King beds not available to 2 adults w/ small child?

[Sea-Donkey]

I called to request a king size bed and was told we couldn't have one since we have 3 (including our daughter) in our party. Who cares? What difference does it make? Kinda ticks me off that my request is denied over some crap blanket rule.

 

[CleveRocks]

We don't have to like it, but WDW has numerous blanket rules. Your choices are take it or leave it.

I say this in a supportive way, not a sarcastic way.

 

[karemore]

It's too bad. We would prefer a King bed for us and our toddler too, but I think it's fire code regulations or something.

Now I get to sleep in a double bed with my daughter while DH gets his own double! Oh well.

 

[IWISHFORDISNEY]

They gave us a king room with our son at AKL. Me and DS got the king and DH took the pull out sofa. And that room was a free upgrade from standard to pool view. I initially didnt want the room because it didnt have a bathtub but the view and location was so wonderful I made due with the handicap shower seat. That is kind of crazy since you are not exceeding the limit of guests that can be in a room.

 

[minnie61650]

They gave us a king room with our son at AKL. Me and DS got the king and DH took the pull out sofa. And that room was a free upgrade from standard to pool view. I initially didnt want the room because it didnt have a bathtub but the view and location was so wonderful I made due with the handicap shower seat. That is kind of crazy since you are not exceeding the limit of guests that can be in a room.

There are a few King rooms in some resorts that have a daybed. If there is a daybed and a King in the room than 3 persons can sleep there. If there is only a King bed in the room than only only 2 can sleep in the room.

The reason is the fire code will not allow 3 in that room type.

 

[shellybaxter]

They gave us a king room with our son at AKL. Me and DS got the king and DH took the pull out sofa. And that room was a free upgrade from standard to pool view. I initially didnt want the room because it didnt have a bathtub but the view and location was so wonderful I made due with the handicap shower seat. That is kind of crazy since you are not exceeding the limit of guests that can be in a room.

If that room had pull out sofa then it is could be reserved by a family with three people.

OP - I've never heard of anyone being able to reserve a King room with three people, but I have heard of at least one family asking at the front desk and having their request met

 

[Sea-Donkey]

Yeah, my wife will get the bed with the daughter...a change of the norm means the small children will want to sleep with the parents (duh!). So I'm good, but what a crappy "blanket" rule...this is a vacation destination based on children, right?

 

[typhoonlagooner]

I believe that if you have a child under the age of three who will be sleeping in a pack n play, you can "attempt" to reserve a King room. Similar to how rooms can sleep 5 (or 6) if there is a childer under 3 in a pack n play.

I don't see why having three people in a King Room is any different then sleeping 5 in a dbl/dbl room. I don't consider either a "blanket" rule.

I think if your resort does have King rooms with daybeds/trundle/pullouts you wouldn't have this issue.

On a side note...
Why are parents sharing with kids? Is it so the child doesn't have to sleep alone... or so mom or dad can get enough room to sleep comfortably? Just curious!

 

[IWISHFORDISNEY]

Aaahhh I didnt realize that some rooms have a king bed but no pull out, that would make sense then. That really is crappy though.

 

[RACHELSMOM1]

I believe that if you have a child under the age of three who will be sleeping in a pack n play, you can "attempt" to reserve a King room. Similar to how rooms can sleep 5 (or 6) if there is a childer under 3 in a pack n play.

I don't see why having three people in a King Room is any different then sleeping 5 in a dbl/dbl room. I don't consider either a "blanket" rule.

I think if your resort does have King rooms with daybeds/trundle/pullouts you wouldn't have this issue.

On a side note...
Why are parents sharing with kids? Is it so the child doesn't have to sleep alone... or so mom or dad can get enough room to sleep comfortably? Just curious!

Many parents have a family bed. Sometimes it is necessary for medical reasons, such as a child's sleep apnea. Some parents just prefer the closeness with their little ones. To each family their own...

When we go to WDW and stay at POR we share the beds with our little ones because there is more room that way - We are so used to our king size bed, so the double bed is too small for hubby and myself (we are both pooh sized adults), and after a day at the parks we just want to sleep comfortably.

 

[Cobbo]

I'm kind of curious as to which resort the OP had this problem with, b/c I know before DD2 came along, we had no problem on multiple occassions getting a King room w/a crib for DD1 (I can specifically recall being at GF in Jan 07 for 3 nights where we enjoyed such a set up b/c we put the crib in the outer part of the bathroom so it was kind of like a mini-suite for us to enjoy our marina view...) so I'm wondering if this is a recent blanket policy change, a resort limited policy, or the whole day-bed thing (b/c I don't remember if we had one or not at the GF...we probably did, since I'm fairly clueless on such things.....great, now I have to go back and look at pictures to see if we had a couch in our room)...

Okay, I'm back...and after a pleasant trip down memory lane (complete with photos)..we obviously did have a couch in our room since I have a photo of DD1 running bare a** naked from us while we ran her bath & DW snapped a photo of DD1's bare booty making a bee-line for said couch before we caught her.... FWIW, I tried posting a copy of the pic here, but don't know how the bare baby bottom thing would go over, so I've thought better of it...(and my middle of the night mental musings are pretty OT anyhow)...

 

[CleveRocks]

I'm kind of curious as to which resort the OP had this problem with, b/c I know before DD2 came along, we had no problem on multiple occassions getting a King room w/a crib for DD1 (I can specifically recall being at GF in Jan 07 for 3 nights where we enjoyed such a set up b/c we put the crib in the outer part of the bathroom so it was kind of like a mini-suite for us to enjoy our marina view...) so I'm wondering if this is a recent blanket policy change

In ANY king-bed room in WDW, you are permitted to have one child under the age of 3.

 

[bdcp]

It's probably a state law concerning occupancy. If the child is over 3, then they're not considered an infant or toddler anymore and count as a occupant who requires a bed. Regardless of how you sleep at home, there are lots of state laws all over the US concerning renting to families and how many can occupy certain size apartments/hotel rooms.

 

[disnut8]

Disney World has to have "blanket" rules (at first I thought the OP meant they could only have one blanket! - it's still early in the morning for me). If there is a local or state or federal or fire or safety or whatever regulation, Disney World HAS to follow it. Can you imagine what would happen if a fire or some other tragedy would break out and it was found that Disney World did not follow a regulation to the letter? The lawsuits would bankrupt the company.

I also believe there can be insurance audits where the insurance company will come in and make sure that all regulations are being followed. You don't follow the regulations, your policy can get pulled.

This isn't personal - it's covering your ***.

 

[ElizabethB]

Disney owns Reedy Creek Improvement District, which is the government entity where WDW is located -- and therefore Disney writes its own fire codes.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Disney owns Reedy Creek Improvement District, which is the government entity where WDW is located -- and therefore Disney writes its own fire codes.

I doubt they write their own fire codes, much too complicated to write them. They just get to decide which actual code they will implement.

 

[minnie61650]

Disney owns Reedy Creek Improvement District, which is the government entity where WDW is located -- and therefore Disney writes its own fire codes.

Even though Disney owns Reedy Creek Improvement District I do believe it does not write its own fire codes.

There are certain guidelines and regulations that even Disney must answer to.

---------------------------------------------------
Just a little FYI

Some guests think occupancy limits are solely based on room size.
The room size is not as an important issue as are the width of doorways, widths of hallways, number of stair wells, location of stairways, number of fire walls, number of stories in a building and the total number of persons in a building when determining the fire code in regard to fire access and egress.


------------------------------------------------------


Since 9/11 a lot of the fire codes are stricter especially in regards of the disabled and fire access and egress.


See this website about Resources on Emergency Evacuation and Disaster Preparedness for more info:



http://www.access-board.gov/evac.htm

There are real reasons why hotels/motels have room occupancy limits.


Have fun at Disney!

 

[skipperkim]

Not to mention, it's probably state laws not local ones. Think about it this way, it's like occupancy laws to restaurant. Breaking fire code laws in any state is expensive and not worth the potential lawsuit cost. After all, WDW is a business and is out to make a profit just like any other company.

 

[maxiesmom]

Yeah, my wife will get the bed with the daughter...a change of the norm means the small children will want to sleep with the parents (duh!). So I'm good, but what a crappy "blanket" rule...this is a vacation destination based on children, right?

Children of ALL ages! And many of us vacation at the World without little children along.

I would think the rule is in place to keep people from doing something like booking a king bedded room and then cramming 6 people into it. As the norm for sleeping is 1 or 2 in a bed, that is where they drew the line. Two people.

 

[ElizabethB]

Would anyone like to provide sources for the following assertions:

1. Even though Disney owns Reedy Creek Improvement District I do believe it does not write its own fire codes. There are certain guidelines and regulations that even Disney must answer to.

2. I doubt they write their own fire codes, much too complicated to write them. They just get to decide which actual code they will implement.

3. Not to mention, it's probably state laws not local ones. Think about it this way, it's like occupancy laws to restaurant. Breaking fire code laws in any state is expensive and not worth the potential lawsuit cost. After all, WDW is a business and is out to make a profit just like any other company.

Otherwise, all I can do is ignore them. "I do believe", "I doubt", "it's probably state laws not local ones" do nothing to convince me of anything. Give me facts, please.

It's easy to Google Reedy Creek Improvement District. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Disney. The Fire Department is owned and run by Reedy Creek and Disney (oh, all right -- people hired or controlled by Disney) writes its own fire codes. From everything I can find out, the codes are extremely stringent. Great for safety, but also helpful when one wants to very carefully control room occupancy for reasons other than safety.

I'm waiting for sources and information other than "believe" "doubt" and "probably". Persuade me with facts, please, not opinions, guesses and assumptions!