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

[raidermatt]

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.

I agree. Whether WDW "is for kids" isn't really relevant.

I'm not really trying to say that everything at WDW is for kids, or that it should be. What I'm saying is that given the number of guests who visit WDW with children, ANY change that bans children where they previously were allowed is a risky move.

Of course if the ban is for safety or legal reasons, like with parasailing for example, there's not really any debate.

But for a restaurant, where there's no inherent reason why kids shouldn't be allowed, it's a different matter.

Again, this has no bearing on me personally. I have never been to V&A and didn't intend on going at anytime in the near future anyway. I'm questioning the decision based on issues it might cause.

First, there's the three families a month that did take their children. A very small number, I know.

Second, anytime there is a policy that is not consistent in the restaurants, it creates guest confusion. The dress code in the signature restaurants is a perfect example of this. Even among the posters on this board, who are probably in the top 10 or even 5% of Disney guests when it comes to knowledge about WDW, there is often confusion about what is allowed and in which restaurants.

Imagine how much confusion there is for the average guest, or the guest in the bottom 25%.

No, that's not necessarily a reason to do away with dress codes, but it is something to consider, and probably has something to do with the code being as casual as it is.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the issue that most V&A guests are concerned about is unruly or disruptive children. I know, some consider any child to be a detriment to their V&A experience, but certainly not all do.

In other words, if there could be an iron-clad guarantee that any child in the restaurant would not be disruptive to others in ANY way, I'm pretty sure most people would be ok with that.

There can be no guarantee of course, and that's why even those who don't mind well-behaved children like the ban. As an earlier poster said, they just fear that a child will become disruptive.

But what Disney CAN guarantee is that, in V&A, they will deal with any situation where a child becomes disruptive, and that's what I think they should do. Deal with the actual problem, rather than take the easy way out and tell ALL parties with children under 10 they are not welcome.

 

[WDWguru]

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.)

In case you missed it...
55%... a majority but certainly not a vast majority. It also doesn't take into account how many of those adults make plans without the kids while on that trip.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Raidermatt:
The problem is that IF V&A had to take "action" for a disruptive under 10 tyke, it would mean that the parents DIDN'T take action and remove or quiet the child. The disruptive behavior would have already occured.
This move is clearly a pre-emptive strike and, I think, will be an effective one.

 

[Ron from Michigan]

I agree with you Uncleromulus. When we dine at V&A it is a special occasion for us and I would not want kids disrupting our special evening. Once the kids act up it is too late for management to change the mood of the evening. I see nothing wrong in having one restaurant in all of WDW for adults only.

 

[Allensfan]

I guess the first thing that came to mind when I read some of the posts was how many people posting their opinions have actually dined at V & A. I would assume anyone that posts about what they feel is correct at this est. should have the experience of actually dinning there.

I am in the 55% that went to Disney with a child under the age of 18. And I went to V & A with my husband and my son stayed with Simba's playhouse while we went.

We would have never dreamed of taking him and I think it would have been rude to the other people trying to eat there if I had of brought him.

It is NOT simply a matter of "will your child sit still and be quiet for 3 hours while others eat their meal". It is for adults wanting to spend an adult night out with out children...any children, not just their own, but yours too.

The night we went a couple was sitting right next to us and the man got down on bended knee and asked his date to marry him. The the entire room of guests got up from their tables, went to the center of the room to share in their joy and V & A brought all of us a glass of bubbly to celebrate with them.

A child would never fit in and it would have spoiled the mood for everyone. Kids are great, I adore my son, feel he is a good well behaved boy...but this is not the place for him. Parents that feel cheated that they can no longer bring their kids to V & A should think not only about their own comfort, but the comfort of others. And I would venture a guess that some of the people that are outraged that their kids can no longer go to V & A, have never taken them there in the first place.

just my humble opinion.

 

[BriarRosie]

I agree. Whether WDW "is for kids" isn't really relevant.

I'm not really trying to say that everything at WDW is for kids, or that it should be. What I'm saying is that given the number of guests who visit WDW with children, ANY change that bans children where they previously were allowed is a risky move.

Of course if the ban is for safety or legal reasons, like with parasailing for example, there's not really any debate.

But for a restaurant, where there's no inherent reason why kids shouldn't be allowed, it's a different matter.

It didn't seem to hurt the Disney Cruise Line to establish an adults-only pool, an adults-only restaurant, and an adults-only beach at Castaway Cay. WDW is a whole lot bigger than the Disney Cruise Lines, so I think most people would shrug off the ban.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the issue that most V&A guests are concerned about is unruly or disruptive children. I know, some consider any child to be a detriment to their V&A experience, but certainly not all do.

I've been to V&A. You'll notice the difference in atmosphere immediately compared to anything else at WDW, including places like California Grill. The part that amuses me most about people who feel this policy is terrible...would they pay $150 per child to eat at any restaurant normally? How many families would really be affected by this? I feel it's a total waste of time to even think this will be a huge issue.

 

[uva185]

I guess the first thing that came to mind when I read some of the posts was how many people posting their opinions have actually dined at V & A.

That is the first thing I thought too. A few pages back I asked if anyone who is against this policy had taken children thee. Not one person responded. Hmmm

It is NOT simply a matter of "will your child sit still and be quiet for 3 hours while others eat their meal". It is for adults wanting to spend an adult night out with out children...any children, not just their own, but yours too.

The night we went a couple was sitting right next to us and the man got down on bended knee and asked his date to marry him. The the entire room of guests got up from their tables, went to the center of the room to share in their joy and V & A brought all of us a glass of bubbly to celebrate with them.

A child would never fit in and it would have spoiled the mood for everyone. Kids are great, I adore my son, feel he is a good well behaved boy...but this is not the place for him. Parents that feel cheated that they can no longer bring their kids to V & A should think not only about their own comfort, but the comfort of others. And I would venture a guess that some of the people that are outraged that their kids can no longer go to V & A, have never taken them there in the first place.

Couldn't agree more!!

This whole topic is such a non issue. I don't see why people who haven't brought their kids to V & A's are complaining? Have the people who are complaining ever been to V & A's? It is not an enviornment for children!! Not only is it nice and elegent but it is somwhat smaller and you can't exactly just blend in with a child as you could probably do in a larger 5* restaurant.

 

[NMW]

Not ALL signature restaurants. One besides V&A's. That's all I am sayin'. Like Yachtsman. Other places serve steak and are nice. If the Yachtsman went 10 and over only, all other signature restaurants stayed all ages, you would vacation elsewhere???

And in case anyone wondered, I am a vocal advocate for this, yet I myself would not be able to go there on any of our trips other than the 4 day one in July 08 for the next 7 years (DS is 3)!!! Last Feb, my mom and sister took the kids while we went to V&A's, but that was a one time deal for us. We prefer to be with the kids when we are in Disney.

I would never support Yachtsman banning children. That's just crazy to me. We always stay at an Epcot resort-BW or BC and dining at Yachtsman is something we have done every trip except our last one. We have happily put it back on for our May trip. My kids have eaten there without incident or disruption to other diners since our youngest was an infant. Why should we be banned from eating there??

Having one adults only restaurant like they do on their cruise ships-okay, fine. Everyone knows V&A is for adults, or at least I thought everyone did. If Disney started banning children from signatures like Yachtsman, that I would have a big problem with and I would most certainly voice it to Disney. What about all the families that stay at the BC/YC resorts? I can't imagine they'd all be happy with this either.

 

[dennis99ss]

uva i posted a couple pages back. I have taken my children to VA on a number of occasions. They have also dined with us at numerous restaurants and clubs throughout the States and internationally in comperable places as VA. It is all in the expectations you have for your children, what they are taught, what they are used to, and what the understand their actions are expected to be. They fully understand that they can run around the McDonalds but they cannot act the same in a finer establishment or in someones home.

What I do not understand is the elitist feel that just because a child is young that that, by itself, takes away from the atmosphere. Seems to me a bit unlogical. a child, because it is a child, takes away from the atmosphere...if such is the case, then an adult at the winne the pooh breakfast takes away from the atmosphere as well.

As I understand your comments, you are justifying the ban, using a general statement, i.e. children effect the atmosphere, without support for it. children do not effect the atmosphere, the actions of people effect the atmosphere.

 

[Markstudy]

What I do not understand is the elitist feel that just because a child is young that that, by itself, takes away from the atmosphere. Seems to me a bit unlogical. .

A child is not wired for a 3 hour sit-down meal. Especially after a full day in the fast paced, stimulus overloaded, theme park.....if you have a few that are... you have the exception to the rule, not the norm.

But the logic is the same as Driver Licenses for kids after 16... I was a good drive at 14 (we had a farm and many trucks, plus I raced carts) but keeping kids under 16 from getting a licenses still made more sense than doing it on a child by child basis.

 

[TDC Nala]

Where I think Raidermatt has a point is in the way the V&A policy is being reported in the national media.

My co-workers have now brought me about 10 articles with huge headlines that all approximate some version of WALT DISNEY WORLD RESTAURANT BANS CHILDREN.

Not until you read the article do you find out that it's a 5 star or diamond or whatever restaurant where all meals start at a minimum of $125 without tax or tip and serving an exclusively gourmet menu, that goes so far as to even require semiformal dress to dine there. Nor do you know, unless you read past the headline, that they're talking only about children under 10.

I suppose it could be bad for business if the readers of the articles are 1) reading only the headline and 2) reading the entire article and still ticked off that they perceive their young children are being treated as "undesirables" ANYWHERE at Disney World. I suppose some of them could cancel their reservations or not make one in the first place.

I also would bet that with the popularity of the dining plan and the restaurants in general, and with the restaurants filling up most of the time, that some families attempted to find a table service meal at Disney (remember Magical Express? A lot of them don't have cars with them now) and were told the only thing available was V&A, and accepted it regardless of the price, the food and the atmosphere just because they wanted a meal. (OR: Got indignant and protested the fact that it's too expensive and doesn't have a kids' menu.) Possibly there were many more requests by families with little kids. If so, Disney had two options: 1) restrict small children from the restaurant, which is known for its adult atmosphere or 2) close the place in favor of another family-friendly eatery. I believe V&A as it exists now would not survive an influx of small children.

 

[Uncleromulus]

If anyone would cancel their reservations at WDW just because V&A dosen't allow kids under 10, then those folks are WAY off the mark. Especially if they never intend to go to V&A in the first place!!
Actually all this publicity could very well INCREASE business at V&A as folks who may never even thought of eating there learn what a fine restaurant it really is!!

 

[uva185]

uva i posted a couple pages back. I have taken my children to VA on a number of occasions. They have also dined with us at numerous restaurants and clubs throughout the States and internationally in comperable places as VA. It is all in the expectations you have for your children, what they are taught, what they are used to, and what the understand their actions are expected to be. They fully understand that they can run around the McDonalds but they cannot act the same in a finer establishment or in someones home.

What I do not understand is the elitist feel that just because a child is young that that, by itself, takes away from the atmosphere. Seems to me a bit unlogical. a child, because it is a child, takes away from the atmosphere...if such is the case, then an adult at the winne the pooh breakfast takes away from the atmosphere as well.

As I understand your comments, you are justifying the ban, using a general statement, i.e. children effect the atmosphere, without support for it.

I do not have a problem with children in most nice enviornments such as larger upscale restaurants, first class cabins on air planes, airport lounges (except when some idiot parent put on cartoons on the main tv), etc. However it is my opinion V & A is not an appropriate enviornment for children. The enviornment is fragile and I sure wouldn't want a child to ruin the mood for a couple. If a child causes a disruption even if the parents remove the child the mood is ruined. Most parents would sit there with the child and try to stop the misbehavior thus creating a minor scene before removing the child. There are too many parents who are inconsiderate of other.

**Side story I was on a flight in First Class from San Francisco - Dulles and there was some kid in front of me goofing off. The child was loud and obnoxious moving around and such and the Dad did nothing to stop him. Then the child knocked over a Sprite which soaked my professional grade digital camera. I think that was a very expensive lesson for the father to control his son better **

My opinion is not generalized, I feel children are more prone to causing a distrubance. Yes, your children could be perfectly behaved 99% of the time. I have a niece that is like that, however there is that chance a very young child (under 10) will get upset, cranky, etc (especially after a sugar filled day at the parks--sensory overload) in V & A and ruin the peaceful, romantic, etc enviornment. In many nice enviornments if a child acts up it does not impact the mood of that enviornment as much as it would at V & A. You know how nice it is at V & A, just thinking about it makes me want to go back, I think it is the only restaurant I have been to that had a harpist. I would hope as a parent you could see how there are children out there that could ruin that mood.

I applaud you as a parent if you have taught your children to sit still for 3 hours at V & A as that is a long time for a child. However you must know this is NOT the norm for most children.

As with most things in society rules are made for the majority. If only 3 families with children visit V & A per month and only a small percentage of children can remain seated and quiet for 3 hours then it is obvious this rule only should upset less than 1% of the patrons of V & A and a even smaller percentage of guests visiting WDW.

Children do not effect the atmosphere, the actions of people effect the atmosphere.

Very true, and children are people who are more likely to act up than an adult. For me its all about statistics, and Disney has eliminated the chances of a child acting up. Yes, there are loud obnoxious adults too, but there is less you can do about that.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

I have taken my children to VA on a number of occasions. They have also dined with us at numerous restaurants and clubs throughout the States and internationally in comparable places as VA. It is all in the expectations you have for your children, what they are taught, what they are used to, and what the understand their actions are expected to be. They fully understand that they can run around the McDonald's but they cannot act the same in a finer establishment or in someones home.

First of all I would like to thank you for having well brought up children.

Unfortunately the number of children who are able to, and do, act as yours are a severe minority. In my opinion the number would probably be less than 20%.

Several years ago my wife and I were flying from Washington to Los Angeles (a five hour flight) in First Class. There was a family of four, with two children about five and eight years old. Unfortunately those children were directly in front of us. And the parents would not control them.

Obviously these people could afford the First Class fare for their children; these same people therefore probably could have easily afforded the price at V&A to bring their children and would have inflicted their children on all the other guests, as they did on that flight.

The only semi-redeeming feature was that this flight was a few days before Valentine's Day, and as we were taxiing at LAX one of the stewardesses gave us a full bottle of wine "as a Valentine's Day gift". I noticed that she also gave a bottle to the people who had been sitting in front of that family. We decided that it was sort of "payment" for our being pestered constantly.

I would not mind having your children at V&A. However, as I said earlier, your children are in a minority and unfortunately the majority has ruined your ability to give your children the experience they deserve. Since the majority are disruptive Disney has taken action which is necessary to keep people from being disturbed (and possibly also necessary to keep their fifth AAA Diamond).

 

[WillCAD]

This whole topic is such a non issue. I don't see why people who haven't brought their kids to V & A's are complaining? Have the people who are complaining ever been to V & A's? It is not an enviornment for children!! Not only is it nice and elegent but it is somwhat smaller and you can't exactly just blend in with a child as you could probably do in a larger 5* restaurant.

It's not really a non-issue, because V&A is the tip of the "adults-only" iceberg.

I agree with the new V&A policy. I also hope that WDW expands the policy and constructs a few adults-only restaurants that I can actually afford!

But that desire (NOT EXPECTATION, JUST A HOPE) doesn't mean that I want all signature restaurants to be adults-only, as some folks in this thread seem to infer. Nor am I a child-hater, as so many people have called me and those like me who agree with the adults-only policy at V&A; while I don't have kids of my own, you can ask the kids in my family for whom I have cared throughout my entire life how much of a "child-hater" I am. They'd all laugh in your face at the very idea.

The issue is a real one that extends beyond V&A. Folks on the one side see it as a positive step that WDW is finally making one of its 97 restaurants an adults-only experience, and some of us hope for a few more. But folks on teh otehr side see this as an attack on their kids and a betrayal of all that WDW stands for (which I personally think is a terrible knee-jerk exaggeration).

uva i posted a couple pages back. I have taken my children to VA on a number of occasions. They have also dined with us at numerous restaurants and clubs throughout the States and internationally in comperable places as VA. It is all in the expectations you have for your children, what they are taught, what they are used to, and what the understand their actions are expected to be. They fully understand that they can run around the McDonalds but they cannot act the same in a finer establishment or in someones home.

What I do not understand is the elitist feel that just because a child is young that that, by itself, takes away from the atmosphere. Seems to me a bit unlogical. a child, because it is a child, takes away from the atmosphere...if such is the case, then an adult at the winne the pooh breakfast takes away from the atmosphere as well.

As I understand your comments, you are justifying the ban, using a general statement, i.e. children effect the atmosphere, without support for it. children do not effect the atmosphere, the actions of people effect the atmosphere.

Atmosphere comes from many things, not just the behavior of the people in the room. It comes from the decor, the food, the service, the place settings, the background music, the temperature and scents in the air, the behavior of the people, and yes, even the makeup of the crowd.

While you may disagree, I do think that the mere presence of children under 10 in a restaurant DOES affect the atmosphere. They may be the most well-bahaved tyke in the universe, but the simple fact of their presence lends itself to an air of unpredictability (beyond that of an adults-only crowd) that makes some people uncomfortable. And that affects the atmosphere.

Yes, I know, "If you're uncomfortable just from the presence of a child, you're the one with the problem, you must hate children, if you don't want to be around them don't go to WDW, get a life, get real, MY little angels don't ever make anyone uncomfortable, why should I be punnished for YOUR neurosis, yada, yada, yada."

To which I must reply, "Maybe it is my problem but I'm not the only one, no I don't, I have one but sometimes I don't want kids in it, I am being real and obviously WDW agrees with me or it wouldn't have put this policy into effect, and why must I be punnished just because you don't want to leave your kid at a WDW kids club during dinner, yada, yada, yada." And I'm not neurotic, I'm just eccentric. Narf!

 

[raidermatt]

I doubt anyone would cancel a trip to WDW because V&A now bans children under 10. I am not suggesting that. (With the possible exception of the three families per month that brought their kids to WDW)

But what TDC Nala pointed out about misinformation in the media is just one example of how this COULD create some negative impact for WDW as a whole. Let's face it, many people don't read the news article behind every headline they read. Further, many that do read the article just skim it, or don't retain much of it.

Therefore it creates confusion.

The part that I think many of us miss at times, myself included, is that the average WDW guest knows nothing about the Disboards and the various other sites on the internet. Or if they do, they just use it casually.

Again, think about the dress code and the confusion that is caused with that. It doesn't mean hordes of people are canceling their trip, but those who don't have a great deal of "Disney experience" can have their overall perception of WDW colored by these little bits and pieces of info they read or hear.

Just as people are confused over which restaurants have dress codes, and what those codes are, people will be confused over which restaurants ban children, and what ages.

And when it comes to encouraging people to visit WDW, that kind of confusion doesn't help. It can lead those on the fence to choose a place they perceive to be less confusing.

Perhaps the positive impact at V&A will more than make up for the negative. I'm just saying I'm not so sure that it will.

 

[raidermatt]

This whole topic is such a non issue. I don't see why people who haven't brought their kids to V & A's are complaining? Have the people who are complaining ever been to V & A's? It is not an enviornment for children!! Not only is it nice and elegent but it is somwhat smaller and you can't exactly just blend in with a child as you could probably do in a larger 5* restaurant.

Was it a non issue 12 days ago, when the policy allowed children?

Or has it simply become a non-issue to those who now have what they want?

No, I have never brought my children to V&A's. I fully understand the atmosphere however, and yes, if I desired to go there I would feel completely comfortable bringing my 9-year old son, and would have since he was around 5 or so. He knows to stay quiet in his seat and would not get up without permission.

I would not bring my 2-year old as she would not yet be able to handle it. I'd just spend 90% of my time outside with her.

But once again, I'm not complaining from the perspective of not being able to bring my children. Actually, I'm not complaining at all.

I'm expressing my opinion that this is not as simple a decision as those who are so passionately supporting it make it seem, and that there is most certainly some potential for negative impact.

Really, if that weren't the case, would Disney have waited until now to make the change? V&A has been there for quite some time and has been an adult oriented restaurant during that entire time, as far as I know.

 

[raidermatt]

In case you missed it...
55%... a majority but certainly not a vast majority. It also doesn't take into account how many of those adults make plans without the kids while on that trip.

Just a comment on the numbers. Well, actually two.

First, thank you for posting them.

Second, we shouldn't assume that the numbers are equal to what happens at WDW. There are many theme parks across the country, most of which are "day trip" kind of places, so they do not have the same demographics as WDW.

But again, thank you for posting them. They at least give us something to start with.

 

[uva185]

Was it a non issue 12 days ago, when the policy allowed children?

Or has it simply become a non-issue to those who now have what they want?

It was an issue to a enough guests 12 days ago for Disney to make the decision to ban children. However this certainly did not warrent national media attention

Yes, it has become a non-issue to the majority. You will never please everyone.

It is ONE restaurant, I personally do not see why there is such controversy over something that was #1 a business decision, and #2 does negatively not affect very many people.

Really, if that weren't the case, would Disney have waited until now to make the change? V&A has been there for quite some time and has been an adult oriented restaurant during that entire time, as far as I know.

You're right! It was a very hard decision for Disney to make. I am sure they researched the decision and discovered it would be more beneficial to ban children than allow some guests to be distrubed by children during their meal.

 

[sjaakie]

As a I asked before.
What about parents with an adult but mentally handicaped child who sits in a wheelchair, can't control his moves, needs a nappy and drools over his dinner.

Will they also be banned out??

Its so easy to judge over other people's children.