in WDW V and A's represents 1/98 of the total sit down dining options. If we compare actual percentages, we can easily see that reserving one restaurant in WDW for adults only is hardly as significant as reserving one on DCL.

 

[TXTurtles]

A quick question for those of you (3% of all Disers, according to the other thread) who disagree with this move - one issue seems to be that some feel that Disney is punishing those with good little diners for the actions of some other children. How then do you feel about the age limits on some of the clubs in PI? Based on the noise levels of those places, a screaming kid isn't going to be much of a distraction. Heck, compared to V&A's 8Trax is practically made for kids. After all, it's loud, it's dancing, and there's fun looking drinks. But despite how kid-centered Disney advertising has long been, the dancing clubs have long been adult-only establishments. Not because a few poorly disciplined or over stimulated kids ruined a few nights but because having children there at all would be counter to the experience. In the same way letting me float along on my (hypothetical) kid's Pirate cuise (which I SO want to do!) would be counter to that experience. Or those bead activities at AKL. My husband wanted to do those last trip and got really disappointed when he was told he was too old.

 

[Guy Incognito]

V&A is a part of WDW as the various cruise ship areas are a part of the cruise ship. Comparing V&A to one of the CL restaurants is fine, but just as you can't equate Palo to WDW, you can't equate V&A to the Wonder or Magic.

perhaps not, but you can equate V&A with Palo; and since Palo excludes anyone under 18, V&A excluding anyone under 10 doesn't seem so out of line.

 

[_queenie_]

I saw 2 kids sitting on the floor at Flying Fish and didn't see anything wrong with it. They did have a corner table and the kids were on the floor in the corner away from other tables and away from where servers would be walking. And they did not eat on the floor, they just played with their dolls. At the time I thought if some Disers would see this they would be livid, but it didn't bother me.

I guess the big reason why this bugs me is because of my niece who's 13. We know that we can't take her to nice restaurants, when she comes up to stay with her grandparents, comes over our house and we want to go out, we have to go to a more casual place (sometimes it's just unavoidable that we have to go somewhere). At restaurants she won't sit in her seat, is climbing everywhere, and I have seen her attempt to sit on the floor. It puts us in a tough position since we're not her parents, but my DH always has to get on her. Her and my DD are 10 days apart, but you would never know it in a restaurant. She's not quite as bad as she used to be, when we saw her this past summer she never got out of her seat (she's no less hyper though), but now her problem is just that she's loud!

 

[dennis99ss]

How many of you have actually (1) ever been to VA or (2) had a bad experience because of kids at VA. I saw two posts about kids at VA being bad. Does not sound like a lot.

To "uva" who asked who has brought kids, I have. I currently have a 7 and 9 year old. They go about once per year. They both eat the meals, etc.

But, here is my post from another thread.

I understand the change, do not like it, but understand it. However, I do take some offense to some of the comments that some of you make in this post. I have taken my children to V & A on a number of occasions. They are currently 7 and 9. They go about once a year. They eat the food, they do not run around, they do not talk loud, they do nothing even remotely obnoxious as the drunken braggard that usually sits somewhere in the restaurant. They take a five and give it to the harpist and ask for a song. Once in a while, they will draw on a 3"x5" notepad. But, they eat the food, from the initial spoon of whatever is first, to the desert. they order the steak, but sometimes the fish or poultry. They do not order the cavier, but the eldest does the foie gras. The offense I take is that you consider all children, and all parents, equal. Would I want Billy described above, no. Have I ever seen Billy described above in the restaurant, no. Have we been complemented every time we have been at V & A on our boys, yes. Have we been complemented by other guests, yes. Do they wear suits, yes, etc. etc. etc.

 

[seus-mouse]

Been going to Disney World since the year it opened.
They do their best to make most people happy , as much of the time, I've seen this over the years from when I was a youngin, to now when my girls are going to college.

Go ahead , ban the kids, it won't improve the food.BTAT(Been There Ate That).

Thanks for the great thread, I like to know where not to bring the young ones in our family when we visit, as I am unwilling to expose them to royalty if at all possible.

Mark

 

[disneyfav4ever]

For all of you who think WDW is mostly for kids, or that the majority of guests are kids, take a look at this poll; http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1682843

 

[raidermatt]

I'm not surprised to find that we don't see eye to eye.

You're not reading what I'm writing -- specifically, you're overlooking critical words in my messages. Perhaps that's why there is such a disconnect in our discussions.

And by your definition of entitlement posted earlier, that qualifies. They want something not explicity promised

In this case, I wrote about expectation, and you decided to pervert what I wrote into being about desire (see emphasis added, above). If you're going to argue against what I've written, argue against what I've written, rather than something easier to argue against.

Oh, so I put the word "want" in so to change your meaning from "expectation" to "desire"?

Well, let's go back to what you actually said. That should clear things up.

Anytime someone wants something not explicitly promised, it is a reflection of a sense of entitlement.

Before I accept your rather harsh and condescending criticism for not reading what you wrote and perverting your words to give me something easier to argue against, please explain how I did that when I used the exact same word you did.

 

[raidermatt]

For all of you who think WDW is mostly for kids, or that the majority of guests are kids, take a look at this poll; http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1682843

As wonderful as these message boards are, I'm not sure that 254 votes, or even a thousand for that matter, offers much in the way of evidence that the poll is representative of the millions of people who visit WDW.

That said, I don't think that the majority of guests are kids, or even that WDW is mostly for kids.

I'd say the majority, which would mean over 50%, of WDW guests are part of a family or other party that includes kids. How much of a majority, I don't care to take much of a guess. I'm only comfortable in saying it's more than 50%.

 

[WDWguru]

I FINALLY found some basic statistics on theme park visits in general. It's a bit old and includes ALL theme parks (not just Disney) but does give some ballpark idea.

It took me forever as Disney doesn't appear to release this info, even to the press (at least not that I could find on my press site - and I work for a newspaper). Short of contacting my rep to ask for the demographics (which I may still do), this is what I found:

Theme/Amusement Park Travel: One in ten (9%) person-trips includes a visit to a theme or amusement park, equating to over 92 million person-trips taken in the U.S. in 2002. Households visiting a "theme park" spend an average of $845 per trip, excluding transportation to their destination. On average, overnight theme park trips last 5.3 nights. Two-thirds (67%) of theme park traveling households stay in a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast establishment on overnight trips. Theme park trips are most likely to include shopping as a complementary activity (40% of person-trips). As expected, a large share (55%) of household trips involving a visit to a theme park includes children under age 18. (Source: Domestic Travel Market Report, 2003 Edition.)

 

[Hixski]

As wonderful as these message boards are, I'm not sure that 254 votes, or even a thousand for that matter, offers much in the way of evidence that the poll is representative of the millions of people who visit WDW.

That said, I don't think that the majority of guests are kids, or even that WDW is mostly for kids.

I'd say the majority, which would mean over 50%, of WDW guests are part of a family or other party that includes kids. How much of a majority, I don't care to take much of a guess. I'm only comfortable in saying it's more than 50%.

So lets say that 65% of the guests are part of a family or party that includes kids. There are 97 full service restaurants. V&A is now somewhat adult only (kids over ten can still go). So 65% of the guests are catered to with 96 restaurants and 35% of the guests are catered to with 1 restaurant. Seems perfectly logical to me.

 

[Linus Van Pelt]

That said, I don't think that the majority of guests are kids, or even that WDW is mostly for kids.

Provide hard evidence to back up your assertion, please.

 

[TDC Nala]

Whether Victoria & Alberts is for kids seems to me to be a little different from whether Walt Disney World is for kids. The thread could be headed a bit off track.

 

[raidermatt]

Provide hard evidence to back up your assertion, please.

My assertion that I think the majority of guests are not children, and that WDW is not just for kids?

No hard evidence of course, as Disney doesn't release it, and I actually did say this is what I *think*, not what I know for a fact to be true.

Why do I think this?

I don't think that the parties that have more kids than adults are large enough in number to make up for the number of adults visiting without kids or with fewer kids than adults.

In other words, I believe the majority of *parties* have at least one child in the group. But that's different than saying there are more total children than adults.

Like I said, no hard evidence, but I do follow the business side of Disney pretty closely. I listen to all of the earnings calls, read their filings and reports, etc.

As for WDW not being "just for kids", I'd think that part is pretty obvious. The fact that there are any adult-only activities means that by definition the place is at least partly for adults. Also, many of the attractions are designed to please BOTH kids and adults.

 

[raidermatt]

So lets say that 65% of the guests are part of a family or party that includes kids. There are 97 full service restaurants. V&A is now somewhat adult only (kids over ten can still go). So 65% of the guests are catered to with 96 restaurants and 35% of the guests are catered to with 1 restaurant. Seems perfectly logical to me.

The crux of the matter, at least with some, is the idea that a restaurant can only cater to adults if children are banned, and that restaurants that allow children do not cater to adults.

I don't think it's that cut and dried.

V&A's allowed children under 10 prior to last week, yet I don't think ANYONE would say that it didn't cater to adults without children.

Same with the other signature restaurants. Though they are more kid-friendly, they do a pretty good job of catering to adults as well.

Now, do any restaurants besides V&A cater to adults who require that children under 10 not be present? No, but not all adults without children have that as a prerequiste to considering a restaurant as catering to them. So we cannot say that if 35% of the parties at WDW are there without children, it means that 35% of the parties at WDW want a restaurant that doesn't allow kids.