I am sorry you have to deal with that, it stinks
But I dont go to WDW for the food, I go for the parks but I would like a nice sit down meal once in awhile but if I wake up sick or my son's asthma flares up, I would like the option of cancelling dinner that morning without it affecting my wallet. I dont want the meals to totally dictate the vacation. I mean to a degree they do bc we do make almost all of our ADRs, but to me it is not vacation if I have to be so rigid.
I know plenty of people who dont like to plan and want a more laid back time at WDW and think I am nuts when I tell them I plan which park which day. I think that there will be plenty who will be unhappy if the cant cancel to maintin that flexibilty and also not get to go to certain places without a fee.
Like I said I think WDW could discourage no shows and hoarding by charging but under a different timeframe.
Thanks
Dining is a big part of our vacations. We don't plan our whole trip, just to eat at a restaurant though. It probably does sound like it.
We plan around anything we book in advance, regardless of where we visit. It's irrelevant to me, if we've had to pay in advance or not. If I have booked anything, I've committed to it. We make sure we do those things, then the rest of the time is ours to be spontaneous with.
You must be more idealistic than I am then. I've heard many CM reports of the "special snowflake" syndrome and getting all uppity if their princess can't sit on a fence. Now charging them money for skipping a meal? Yep, the front-line CMs will get pounded.
Of course, the ones who will be most adversely affected by the change aren't likely to be these people. They are more likely to be the quiet families who will simply decide next year to not spend as much time dining, or even at the world. WDW won't likely hear a peep from them.
I'm not that idealistic.
As I said earlier, I feel for the CMs. I wouldn't want to be them, when someone is charged. I do wish people would learn to control their emotions & not treat someone badly who has no control over the situation. That's not being idealistic. It's a desire to see a better world. If the people on here reading this think twice before yelling at the CMs, that's a step in the right direction.
cafeen said:
Disney's method has always been service leads to profits. The magic they create is what drives those profits. The minute they start limiting it, they have lost their focus.
Sorry to say it, but Disney lost that focus a long time ago.
cafeen said:
Except when every alternate possibility is responded to with a "no way that can happen" (paraphrased) without offering any other possibilities, you are implying just that.
The paraphrase isn't accurate. I've never said it can't happen. I'm sure there's times, when they do have staffing problems. I just don't believe it's anywhere near as often as some would like us to believe. It's also very difficult for me to believe they would purposely leave tables empty that could be filled. As I've said, if someone in upper management comes here to tell us this is the case, I'll be shocked, but I'll happily admit I'm wrong. Until then, that just doesn't make any sense at all to me. (It still won't, but it's their busy to make or lose money for.
) So far, I haven't seen an alternative possibility offered, other than a rare staffing problem, that makes sense to me. There's no need for me to offer alternate possibilities. I believe the biggest offender is no shows. I don't feel the need to grasp for straws to come up with another explanation that fits my argument more.
cafeen said:
It's not so much about the money amount (at least for me), but more about the lack of flexibility in a system created for the number 1 family destination in the world. For a location that often overwhelms the first time (and even second time) visitors. For a location that is so expansive that many people completely underestimate how large and busy (busy as in so much stuff to do) the place is.
Having flexibility is an easy one to solve. People just don't need to make so many ADRs. Most first timers I know don't make the number of ADRs people here do. I'm sure some do, but feel most don't.
The argument that this really hurts first timers has come up often. I wonder how many super planners would be willing to give up a meal on this list that they booked at 180 days out, just so a first timer, who didn't know in advance that they needed to book so far out, would be able to go. (I do know that many first timers get shut out from character meals or Ohana, because they didn't know in advance they needed to book ADRs.) After all, this super planner may have booked one or more of these restaurants every day of their trip, just in case it was convenient to go. If all the super planners didn't book so many, "just in case it's convenient" ADRs, this first time family would have a character meal available to them. Is it really about the first timers or is it about those who want to continue to book their "just in case" ADRs, w/o fear of penalty?
With regards to the time frame that so many say is their chief objection to the new policy, I completely understand that. Many have suggested 3 hours is sufficient enough. I don't necessarily disagree with that, and I'd bet many of the powers that be at Disney don't disagree either. But as has been mentioned before in this thread...it would work for lunch and dinner, but is a real problem for breakfast ADRs. I'm sure they didn't want different time frames for different meals. That would definitely be too confusing. So it's likely that they went with 24 hours just so that they could have a clear and uniform time frame for all meals.
They're probably regretting the 24 hr. window getting out in advance, esp. if they're reading this thread.
They should have leaked a 48 hr. window & compromised with 24.
