No More ADR's at conflicting times

[pilferk]

I said that even if you plan to go to WDW and you book your trip 9,12,15 or however many months out....you still can't have the specifics of each day you're there nailed down 100% six months out - no matter how much of planner you are. So from that standpoint, it's nonsencial to commit to a specific restaurant at a specific time that far out (yet, we're all "forced" to do it - not literally forced, but you know what I mean...I hope ). Especially when you consider that one, two, four weeks later, WDW could end up making significant changes to park hours, EMH days, show/parade/fireworks times, etc. to throw those plans into chaos.

We have a plan laid out as to which park we'll be in on which day of our vacation at 6 months.

Could it change? Sure, if Disney makes changes (to park hours) or if the weather doesn't cooperate upon arrival. One of those things is unlikely...the other isn't relevant since it will effect people who made their ADR's 3 weeks in advance, say, too.

So while it might not be 100%, it's pretty close. In the past 7 years, we've had to change precisely 1 ADR.

Again...I don't think you can generalize that "nobody" can. Lots of people do, actually.

 

[mcd2745]

(A) Shorten the window to 90 days, and you exclude those who want to plan further out. You completely take away their ability to do it because they can't access the system "quick enough" for their liking.

(B) Keep the duration at 180 days, and you weight things in favor of those who are more likely to plan (or force those who prefer not to into action).

Both ways favor SOMEONE.

I have to disagree.

(B) Clearly favors the planners. We all agree there.

(A) Favors no one - which should be the goal.

 

[pilferk]

I have to disagree.

(B) Clearly favors the planners. We all agree there.

(A) Favors no one - which should be the goal.

How does it favor no one?

If I want to plan 180 days out, and can't because the system won't accommodate me, how is that not favoring those who don't want to plan as far out? You're forcing someone who is ready, able, and willing to make reservations OUT of the process until an arbitrary timeframe, in order to cater to those not willing/able to do so. How is that not favoring one group over another? It's not an issue of system capability, business capability, or management issue. So it's 100% about favoring one group or the other.


Both systems favor one of the sides: (A) forces equality in terms of chances of success between the two groups. But that, in and of itself, ends up favoring those who can't/won't/don't want to plan as far in advance.

(B) gives greater chance of success to those who plan further out.

I'm not saying either system is "best", in terms of customer outcomes....but both systems penalize at least one of the "main" groups in terms of "satisfaction".

And, I suspect, the 180 day system gives disney some decided business advantages (less resource utilization, better ability to long term plan supply chain demands, and better ability to long term plan staffing and logistics as well as some others)...which is probably why they seem to stick to it.

Edit: I suspect your comments might have regarded OUTCOME..which isn't "favor", in the context I was using, in the scope of the conversation I responded to. The OP I responded to was talking about how a system shouldn't cater to one group or the other. My point was that each choice catered to/favored one of the groups.

 

[mcd2745]

How does it favor no one?

If I want to plan 180 days out, and can't because the system won't accommodate me, how is that not favoring those who don't want to plan as far out? You're forcing someone who is ready, able, and willing to make reservations OUT of the process until an arbitrary timeframe, in order to cater to those not willing/able to do so. How is that not favoring one group over another?

Both systems favor one of the sides: (A) forces equality in terms of chances of success between the two groups. But that, in and of itself, ends up favoring those who can't/won't/don't want to plan as far in advance.

(B) gives greater chance of success to those who plan further out.

I'm not saying either system is "best", in terms of customer outcomes....but both systems penalize at least one of the "main" groups.

And, I suspect, the 180 day system gives disney some decided business advantages (less resource utilization, better ability to long term plan supply chain demands, and better ability to long term plan staffing and logistics as well as some others)...which is probably why they seem to stick to it.

You said it yourself..."(A) forces equality". Equality means no one is favored. The planners are not penalized. They just aren't "rewarded", like they are in (B). That's a subtle, yet very important, distinction.

 

[pilferk]

You said it yourself..."(B) forces equality". Equality means no one is favored. The planners are not penalized. They just aren't "rewarded", like they are in (A). That's a subtle, yet very important, distinction.

I was right in my edit. It forces equality in OUTCOMES (but lowers "d-day" odds, too...because instead of "1 in all the "180 dayers", it's now "1 in 180+120+90 dayers"...though total tables don't change).

Revist the edit above, and the original post I commented on.

The post you commented on, first, was in direct response to a post about a system "catering" to one specific group.

"Favor", in that context, has nothing to do with outcomes. It's about "satisfaction", and choosing one group over the other.

If you go to 90 days, you're "favoring" the non-planners by implementing a system they prefer, and leaving the "180 day-ers" unsatisifed.

If you leave it at 180 days, you're "favoring" the planners, and leaving the "90 day-ers" unsatisfied..

At the end of the day, the 90 day planning system tells a certain % of your customers they CAN'T do something when they'd like to. With the 180 day system, you're telling all your customers they CAN do something...whether they choose to/are able to, or not.

You're never going to make BOTH groups happy, in terms of satisfaction OR outcomes. And, honestly, I don't think either system is "more fair". It's just artificially placating one side or the other...because total number of tables isn't going to change. It's like saying that they should change the 7 AM opening time (or 6AM on-line time) because some people don't want to get up that early.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

I wish they would just get rid of the ADR all together honestly. First come first serve unless it's for Character Dining.

I'm a planner but at the same time I don't think I should have to plan every meal 8 months before my trip. It's just insane to me. When i go tot the mall i don't plan where I'm eating. I just pick a place and see what the wait is too long, i go somewhere else.

 

[Kathi OD]

Yes, changes can occur at anytime, but are more likely 5-6 months out than they are 1-2 months out.

I don't know about that. The only changes that have ever affected our plans are the ones that were made while we were already in WDW.

Was I being overly dramatic for effect? Maybe. However, if a change did occur at 2-3 months out that, say, would cause you to want to rearrange all your park days (and therefore change all your ADRs)...I would think for all the uber-planners out there, choas may not be dramatic enough a description.

It's not the uber-planners who would be upset, it's those that aren't flexible. An uber-planner always has a back-up plan.

"...how well you know and understand the process"? This comment sounds very similar to comments from the other posters who prefer the current system simply because it works for them. On a whole, as DISers, we probably "know and understand" the system better than the average WDW visitor (to varying degrees, of course). So therefore, you could say, we have somewhat of an "advantage" over those average visitors. And that is exactly how you all want to keep it.

No. Knowing and understanding the process would be necessary regardless of the booking window time frame. It has nothing to do with the current time frame. To be perfectly honest, we rarely, if ever, have our ADRs nailed down 180 days out; most of the time it is more like 90 days. We've only been disappointed once. And yes, we've eaten at CRT, LeCellier, and other "difficult to get" restaurants.

Regardless of how long the booking window is, the only people who have a clear cut advantage are those who stay on property. I'm pretty sure that even if the booking window were changed to 30 days, those people would still have an advantage (everyone else would have to wait until 2 weeks). Those who choose not to take advantage of the 180 day window are choosing not to do so.

 

[pilferk]

Those who choose not to take advantage of the 180 day window are choosing not to do so.

I think that's a very valid point.

Either by overt choice or by circumstance.

They certainly have equal OPPORTUNITY (again, except for the built in on-site advantage) to take advantage of the system....meaning, if they call, Disney is going to talk to them and make an ADR for them.

 

[3Minnies1Mickey]

Except....here's the thing:

Shorten the window to 90 days, and you exclude those who want to plan further out. You completely take away their ability to do it because they can't access the system "quick enough" for their liking.

Keep the duration at 180 days, and you weight things in favor of those who are more likely to plan (or force those who prefer not to into action).

Both ways favor SOMEONE.

One thing to keep in mind: If you shorten the window, you probably increase the utilization on "d-day". Disney's systems would likely see a lot more calls/web traffic each day, because you'd now have a logger jam of more folks trying to secure ADR's all at the same time.

We know Disney tried the 90 day window...and switched BACK to 180 days pretty quickly.

This is my take on the 180 vs. 90 day windows. While MOST people would have plans nailed down by 90 days, that also means that they are ALL online and on the phones making ADRs at the exact same time. The system would get bogged down and many would miss out and NO ONE is happy. As big as WDW and Disney are, I highly doubt their servers could handle 100,000 guests swarming their system at 6 am to make ADRs. Everyone has the opportunity to make ADRs at 180 days out if they so choose. Though you may not feel like making all those decisions at 180 days you can choose not to, or make plans and switch things around as plans change. Then you aren't left in the cold.

 

[epcot.girl]

Honestly, I've never had trouble getting reservations for the restaurant I want - and we usually don't start looking into where we want to go (and when) until well past the 180 day mark.

Actually, I tell a lie. Once, we couldn't get Le Cellier. But I kept checking back sporadically and it wasn't long before the date we wanted opened up and we got a reservation.

No matter when they open the booking window someone will be at a disadvantage. Besides, I thought they moved it back to 90 days at one point before going back to 180 days again - they must have had a reason.

 

[Condorman]

This is my take on the 180 vs. 90 day windows. While MOST people would have plans nailed down by 90 days, that also means that they are ALL online and on the phones making ADRs at the exact same time. The system would get bogged down and many would miss out and NO ONE is happy.

See, this is the problem. People only think in terms of themselves. Every single day is 180 days out (or, in your version, 90 days out) for a family visiting WDW. Right now, today, is 180 days out for 10,000 families visiting WDW this November. You may not be going at that time, but others are, and they want to make plans right now. The system would get bogged down today if Disney wasn't prepared to handle all the online or phone traffic. Apparently, Disney is prepared and the world keeps spinning.

No one will ever win the argument of waiting until 90-30 days out to make an ADR. Disney doesn't care if the tables fill up six months or six minutes out. They just want the tables filled. The early bird gets the worm. Either plan ahead, or prepare to eat at Cap'n Jacks, The Wave, or counter service. Disney provides options for everyone.

 

[mcd2745]

I was right in my edit. It forces equality in OUTCOMES (but lowers "d-day" odds, too...because instead of "1 in all the "180 dayers", it's now "1 in 180+120+90 dayers"...though total tables don't change).

Revist the edit above, and the original post I commented on.

The post you commented on, first, was in direct response to a post about a system "catering" to one specific group.

"Favor", in that context, has nothing to do with outcomes. It's about "satisfaction", and choosing one group over the other.

If you go to 90 days, you're "favoring" the non-planners by implementing a system they prefer, and leaving the "180 day-ers" unsatisifed.

If you leave it at 180 days, you're "favoring" the planners, and leaving the "90 day-ers" unsatisfied.

Yes, I was speaking in terms of outcome - which obviously has a direct correlation to satisfaction, though.

At the end of the day, the 90 day planning system tells a certain % of your customers they CAN'T do something when they'd like to. With the 180 day system, you're telling all your customers they CAN do something...whether they choose to/are able to, or not.

You're never going to make BOTH groups happy, in terms of satisfaction OR outcomes. And, honestly, I don't think either system is "more fair". It's just artificially placating one side or the other...because total number of tables isn't going to change. It's like saying that they should change the 7 AM opening time (or 6AM on-line time) because some people don't want to get up that early.

I agree no system will ever make everyone happy. That's true of anything.


"At the end of the day, the 90 day planning system tells a certain % of your customers they CAN'T do something when they'd like to. With the 180 day system, you're telling all your customers they CAN do something...whether they choose to/are able to, or not."

That's a vaild point, although it's a bit harsh on those who are not able to "do something" (due to work/family constraints, or whatever). And in full disclosure, I would actaully rather they go to 30 or 45 days - not 90.

However, let me make an attampt to tie all this back to the original post and topic of this thread. That was, that Disney is making an attempt to crack down on multiple bookings. The reasons for my "dissatisfaction" of the 180 day window is two-fold and one has to do with multiple-bookings.

First, I (and many have echoed this sentiment in this thread and others) am simply opposed to the idea that you need to plan key aspects of the trip that far in advance. It just seems crazy to me - and I'm a planner, just not an obsessive uber-planner. It's not necessarily a matter of "how do i know i want to eat at LeCellier on that day?" I'm a pure carnivore, I can eat steak every day. It's more of a matter that I have now pretty much locked myself in to Epcot for that day.

Secondly (and this is where it ties in to the OP), I feel it lends itself to far too many abuses (at worst) and/or non-optimal practices (at best). I know it's not done by everyone, but I believe for too many "planners" that "planning" means going in at 180 (with +10, most likely) and making an ADR at Ohana for every night of their stay, same for Le Cellier and other popular restaurants - becasue Disney says thay CAN. Then when they get (much) closer, they finalize their plans and HOPEFULLY cancel the ADRs they don't plan to use. I'm exagerating a little (I hope), but you get the idea. Those are obviously in the "abuse" category. As for the non-optimal practices, those would be things like people going in at 180 and booking ADRs, even though they do not have a trip booked yet and it may only be 50% at best that they do end up booking the trip. Then when they ultimately decide they're not going (for whatever reason), maybe they cancel the ADRs, maybe they don't.

A lesser window, I believe, both lessens the want or need to do these things, plus also diminishes the ability to do them.

 

[mcd2745]

An uber-planner always has a back-up plan.

But, unfortunately, it usually involves making multiple reservations for the same night.

 

[mcd2745]

See, this is the problem. People only think in terms of themselves. Every single day is 180 days out (or, in your version, 90 days out) for a family visiting WDW. Right now, today, is 180 days out for 10,000 families visiting WDW this November. You may not be going at that time, but others are, and they want to make plans right now. The system would get bogged down today if Disney wasn't prepared to handle all the online or phone traffic. Apparently, Disney is prepared and the world keeps spinning.

No one will ever win the argument of waiting until 90-30 days out to make an ADR. Disney doesn't care if the tables fill up six months or six minutes out. They just want the tables filled. The early bird gets the worm. Either plan ahead, or prepare to eat at Cap'n Jacks, The Wave, or counter service. Disney provides options for everyone.

But that's the problem for Disney. Far too many times, tables are not filled. Sure, all the tables are reserved, but many times they end up empty. The current system has created this weird dynmaic where the demand for ADRs is much greater than the actual demand for meals.

 

[traylorc]

But that's the problem for Disney. Far too many times, tables are not filled. Sure, all the tables are reserved, but many times they end up empty. The current system has created this weird dynmaic where the demand for ADRs is much greater than the actual demand for meals.

Disney can only blame themselves for this weird dynamic, they should have cracked down on double booking a long,long time ago.

 

[Condorman]

But that's the problem for Disney. Far too many times, tables are not filled. Sure, all the tables are reserved, but many times they end up empty. The current system has created this weird dynmaic where the demand for ADRs is much greater than the actual demand for meals.

I've never seen this to be the case. Whether it's Sci-Fi, Ohana, Le Cellier or California Grill, every time I've been every table has been occupied. Yes, those are some of the most popular places and most coveted reservations. But if someone books and no-shows, the restaurant has no problem filling it with a walk-in. There always will be walk-ins. So everyone gets what they want: Those who plan and those who don't. I've seen empty tables at The Wave and Cap'n Jacks, and I doubt it's because people made ADRs and then decided not to show.

Also, if your complaint is that people double-book at 180 days and then release some of their ADRs between 90 to 10 days prior to their vacation, then that should be a Godsend for anyone who hates the 180-day system. At 90 to 10 days, new restaurants open up and you are free to book them, now within the window of your original preference. So I'm not understanding the hate for the 180 days.

People need to get over themselves and the idea that WDW can go back to the mode of walk right in, step right down, anywhere you wish to dine, anytime you wish to do so. That era is over. Times have changed. For anyone who claims Disney is all about the money, I can assure you, if they thought they could make more by going to 90 day ADR bookings, they would. Clearly, they are happy with the way things are, and on behalf of those who plan six months out, I'm happy too. I know where we're going to eat when we go on our next trip. I booked every place I wanted at every time I desired. I'm happy as a clam. We will show up to all of our ADRs and enjoy ourselves. That's how it works. Within the current system, I hope you find a way that works for you.

 

[traylorc]

People need to get over themselves and the idea that WDW can go back to the mode of walk right in, step right down, anywhere you wish to dine, anytime you wish to do so. That era is over. Times have changed. For anyone who claims Disney is all about the money, I can assure you, if they thought they could make more by going to 90 day ADR bookings, they would. Clearly, they are happy with the way things are, and on behalf of those who plan six months out, I'm happy too. I know where we're going to eat when we go on our next trip. I booked every place I wanted at every time I desired. I'm happy as a clam. We will show up to all of our ADRs and enjoy ourselves. That's how it works. Within the current system, I hope you find a way that works for you.

I agree with this point...if you think there is complaining now, imagine the firestorm if Disney dropped ADRs all together.

I have never thought the 180 window was the problem. I like the 180 day window because it allows the super planners to plan real early but still allows those who want to book ADRs 30, 60, or 90 days out. I have to be honest, I'm not sure how shrinking the window back to 90 days would be beneficial...seems to me having a shorter ADR window would make it harder for folks to obtain ADRs. Disney must have thought so as well since they wound up changing back to the 180 day system.

 

[mom2rtk]

I agree with this point...if you think there is complaining now, imagine the firestorm if Disney dropped ADRs all together.

I have never thought the 180 window was the problem. I like the 180 day window because it allows the super planners to plan real early but still allows those who want to book ADRs 30, 60, or 90 days out. I have to be honest, I'm not sure how shrinking the window back to 90 days would be beneficial...seems to me having a shorter ADR window would make it harder for folks to obtain ADRs. Disney must have thought so as well since they wound up changing back to the 180 day system.

But don't you know.......... the late planners want all us early planners to make our plans......... and sit around and wait a few months so they can catch up with us!

 

[Colleen27]

I have to be honest, I'm not sure how shrinking the window back to 90 days would be beneficial...seems to me having a shorter ADR window would make it harder for folks to obtain ADRs. Disney must have thought so as well since they wound up changing back to the 180 day system.

I don't think for a minute that Disney made that decision based on guest preferences. I think that was entirely a function of what their IT infrastructure could handle - a shorter window means more people trying to query an already unstable system simultaneously, and given Disney's track record with their booking systems and web sites I don't think they are willing/able to do what would need to be done to meet the demand spikes a shorter window would create.

 

[traylorc]

I don't think for a minute that Disney made that decision based on guest preferences. I think that was entirely a function of what their IT infrastructure could handle - a shorter window means more people trying to query an already unstable system simultaneously, and given Disney's track record with their booking systems and web sites I don't think they are willing/able to do what would need to be done to meet the demand spikes a shorter window would create.

In a corporation the size of Disney there is rarely only one reason that facilitates a strategic change how your product or service is delivered to the customers. Multiple reasons from infrastructure to Guest Preferences could have factored into the final decision to switch back from 180 days to 90 days.

You may be 100% accurate in your assessment that weaknesses with Disney's IT infrastructure is the primary reason behind the change. However, I'm going to give Disney the benefit of the doubt that guest preferences played a role in the final decision to switch back to 90 days. You don't enjoy the type of WDW fanaticism displayed on this board without Disney taking guest preferences into account when making decisions. I'm not saying Disney is a perfect organization by any means.

At the end of the day, I don't care why the change was made. I'm just glad Disney made the change.