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

[bicker]

Ah, well then as I said, it's good to know you are equally concerned about those who want an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

I'm a pretty consistent and egalitarian type of guy.

 

[Markstudy]

Kids are great.... Why not let them in V&A

 

[Uncleromulus]

 

[Hixski]

But watch a Disney Cruise line commercial and see all those kids??? They are not allowed on a huge portion of one of the decks, in 1 of the restaurants, or on an entire beach on Castaway Cay.

The decision to make those restrictions seems to be working quite well for them.

BTW-in case you missed it earlier, I have 4 kids. I also have a strong conviction that a little adults only time in WDW for people who don't or people who do but hired a sitter is a GOOD thing (BTW-we don't get a sitter, we eat with our kids at non-signature meals).

Young kids cannot parasail or waterski at WDW either. They cannot ride in a Petty racecar with a parent. Yes, those are safety issues, as well, but I just don't think Disney is going to have to shut down if they offer adult night at a different sig restaurant each night. I think the alternating nights is a terrific idea.

I feel for those who don't have kids who support that idea. They are immediately labeled child haters and how dare they expect to go to WDW and not have kids around!

And as for the entitlement issue, isn't it also a sense of entitlement to think "I should be allowed to eat ANYWHERE at WDW WITH my toddler, no matter how it affects other people!!! If they don't want to be around kids, too bad. This is DISNEY! I AM ENTITLED to expose everyone to my kids all day and all night."

Maybe if the people with the psycho kids who cause problems would not think that way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion?

I feel for us too!

DH and I love WDW. The last time we were in Disney we ate at CP, Le Cellier, Teppayaki, Cape May, Yachtsman's and Ohana's. If we hated children I certainly would not subject myself to Ohana and especially CP. But by the same token it would have been nice to go to Le Cellier at 9:00PM without hearing NOOOOOOOO over and over screaming in my ear.

 

[_queenie_]

Just though I'd share...

Last night we went out to eat for my DS's 17th birthday, and we saw the rudest group of people! We were at a very nice local restaurant (my husband also knows the owner), and were the first people seated. There were only three other tables that night, (two of which were terrible, one with a party of around twelve), but it's a fairly small place. I could already tell that when the others walked in some were confused why we were dining with our children (I know some of you have said that sometimes you just don't like dining with other people's children, and that's fine, but the owner and waitstaff have said that they love to see us dining as a family. They warmly welcome our children, including the three-year-old, so we take them.) Anyway, almost the whole time they were there, two of the men at one of the tables of four were sitting there loudly yakking on their cell phones phones about politics (NH). I don't mean to sound rude myself, but as if we hadn't heard enough about the primary all day. If your cell rings, I just find it common courtsey to go to the foyer, not moving is just plain nervy! I found it funny that one of the first things one of them said was "Oh yeah, I can talk, I'm just out to dinner.", certainly it meant it was no emergency. Simple lack of manners, we were being quiet and just trying to enjoy our meal. The large party, now that's a whole other story. You have to expect a large party to be extra noisy, no big deal, but this was inexcuable. Again, they were talking about politics, it was expected for the night, but they were yelling some nasty stuff across the table. Unless you're keeping it to yourself, it's just not apporpirate. We don't expect people act differently just because of our DD3, but there isn't any need of it. If my DS even swears quietly in a restaurant (well, that's 17 for you) my DH gets on him. I could keep going with they way they acted, but the list is too long. The owner told us if we and the other party weren't leaving he would have been close to kicking them out.

I know this really doesn't have anything to do with the kid issue, and I'm positive all have you have encountered similar experiences before, but it's just a classic example of obnoxious people in general.

 

[robinb]

So they were swearing loudly? I would have spoken to them quietly that there was a small child at my table and I would appreciate nicer language. As for the cell phone users ... ... I don't see anything wrong with that in the vast majority of restaurants as long as I wasn't one of their tablemates. People yak on the phone everywhere now-a-days and I can zone it out for the most part. You want rude? Some guy took a call while on The Land ride! I was trapped in front of him listening to his lame conversation which consisted of where he was going to meet up with his family.

 

[_queenie_]

So they were swearing loudly? I would have spoken to them quietly that there was a small child at my table and I would appreciate nicer language. As for the cell phone users ... ... I don't see anything wrong with that in the vast majority of restaurants as long as I wasn't one of their tablemates. People yak on the phone everywhere now-a-days and I can zone it out for the most part. You want rude? Some guy took a call while on The Land ride! I was trapped in front of him listening to his lame conversation which consisted of where he was going to meet up with his family.

Oh yeah, they were swearing like sailors about people who didn't vote for Barack Obama. The waitstaff beat us to telling them to quiet down, but all they did was change the subject and swear some more. My DH was ready to go over himself (he usually does), but he didn't want to lose his temper on them. As for the people on the phone, they were just ruining the mood (they had nice easy music playing). My DH did say something to them (I forgot to mention this before), but all one of them was say "Well sir, if you wouldn't mind, I'm on the phone.". At that point, we just gave up. Arrogance. Of course, this incident was before the big party came, so it wasn't quite as big of a deal after.

 

[robinb]

Oh yeah, they were swearing like sailors about people who didn't vote for Barack Obama. The waitstaff beat us to telling them to quiet down, but all they did was change the subject and swear some more. My DH was ready to go over himself (he usually does), but he didn't want to lose his temper on them.

That is totally unacceptable! Even without a child in the room.

As for the people on the phone, they were just ruining the mood (they had nice easy music playing). My DH did say something to them (I forgot to mention this before), but all one of them was say "Well sir, if you wouldn't mind, I'm on the phone.".

You're right. Rude, rude, rude!

 

[_queenie_]

That is totally unacceptable! Even without a child in the room.
You're right. Rude, rude, rude!

It's terrible, try to have a nice family evening and end up dealing with this.

It was funny, my DD13 made the comment "What if he was on his cell phone while driving and was pulled over by the police? What would he say to the policemen? Would he shoo him off and tell him he'll deal with him later?".

 

[maggiew]

Why is everyone paying so much attention to everyone else while eating? I normally find the conversation at my table stimulating enough to not have to pay attention to what the people at the next table are doing...

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

 

[maggiew]

IThat's why every commercial is filled with cute little kids.

Have you ever seen the commercial where an older lady is talking to her son on the phone explaining why he couldn't go on her Disney vacation. Then they cut to the son who is a grown man. They show couples playing golf, shopping, etc. I love that commercial.

I haven't seen that in awhile. But I don't think there were cute little kids in it.

Also, I went to Mousefest this year with my friend. It really made me pay attention to other groups at the parks, restaurants, etc. And I was REALLY surprised at how many adult only groups there were.

Maggie

 

[raidermatt]

I don't see any other explanation that makes sense to me.

I state why I believe that there is not an overall move by Disney toward more overall adult-only experiences (not that they should or shouldn't, or that its right or wrong), citing examples that support my reasoning, and the only explanation that makes sense to you is that I'm saying it to make myself feel better?

That's unfortunate, but it does explain a lot of the disconnect in our discussions.

But if entitlement is your target, I'm sure you are equally concerned about those who think they are entitled to an adults-only restaurant at WDW.

Who? What specifically. I've not been able to read every message, but all I've seen is people saying they're happy that WDW is providing one, and would like WDW to provide more.

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

That's not my definition, but since it's the definition you apply to those who disagree with you, I was pointing out it's only fair to apply it to those that don't.

 

[maddhatir]

As for the cell phone users ... ... I don't see anything wrong with that in the vast majority of restaurants as long as I wasn't one of their tablemates. People yak on the phone everywhere now-a-days and I can zone it out for the most part. .

When I see people on their phones in public places I want to pry the phone from their rude little fingers, or rip the ear piece off of their heads, bust it on the ground, and stomp on it!

I guess I can't "zone it out"

 

[raidermatt]

But watch a Disney Cruise line commercial and see all those kids??? They are not allowed on a huge portion of one of the decks, in 1 of the restaurants, or on an entire beach on Castaway Cay.

The decision to make those restrictions seems to be working quite well for them.

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.

In a way, it's like comparing Six Flags to WDW. Yes, they have some things in common, just as the Cruise Line and WDW do, but there are huge differences as well. (No, I'm not comparing Six Flags to the Cruise Line in terms of quality or anything else, just pointing out it's similar in some ways, different in others)

BTW-in case you missed it earlier, I have 4 kids. I also have a strong conviction that a little adults only time in WDW for people who don't or people who do but hired a sitter is a GOOD thing (BTW-we don't get a sitter, we eat with our kids at non-signature meals).

That works for you and that's fine. Really. It's not how we vacation, in part because with our busy schedules at home we don't spend as much time together as we'd like, so that's something we value while on vacation.

But neither approach is necessarily better, and of course everybody's situation is different. The point is, the fact that you want a meal without your kids in a fine dining establishment does not mean I should have to eat that meal without my kids.

Now, if my kids do not behave themselves, that's a separate issue that apparently Disney would rather not deal with.

I actually haven't been getting into this part of the discussion. I've only been talking about why I think it might not be the best decision for Disney.

But on the more personal level some keep bringing it back to, here's my take.

If one feels their meal at V&A's would be spoiled if they were subjected to unruly children, I don't have a problem with that at all. I don't like seeing it either. Just because I have my kids with me, it doesn't mean I want other kids running around out of control.

On the other hand...

If one feels their meal at V&A's would be spoiled simply because children are present, regardless of how well behaved the children are, then honestly, yes, I think that is an unfortunate way to view things. Child hater? I've never said anything like that, and I still wouldn't even if this were one's position.

But if one says the mere sight of a certain type of person, regardless of their behavior, can ruin one's entire evening, it's going to raise a lot of eyebrows.

So therefore, if this really is a problem, the solution Disney should be aiming for is to deal with the unruly children when the issue arises. Nobody would begrudge them that except for the family that was being dealt with. This was even stated by some other high-end restauranteurs in the Sentinel article, that they would deal with the parents that allowed the disruption.

With only three families a month MAX bringing kids to V&A, it's not like they would have to deal with it very often.


All that said, my opinion is not that Disney doesn't have the right to do this, or that I or anyone else is entitled to anything. It's just how I think they should deal with the issue, and the reasons why.

 

[disneyfav4ever]

Further, the overall cruise market is a more adult-oriented market in the first place, when compared to WDW.

Victoria and Albert's is adult-oriented, if you want to make that argument.

That works for you and that's fine. Really. It's not how we vacation, in part because with our busy schedules at home we don't spend as much time together as we'd like, so that's something we value while on vacation.

But neither approach is necessarily better, and of course everybody's situation is different. The point is, the fact that you want a meal without your kids in a fine dining establishment does not mean I should have to eat that meal without my kids.

I'm glad you like to spend quality time with your kids on vacation. You are more then able to take them to one of the sixty-some table service restaurant that welcomes children, just don't eat at V&A if you want to eat with your kids.

 

[robinb]

If one feels their meal at V&A's would be spoiled simply because children are present, regardless of how well behaved the children are, then honestly, yes, I think that is an unfortunate way to view things. Child hater? I've never said anything like that, and I still wouldn't even if this were one's position.

But if one says the mere sight of a certain type of person, regardless of their behavior, can ruin one's entire evening, it's going to raise a lot of eyebrows.

Well, raise your eyebrows high and feel that I am "unfortunate" because I said exactly that and I stand by it. While my meal wouldn't be ruined, it would certainly bug me to have a child there. I would end up spending too much of my time wondering when the 3-year old in the next table was going to spill their drink or count how many times he throws his crayon down for his parent's enjoyment of picking it up or how far into the meal he finally loses it and starts to quietly whine. Nothing terribly disruptive ... just normal kid behavior. Would I be able to ignore this kind of thing normally? You bet. In fact, I usually cut kids and parents a lot of slack at WDW and all of the normal kid behavior and most of the bratty behavior goes right under my radar. I don't even see it. But not at a quiet and elegant restaurant like V&A's.

Luckily, I don't have to worry about it anymore .

 

[goodferry]

Seriously, isn't this being a little blown out of proportion? It's ONE restaurant, yes other dissers have discussed closing off other restaurants from children, but all Disney did was make what was clearly their unstated policy their official policy. Do we take our children (all four of them ) to fine dining establishments, yes, how else are they to learn how to behave in one. Do I begrudge Disney this decision, no, of course not, it's one flippin' restaurant, if DH and I decide to go there, the 16 year old gets to spend some quality time with his brother and sisters while we go out. Am I the only one who does not see this as an us (families with children) versus them (families without children) situation? If we want to take the kids to a signature restaurant while on vacation in Disney World, there are lots of others to choose from, what's the big fuss? I don't understand how this is making the news.

 

[raidermatt]

Victoria and Albert's is adult-oriented, if you want to make that argument.

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.

I'm glad you like to spend quality time with your kids on vacation. You are more then able to take them to one of the sixty-some table service restaurant that welcomes children, just don't eat at V&A if you want to eat with your kids.

Given the current rules set by Disney, you are absolutely correct. But I wonder, how would you have responded to somebody who said the opposite to you prior to last week? It's great that you like to get away from all children at times on your vacation, and you are more than welcome to vacation somewhere that has places that prohibit them, just don't go to WDW or eat at V&A's if that's what you want.

Would that have invalidated your opinion that WDW SHOULD provide a place like that?

Well, raise your eyebrows high and feel that I am "unfortunate" because I said exactly that and I stand by it. While my meal wouldn't be ruined, it would certainly bug me to have a child there. I would end up spending too much of my time wondering when the 3-year old in the next table was going to spill their drink or count how many times he throws his crayon down for his parent's enjoyment of picking it up or how far into the meal he finally loses it and starts to quietly whine...

Luckily, I don't have to worry about it anymore .

You know, if just the sight of a child in that situation does cause you that much angst, and I hate to point this out , you do now have to worry if Disney will actually enforce the policy.

After all, they don't always enforce all of their other policies.

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.

And what's more, the one's who would lie about their kids ages are probably the ones who don't care about what's right or wrong and what it means to be courteous to others, so many of the "bad" kids will still get in!

Oh the horror!

I'm mostly just kidding with you. Yes, I disagree with your stance, but I realize it's your stance to have.

Seriously, isn't this being a little blown out of proportion?

Yes, it is, and always has. As long as I can remember there have been posters saying Disney should ban kids in certain restaurants, V&A among them, and the discussion has always been pretty passionate.

In this case, as long as it remains only V&A, it really isn't that big of a deal. I don't agree with it, but that's just because I don't think it's a good idea overall. It won't affect me personally because I had no intention of going to V&A anyway.

 

[bicker]

That's unfortunate, but it does explain a lot of the disconnect in our discussions.

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

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

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.

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.

 

[_queenie_]

Seriously, isn't this being a little blown out of proportion? It's ONE restaurant, yes other dissers have discussed closing off other restaurants from children, but all Disney did was make what was clearly their unstated policy their official policy. Do we take our children (all four of them ) to fine dining establishments, yes, how else are they to learn how to behave in one. Do I begrudge Disney this decision, no, of course not, it's one flippin' restaurant, if DH and I decide to go there, the 16 year old gets to spend some quality time with his brother and sisters while we go out. Am I the only one who does not see this as an us (families with children) versus them (families without children) situation? If we want to take the kids to a signature restaurant while on vacation in Disney World, there are lots of others to choose from, what's the big fuss? I don't understand how this is making the news.

I agree.

We take our kids to the signature restaurants, but we were never planning on taking them to V&A. If my kids are not welcome in a restaurant (only the three-year-old in this case isn't welcome), we're not going to take them there, the end. They're welcome at the other signature restaurants (hopefully it'll stay that way), so we take them.