An Unpleasant Experience at Yak and Yeti CS

[starry_solo]

It's been a while since I ate CS at Yak & Yeti (last May), but weren't most of those tables set up for four. Maybe Disney should make them all tables for two, that way singles don't take tables for 4 up

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

@dreamer17555. I discussed this earlier, but most instances won't be nearly as extreme as your daughter's situation. This is an exception to the rule.

I'm sorry for your daughter.

______________________________
To be fair though how would you know the person is the exception to the rule? You yourself said:

I understand what you are saying. And quite frankly, I find most people don't say no, and in fact are quite friendly. But if they did say no, yes I freely admit I judge (silently) because it's just seems so odd to me. Then I move on and don't think about it again.
Until it's a topic on a message board!

I *think* that was what the other poster you were in discussion with was getting at. We can all talk about exceptions and reasons and rationales for why we are ok with someone sitting down with us at the table (which yes I've had people do before and been fine with it) and for why we are not ok with someone sitting down with us at the table on a message board but in real life you aren't asking someone (well ok there may actually people who ask why they can't sit down) for their reasoning much less in real life not everyone would even be comfortable with explaining why.

So I guess in real life for you (which again is fine it's your opinion and we all can have differing opinion so I'm not speaking towards that) you would be silently judging them without knowing if they are the exception to your rule or in other words you in real life aren't matching up with what you express on a message board is your personal feelings towards people who fit the exception to the rule because you don't know if they are the exception to your rule to begin with.

 

[verleniahall]

We experienced this at Pecos, and it was a table for 4 and we asked if we could join someone who was just sitting there and they were like, i'm just here playingon my phone becuase i'm bored...umm..........ok???? So DH and I sat across from each other and started to eat and chat and the girl was like - i'm hungry - could you spare some fries and nuggets - I was like um - no?? She got huffy and stomped off and sat at another empty table! Once she left another couple of two stopeed and asked if they could share and we were like, of course! we chatted a little, each finished and left!

I wonder if that girl ever got free food?? LOL

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It's been a while since I ate CS at Yak & Yeti (last May), but weren't most of those tables set up for four. Maybe Disney should make them all tables for two, that way singles don't take tables for 4 up

I see where you are going but then for those who need more chairs because of their traveling party now would need to either sit away from their traveling party of move the tables together which would be a hassle if the majority of people (and I'm assuming the majority of traveling parties to WDW are more than 2) have to move the tables to accommodate them.

But on the same token is a party of two taking up a table for a party of 4 any different than a restaurant that seated you in a table of 4 if you are only a table of 2? I don't know how often this truly happens at WDW due to their ADR system but I know in real life it's quite common to be seated at a table larger than your party (booths for instances aren't normally just for 2 people but are usually for 4 or more). Sometimes unfortunately the restaurant gets busy thus larger parties have less options or no options for a while of where to sit.

 

[starry_solo]

I see where you are going but then for those who need more chairs because of their traveling party now would need to either sit away from their traveling party of move the tables together which would be a hassle if the majority of people (and I'm assuming the majority of traveling parties to WDW are more than 2) have to move the tables to accommodate them.

But on the same token is a party of two taking up a table for a party of 4 any different than a restaurant that seated you in a table of 4 if you are only a table of 2? I don't know how often this truly happens at WDW due to their ADR system but I know in real life it's quite common to be seated at a table larger than your party (booths for instances aren't normally just for 2 people but are usually for 4 or more). Sometimes unfortunately the restaurant gets busy thus larger parties have less options or no options for a while of where to sit.

True but that would be TS, wouldn't it? I remember making 3 separate reservations for 1 for Akershus so we could each get our own photo packages (back when you got printed photos). We told the CM at the front we would sit together (so they could have 2 more tables for other guests) and were told that if we did that, we'd only get one photo package. So, we sat separately (which was fine), at a table for 2, table for 3, and table for 4. But we each got our own dessert tray, yummy! CRT was willing to let us sit together, but have separate photo packages

Anyhow, I figure there will always be people not happy with one set-up, one way or the other. I don't have a problem sitting next to strangers and neither does any member of my party. But I know other people are different.

OP: I suppose you could put in a suggestion card with WDW

 

[Farro]

______________________________
To be fair though how would you know the person is the exception to the rule? You yourself said:



I *think* that was what the other poster you were in discussion with was getting at. We can all talk about exceptions and reasons and rationales for why we are ok with someone sitting down with us at the table (which yes I've had people do before and been fine with it) and for why we are not ok with someone sitting down with us at the table on a message board but in real life you aren't asking someone (well ok there may actually people who ask why they can't sit down) for their reasoning much less in real life not everyone would even be comfortable with explaining why.

So I guess in real life for you (which again is fine it's your opinion and we all can have differing opinion so I'm not speaking towards that) you would be silently judging them without knowing if they are the exception to your rule or in other words you in real life aren't matching up with what you express on a message board is your personal feelings towards people who fit the exception to the rule because you don't know if they are the exception to your rule to begin with.

I just don't believe that most people have traumatic experiences and other issues when they say no. Obviously some do, but most don't.
I'm just answering people discussing me and my opinions on a message board. I'm trying to be polite actually , but yes- I'm not giving someone (who says no) the benefit of the doubt that they will have a panic attack if a stranger asks to sit with them. Will I incorrectly assume that someone is ignorant/selfish? I'm sure it has happened, but most of the time I'm willing to bet I'm right. Besides, they won't know what I'm thinking anyways, I just walk away. I'm not sure why some are taking it so personally, you will most likely never see me and if you did, you would have no idea what I was thinking.

The first person to call out my post on this thread said they don't like sitting with strangers because they don't like to share, they don't want to hear about their lives, blah, blah, blah. And I said I think that's selfish.
Everyone else came on here and started giving examples of instances where someone would say no - but those are outlier instances, not the norm.

My original stance stands - if you say no when someone is asking to share when there is nowhere else for them so sit, I will assume you are ignorant to the fact that there is no more seating. People took offense to my use of the word ignorant.
So I said if you don't want people sitting with you because you "don't like to share", don't want to make small talk", "shy" - then I think that's selfish. It's your right to say no for those reasons, but I can still have the opinion that they are selfish reasons.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

True but that would be TS, wouldn't it? I remember making 3 separate reservations for 1 for Akershus so we could each get our own photo packages (back when you got printed photos). We told the CM at the front we would sit together (so they could have 2 more tables for other guests) and were told that if we did that, we'd only get one photo package. So, we sat separately (which was fine), at a table for 2, table for 3, and table for 4. But we each got our own dessert tray, yummy! CRT was willing to let us sit together, but have separate photo packages

Anyhow, I figure there will always be people not happy with one set-up, one way or the other. I don't have a problem sitting next to strangers and neither does any member of my party. But I know other people are different.

OP: I suppose you could put in a suggestion card with WDW

On the table service part all I was doing was drawing a connection to when a host purposefully sits you down in a table larger than your party and when you willingly sit at a table larger than your party. Both occur in real life often enough.

I was basically saying it's the same thing occuring. You were proposing Disney just replace all the tables with 2 seaters to discourage singles from sitting down in 4 seaters. I was just saying there are many times that you are purposefully sat in a table in real life larger than your party needs. I'm also considering that places that aren't table service but are ones where you are sat down (like how Three Broomsticks was all the time and how Leaky Cauldron currently is) it's possible you would be sat down in a table (especially if a] it wasn't busy or b] that's all that was available) that seated more than need be. But I suppose if you willingly sat down you could blame the person and if you were purposefully put in a table larger than your group you could blame the employee who seated those people.

 

[Disneylover99]

Having everyone in line also gives those looking to join the line a realistic idea of the wait time for both ordering and receiving their food. If I see a group of 7 in front of me, I may pick another line - whereas if I see only two people in line, I might think this line will be faster. At the end of the day, it is Disney, standing in line as a group should be second nature.

I feel the opposite. I can't stand it when every single family member gets in line when one person orders the food, especially when they're all standing around by the counters after they've ordered. Maddening really. There is no room back there and people have to manoeuvre their trays around others who are unnecessarily in the way.

Plus, just because they all stand in line doesn't mean they're all going to order food. Lots of families of four might get 2 entrees to share. I'd rather have a realistic idea of how long it will take to actually order my food. I can't gage that when there are multiple people from the same party ahead of me. I'm not concerned about how many orders were ahead of mine. If the person in front of me orders 8 entrees, that's fine by me. I still might get my entrees first depending on what I ordered.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Most people don't have traumatic experiences and other things. I'm just answering people discussing me and my opinions on a message board. I'm trying to be polite actually , but yes- I'm not giving someone the benefit of the doubt that they will have a panic attack if a stranger asks to sit with them. Will I incorrectly assume that someone is ignorant/selfish? I'm sure it has happened, but most of the time I'm willing to bet I'm right.

The first person to call out my post on this thread said they don't like sitting with strangers because they don't like to share, they don't want to hear about their lives, blah, blah, blah. And I said I think that's selfish.
Everyone else came on here and started giving examples of that instances where someone would say no - but those are outlier instances.

My original stance stands - if you say no when someone is asking to share when there is nowhere else for them so sit, I will assume you are ignorant to the fact that there is no more seating. People took offense to my use of the word ignorant.
So I said if you don't want people sitting with you because you "don't like to share", don't want to make small talk", "shy" - then I think that's selfish. It's your right to say no for those reasons, but I can still have the opinion that they are selfish reasons.

Oh for sure I think those people are in the minority I'm just saying I *think* that's what the other poster was getting at. Whether it's rare or not still means you don't really know at all and are just silently judging them. Being wrong some of the time even if being right most of the time still means you are wrong some of the time.

Since you silently judge, that other person won't know that you are thinking they are ignorant or selfish so no damage is really done it's just a personal outlook on people you personally have. I think, at least, a few other posters are just implying they error on the side of caution and don't assume that everytime means the person is ignorant or selfish.

For me it's not that 'ignorant' offends me as it really doesn't but I don't really know that it would be the apt description for how I view the situation (which is the point I suppose lol ). I personally in my own life use the word ignorant rarely and sparingly.

I know you're trying to be polite, so am I and I really think other posters are as well it's just a differing viewpoint going on .

 

[Farro]

Not everyone is being polite, but it doesn't bother me.

Good talk!

 

[suevee]

What would be so bad about having your entire group standing in line next to me or anyone else?

2 autistic kids who cannot handle lines.

 

[suevee]

We do invite people to sit with us sometimes they decline sometimes we make new friends.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It makes sense to do it when needed but that fact itself should tell people that both companies (as I already mentioned) only care when they want to.

I'm sure both companies care constantly, and only act (usually) when necessary.

Posters kept saying they liked how Universal did it but I kept saying well Three Broomsticks didn't when I was there

Multiple persons having a same experience with only one person having a different experience supports the one person being the exception. The restaurants would be more crowded and need seating control on, say, July 3 than on September 18.

which means using Universal as the golden standard doesn't really hold up as Universal doesn't even police all their places all the time

Right. As needed. How busy was each venue when you were there? How many visitors were or might have Ben circling with food, unable to find a place to eat because others were holding tables?

 

[PrincessWithABlaster]

We go to Universal 3-5 times a year...more than we go to Disney. Done it for years. We eat at Leaky Cauldron and Three Broomsticks AT LEAST once every trip...sometimes multiple times per trip, especially at TB. We have NEVER, in a single trip, been allowed to seat ourselves at either restaurant. I'm a BIG fan of it being done that way. No food yet (or no receipt for food at LC), no table.

Actually I just reread this, we’ve seated ourselves twice at 3 Broomsticks and we could have sat without food too. Both times it was was 7 pm or later, they were closing down sections of the restaurant and there had to be 20 tables open. But it does happen.

 

[maxiesmom]

2 autistic kids who cannot handle lines.

Ok, I'm going to ask even though I know l'll probably regret it: How do you manage a trip to WDW without standing in any line? Even with a DAS pass you have to stand in a line. Unless you are on a MAW trip there are lines.

I'm not arguing that all autistic kids can handle lines. But there are places to wait without being in line or at a table.

 

[NYCgrrl]

So, if you ask someone if you can share their table and they say no you will ignore their response and sit down anyway?

In my experience the right question to ask is: Anyone sitting there? not May I...?
More direct and less chance for shifty eyed dissemblance and word stumbling.
The direct answer to your question is "Maybe".

I've gotten men half my age wearing sunglasses and earbuds to stop occupying 2 seats on the subway so I could sit down so figure I can handle a harried soccer mom who has been pounding the pavement for fun whilst ear piercing screechy voices have been telling her they are hungry/need to go potty or maybe both.

Paying 13 bucks per person for fast food doesn't entitle another to an hour's worth of excess table sprawl.

 

[suevee]

Ok, I'm going to ask even though I know l'll probably regret it: How do you manage a trip to WDW without standing in any line? Even with a DAS pass you have to stand in a line. Unless you are on a MAW trip there are lines.

I'm not arguing that all autistic kids can handle lines. But there are places to wait without being in line or at a table.

We do fastpass. We use the passes that let us sign in for a time to come back. Sometimes we avoid the more popular attractions. And we leave early if there is a meltdown for hotel pool.

We very carefully plan and orchestrate our trip and do a lot of role playing before we go. Also we never forget the meds which impair appetite so we use the counter service more than the expensive restaurants . And their cousins are very supportive. Be glad you do not have these issues

 

[NYCgrrl]

Sorry but I fall on the side of not wanting to share my table with strangers. I am extremely introverted and do not like talking to people I don't know/sharing my personal space with them. And yes, I could eat TS for every meal but then I'd be losing lots of hours of park time which in my opinion isn't fair to me as a paying patron. However if people who weren't eating at a dining establishment didn't linger in the seats for people paying to eat at said dining location, then none of this would be a problem.

How do you ride the bus/monorail, wait in line for a ride then? I mean really...how are you actually even in Disney World?
Something to think about the next time that excuse comes to mind.

 

[suevee]

How do you ride the bus/monorail, wait in line for a ride then? I mean really...how are you actually even in Disney World? Something to think about the next time that excuse comes to mind.

I drive most places, I pay for valet parking, never do buses. Thankfully they like the monorail and we try to go mostly off season. But now they go to school and that is not an option. Like I said sometimes we are not able to do some rides. I plan obsessively. What is your problem with this?

I am going to take advantage of every option I can find to let these kids have this experience.

 

[Farro]

I drive most places, I pay for valet parking, never do buses. Thankfully they like the monorail and we try to go mostly off season. But now they go to school and that is not an option. Like I said sometimes we are not able to do some rides. I plan obsessively. What is your problem with this?

I am going to take advantage of every option I can find to let these kids have this experience.

She was quoting another poster, not you.