Adding an extra person to BOG

[supersnoop]

That said, for 100% confidence in success, try to get the ADR. If every booked party showed up with +1, they'd start turning them away fairly fast.

Very true; there has been at least one post about them turning away one extra person at dinner. So, while it's probably the easiest, that doesn't make it a sure-thing.

 

[Toy Story]

Since Be Our Guest's capacity at dinner is limited by the kitchen, they have plenty of extra tables. I think it's probably one of the easiest places to show up with an extra person. At dinner. Breakfast and lunch are completely different.

That said, for 100% confidence in success, try to get the ADR. If every booked party showed up with +1, they'd start turning them away fairly fast.

Thanks fr the reply - I will keep trying for the extra reservation. I figure if there is no reservation available, and I can't be added on the night, my daughters can have a lovely meal together and I will wander the park for a while by myself.

 

[JimmyV]

Because reservations fill them to capacity at breakfast and lunch, but dinner is constrained by the kitchen's ability to keep up, rather than the number of seats. Reservations at lunch aren't based on the number of tables, but the number of chairs.

This still doesn't add up. Let's look at an example. Assume a restaurant has five tables that hold 6 people; ten tables that hold 4 people; and six tables that hold 2 people. That is a total of 82 chairs. The restaurant does not take reservations for an open seating lunch based on 82 chairs because the only way to fit exactly 82 people in the restaurant at any one time is if all the tables for 6 were occupied by 6 people, and all the tables for 4 were occupied by 4 people, and all the tables for 2 were occupied by 2 people. And it would be a whale of a coincidence for this to happen. Or, I suppose, the restaurant could fill up by having the restaurant owner separate the last groups to arrive and place diners into empty seats, sort of like a "single rider line". And we know that this does not happen. So the more likely scenario is that three of the tables that hold 6 actually have 5 people sitting at them, and the other two have 6 people. Seven of the tables that hold 4 people have 4 people seated at them and the others have 3. And five of the tables for 2 have 2 people sitting at them and the other table holds a solo diner. Under this scenario, the restaurant is "booked to capacity" but only has 75 people in it. So the question then becomes: Can a restaurant that holds 82 people, but currently has only 75 in it, seat a fourth person at a table for four that only has 3 people seated at it? And the answer is yes. Assuming that it wants to. It can always say "No" just because. But Disney rarely does that. "No"=lost revenue. And when has Disney every agreed to lost revenue?

 

[supersnoop]

This still doesn't add up. Let's look at an example. Assume a restaurant has five tables that hold 6 people; ten tables that hold 4 people; and six tables that hold 2 people. That is a total of 82 chairs. The restaurant does not take reservations for an open seating lunch based on 82 chairs because the only way to fit exactly 82 people in the restaurant at any one time is if all the tables for 6 were occupied by 6 people, and all the tables for 4 were occupied by 4 people, and all the tables for 2 were occupied by 2 people. And it would be a whale of a coincidence for this to happen. Or, I suppose, the restaurant could fill up by having the restaurant owner separate the last groups to arrive and place diners into empty seats, sort of like a "single rider line". And we know that this does not happen. So the more likely scenario is that three of the tables that hold 6 actually have 5 people sitting at them, and the other two have 6 people. Seven of the tables that hold 4 people have 4 people seated at them and the others have 3. And five of the tables for 2 have 2 people sitting at them and the other table holds a solo diner. Under this scenario, the restaurant is "booked to capacity" but only has 75 people in it. So the question then becomes: Can a restaurant that holds 82 people, but currently has only 75 in it, seat a fourth person at a table for four that only has 3 people seated at it? And the answer is yes. Assuming that it wants to. It can always say "No" just because. But Disney rarely does that. "No"=lost revenue. And when has Disney every agreed to lost revenue?

"Based on" doesn't mean "equal to." And you neglect the impact of constant turnover and inherent spacing of the reservations in your example.

 

[JimmyV]

"Based on" doesn't mean "equal to."

...which is exactly where you theory breaks down. The bottom line is that if a group of three arrives and is going to sit at a table for four and wants to add a fourth person to the group, there is nothing "operational" that prevents the restaurant from doing so. It is purely discretionary. Your earlier post implies that the reason for the refusal is operational.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

The restaurant does not take reservations for an open seating lunch based on 82 chairs

It is commonly understood that the restaurant DOES take reservations for an open seating lunch this way, though. They aren't worrying, as they do with TS, about table balance. This is also why you can book 8 people for BOG Lunch, but it's harder at most TS because of table configurations.