Car capacity at Sci-Fi

[Micca]

After getting an ADR for Sci-Fi our party size increased by one adult. I'm checking for ADRs for our group (4 adults/2 kids) but I'm wondering if our original party of 5 would be taking up the same space a party of six would anyway. In other words, if I can't get an ADR for 6 will one of us be turned away? If so, I'm willing to go grab some CS lunch and let the others take the Sci-Fi ADR, I was just curious. It's been a long time since we've eaten there and I can't remember how many people those cars can seat. I know there are tables too so maybe that's a possibility.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Depending on the age of the kids, they could seat you 3 across. Not a sure thing, but if the kids are small, possible.

 

[Minsc]

It's likely that if you have an ADR for 5, you will be taking up an entire car anyway. The standard cars have three seats and they generally assume two per seat. They won't sit a random person with your 5th (the elusive Sci-Fi single rider line...), so I'm feeling pretty good about your chances.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

ADR numbers aren't based solely on table space, but also occupancy limits. You CAN be turned away, and WILL be if you would push the venue over it's occupancy limits. You might get lucky, but I wouldn't count on getting an extra person seated, because it often doesn't happen.

 

[Micca]

if the kids are small, possible.

They're 4 & 5 year old girls, pretty small still.

You CAN be turned away, and WILL be if you would push the venue over it's occupancy limits.

Good point, hadn't thought of that. I'll keep trying to find an ADR for 6, if we get there and they can't accomodate I'll just go grab some CS. The Sci Fi is mostly for the DGDs. Thanks all!

 

[DISNEY1975]

A car holds 6, 2 per row unless you have 3 very small kids. My husband and daughter were in the first row, I in the second alone and a random couple behind me. (I was taking the picture, so my row is empty in the picture)

 

[rcraw45425]

Have you tried the turning plans dining finder? It's a legal service, all it does is check for an ADR for your date, time frame and party size. They text you if they find one, you click the link and can book it. I've had luck with 'Ohana and Be Our Guest lunch several times with it

 

[Lisa F]

I would give it a try. Restaurants are designed for the occupancy based on the number of seats so keeping an empty seat vs. filling it will not send anyone over the occupancy limit... they have to have enough exiting for a worst case scenario, which is a butt in every seat. In this case you are not pulling up an extra chair or two at a table designed for a smaller party, just completely filling a table vs. partially filling it.

A party of 5 would be allocated for an entire car ANYWAY so it should not be a problem at all for them to seat you. If you had a party of 4 and wanted to go up to a party of 5 it would be a problem but a party of 5 to a party of 6 should be ok. So while it may be the "letter of the law" that they don't HAVE to seat you with the extra adult, the scenario you describe would literally cost them nothing to accommodate and I can't imagine why they wouldn't, unless someone has a major bug up their butt... but I find in GENERAL that Disney CMs prefer to make magic rather than destroy it. Of course keep trying for the 6 and it sounds like you are prepared for a worst case scenario but I think it is not that likely that you'd be turned away. In my experience people on these boards get a lot more worked up about the rules than Disney CMs do

You can also look for an individual part of 1 or 2 as well, i'm sure they would be willing to seat you with your party rather than take up a whole separate row in another table for just one person as well and maybe some lucky walk-up part of 2 can get some pixie dust

 

[Lisa F]

ADR numbers aren't based solely on table space, but also occupancy limits. You CAN be turned away, and WILL be if you would push the venue over it's occupancy limits. You might get lucky, but I wouldn't count on getting an extra person seated, because it often doesn't happen.

I don't think that's true. Whenever someone asks HERE there are tons of people who say oh no, don't ask, disney won't accommodate. But whenever I have actually seen a firsthand report by someone who has tried, most of the time they are accommodated. There was a thread once about someone in a large party who had been accommodated over and over and over again with an extra 2 people in their large party, pretty much at every restaurant they went to. They came back here to complain that they did not get a prime table at Rose and Crown though with the two extra people, which was a pretty interesting thread. I think Rusty Scupper, who is pretty in the know about such things, has said that it is easier to go from an odd number to an even number than an even number to an odd because you are already sitting at a table with that number of seats... but you will probably be turned away if you need a larger table to accommodate your party because there's just no reasonable way to do it without inconveniencing another party. I think for the most part common sense prevails in these kinds of situations. There is no logical reason to not seat 6 people at a 6 top even if only 5 people were on the original reservation.

There ARE some restaurants (notably 'Ohana) where they DO have 3-tops so you can't automatically assume a table for 4 would be the same as a table for 3... but if there is an extra seat at your assigned table, Disney would rather sell another meal than leave it empty.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

I don't think that's true. Whenever someone asks HERE there are tons of people who say oh no, don't ask, disney won't accommodate. But whenever I have actually seen a firsthand report by someone who has tried, most of the time they are accommodated. There was a thread once about someone in a large party who had been accommodated over and over and over again with an extra 2 people in their large party, pretty much at every restaurant they went to. They came back here to complain that they did not get a prime table at Rose and Crown though with the two extra people, which was a pretty interesting thread. I think Rusty Scupper, who is pretty in the know about such things, has said that it is easier to go from an odd number to an even number than an even number to an odd because you are already sitting at a table with that number of seats... but you will probably be turned away if you need a larger table to accommodate your party because there's just no reasonable way to do it without inconveniencing another party. I think for the most part common sense prevails in these kinds of situations. There is no logical reason to not seat 6 people at a 6 top even if only 5 people were on the original reservation.

There ARE some restaurants (notably 'Ohana) where they DO have 3-tops so you can't automatically assume a table for 4 would be the same as a table for 3... but if there is an extra seat at your assigned table, Disney would rather sell another meal than leave it empty.

It's 100% true. They cannot exceed the occupancy limits of the restaurant, period. The fire marshal would shut them down, and there would be a large fine to pay. It's been pointed out here over and over by dining CMs.

Someone getting lucky with it doesn't negate that.

 

[wilkeliza]

A 5 reservstion could be filled at one of the picnic tables in the back (i think they sit 4s and 5s there) so that's why a 5 group may not get a car. Again the restaurant does have to deal with capacity so yes in theory your family might fit at the table you were given but that doesn't account for people who may be shoving 3 in a row when the count is for 2.

I'll mention I've only been denied at Be Our Guest. We were flat out told no once and the second time we tried they begrudgingly said yes but that it would make our wait for a table go up significantly.

 

[Lisa F]

It's 100% true. They cannot exceed the occupancy limits of the restaurant, period. The fire marshal would shut them down, and there would be a large fine to pay. It's been pointed out here over and over by dining CMs.

Someone getting lucky with it doesn't negate that.

It may have been pointed out over and over but not by someone who understands how occupancy works.

Occupancy is related to one thing - the ability of people to exit the building in case of a fire. The occupancy of a restaurant will not be lower than the worst case scenario of having a person in every seat + calculations made for wait and kitchen staff plus managers based on the size of the restaurant and the size of the kitchen. You design your restaurant and then you design your exiting so you can get everyone out... or if you start with an existing space and can't modify the exiting then you design your space to hold as many people as you safely can. By "exiting" I mean how big not only the exit doors are but also the PATH to that door is as well as maximum distance to an exit from any given point in the restaurant. Disney did not design a xxx seat restaurant so that they are breaking fire codes if more than say 80% of xxx seats are filled. These restaurants are designed to be filled. You are not going to have the fire marshal come shut you down because you are utilizing your entire capacity. That would be an incredibly stupid and inefficient way to design a building.

This is something else I see here all the time from participants here who speak it like gospel but without an understanding about how it works. No you cannot legally or ethnically overload a space beyond capacity... but exiting from spaces are designed to handle a worst case scenario of being utilized at 100%. The only times this is really an issue is when you are calculating standing room in some place like a club or even a theater, because you allocate a certain number of square footage to people standing that is more than they actually occupy and can basically pack people in like sardines and be in a situation where you can't get everyone out in case of a fire. In fact, fires at nightclubs were always the precipitating incidents for major changes in fire codes. Restaurants are pretty easy because there is a straightforward way to calculate the number of occupants. There is no way that having 6 people at a table designed to hold 6 is going to put you over the occupancy limit for the restaurant. Maybe there is some scenario where every seat IS completely filled and every last occupant is accounted for when adding together with the staff and if you have to grab chairs from somewhere else and add seats you would go over your limit. It's not likely but I suppose it is possible.

What you say just plain makes no sense. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare if the safety of people at Disney depended entirely on restaurant staff maintaining a head count of the number of people in a restaurant at any given and started turning people away at some fraction of the total capacity of the restaurant? If people show up or linger longer... this is a moving target. It makes zero sense for them to have to do that. Rather there are a certain number of seats in the restaurant and they fill them up as much as they can because the building is designed to safely exit that many people... and empty seats in a restaurant is money not being made. If you're squeezing in more tables or adding more seats in the aisle and impeding exiting ability in case of an emergency by squeezing down an exit path by putting obstructions in its way, that is an entirely different thing (the width of aisles are set by the number of people who must use it to get out of the building in a certain amount of time). But putting a 6th body in a car decided to hold 6 bodies is not going to warrant a citation from the fire marshal.

Just because someone repeats something they have read on the boards over and over does not make it true. it just makes it much repeated.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

It may have been pointed out over and over but not by someone who understands how occupancy works.

Occupancy is related to one thing - the ability of people to exit the building in case of a fire. The occupancy of a restaurant will not be lower than the worst case scenario of having a person in every seat + calculations made for wait and kitchen staff plus managers based on the size of the restaurant and the size of the kitchen. You design your restaurant and then you design your exiting so you can get everyone out... or if you start with an existing space and can't modify the exiting then you design your space to hold as many people as you safely can. By "exiting" I mean how big not only the exit doors are but also the PATH to that door is as well as maximum distance to an exit from any given point in the restaurant. Disney did not design a xxx seat restaurant so that they are breaking fire codes if more than say 80% of xxx seats are filled. These restaurants are designed to be filled. You are not going to have the fire marshal come shut you down because you are utilizing your entire capacity. That would be an incredibly stupid and inefficient way to design a building.

This is something else I see here all the time from participants here who speak it like gospel but without an understanding about how it works. No you cannot legally or ethnically overload a space beyond capacity... but exiting from spaces are designed to handle a worst case scenario of being utilized at 100%. The only times this is really an issue is when you are calculating standing room in some place like a club or even a theater, because you allocate a certain number of square footage to people standing that is more than they actually occupy and can basically pack people in like sardines and be in a situation where you can't get everyone out in case of a fire. In fact, fires at nightclubs were always the precipitating incidents for major changes in fire codes. Restaurants are pretty easy because there is a straightforward way to calculate the number of occupants. There is no way that having 6 people at a table designed to hold 6 is going to put you over the occupancy limit for the restaurant. Maybe there is some scenario where every seat IS completely filled and every last occupant is accounted for when adding together with the staff and if you have to grab chairs from somewhere else and add seats you would go over your limit. It's not likely but I suppose it is possible.

What you say just plain makes no sense. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare if the safety of people at Disney depended entirely on restaurant staff maintaining a head count of the number of people in a restaurant at any given and started turning people away at some fraction of the total capacity of the restaurant? If people show up or linger longer... this is a moving target. It makes zero sense for them to have to do that. Rather there are a certain number of seats in the restaurant and they fill them up as much as they can because the building is designed to safely exit that many people... and empty seats in a restaurant is money not being made. If you're squeezing in more tables or adding more seats in the aisle and impeding exiting ability in case of an emergency by squeezing down an exit path by putting obstructions in its way, that is an entirely different thing (the width of aisles are set by the number of people who must use it to get out of the building in a certain amount of time). But putting a 6th body in a car decided to hold 6 bodies is not going to warrant a citation from the fire marshal.

Just because someone repeats something they have read on the boards over and over does not make it true. it just makes it much repeated.

I understand how occupancy works, so do the Disney CM's commenting here. A Fire Marshall can and WILL fine and shut down an establishment for being even one person over the stated occupancy of the space.
And, AGAIN this has been addressed over and over. Disney maxes occupancy of their restaurants QUITE frequently, and DOES turn people away as a result. I have watched it play out personally at Ohana. People get turned away all the time because there just isn't room for them. Disney in fact DOES maintain a head count of how many people are occupying a restaurant at any given time via there reservation tracking system. It's quite simple to do really.They turn people away if they would push that head count over the occupancy limit.

What you choose to believe is your business. I am done arguing about this.

 

[Lisa F]

I understand how occupancy works, so do the Disney CM's commenting here. A Fire Marshall can and WILL fine and shut down an establishment for being even one person over the stated occupancy of the space.
And, AGAIN this has been addressed over and over. Disney maxes occupancy of their restaurants QUITE frequently, and DOES turn people away as a result. I have watched it play out personally at Ohana. People get turned away all the time because there just isn't room for them. Disney in fact DOES maintain a head count of how many people are occupying a restaurant at any given time via there reservation tracking system. It's quite simple to do really.They turn people away if they would push that head count over the occupancy limit.

What you choose to believe is your business. I am done arguing about this.

What I choose to believe is based on reality and a master's degree and a couple of decades in the business. No one designs a building with a maximum occupancy that is SMALLER than the number of people who are realistically going to be using the space. For a restaurant that means that maxing out seating capacity is not going to put you out of code compliance for building occupancy. How stupid would that be, to basically cut short a few inches of exiting capacity and count on not having your restaurant seats filled? Seating capacity is completely different than building occupancy and unless you are retrofitting an old space and trying to cram a much greater occupancy in there than what it was originally designed for, things are not designed to the point where one person is going to become a safety hazard. It's bad design practice and it's bad building practice. If the restaurant has 100 seats it will not be designed for a maximum occupancy of 80 or even 100 taking into account staff. It will be designed for 100 + staff + waiting area + extra for what happens if a few more people are milling around + storage + ancillary spaces (both of which have occupancies assigned to them even though no one is truly occupying a storage closet). By your logic someone even walking in and walking up to the podium and ASKING about availability would put the restaurant over capacity and if the fire marshal walked in at THAT moment and barred the doors and took a head count they would be out of compliance... because yes, the lobby is part of the building and yes it counts toward maximum occupancy and you do not have to be sitting in a restaurant seat to count as a building occupant. What if someone walks in to use the bathroom and doesn't plan to stay? Yep, that's an occupant too. What you are saying just plain makes no sense in any real world scenario.

As I said, I can see if Disney will not allow people to pull up extra chairs and overload tables because it will shrink aisles not just for service but for exiting (which is not safe). And I can see that Disney will not allow you to upgrade to a larger table because they have tables allocated to other parties as part of their reservation system and that is absolutely not fair to people who are holding later reservations. But if you are holding a table for 6 and only have 5 bodies to put in it, they would be nuts to turn away a 6th body and the revenue their meal would generate. Doesn't mean it can't happen and it doesn't mean that a manager might not use the occupancy argument to turn away someone who wants to turn their party of 8 into a part of 10 or something just so that they don't have to argue, but that is plain not how occupancy works. Occupancy will never be lower than realistic capacity of a space and is usually higher. So you will not have an occupancy of 250 for a 300 seat theater, and you will not have an occupancy of 80 for a 100 seat restaurant. If there is a legitimate seat at the legitimate table for someone, the space is designed for it to be occupied, and for those occupants to be able to exit safely and in a timely manner in case of a fire.

 

[wilkeliza]

What I choose to believe is based on reality and a master's degree and a couple of decades in the business. No one designs a building with a maximum occupancy that is SMALLER than the number of people who are realistically going to be using the space. For a restaurant that means that maxing out seating capacity is not going to put you out of code compliance for building occupancy. How stupid would that be, to basically cut short a few inches of exiting capacity and count on not having your restaurant seats filled? Seating capacity is completely different than building occupancy and unless you are retrofitting an old space and trying to cram a much greater occupancy in there than what it was originally designed for, things are not designed to the point where one person is going to become a safety hazard. It's bad design practice and it's bad building practice. If the restaurant has 100 seats it will not be designed for a maximum occupancy of 80 or even 100 taking into account staff. It will be designed for 100 + staff + waiting area + extra for what happens if a few more people are milling around. By your logic someone even walking in and walking up to the podium and ASKING about availability would put the restaurant over capacity and if the fire marshal walked in at THAT moment and barred the doors and took a head count they would be out of compliance... because yes, the lobby is part of the building and yes it counts toward maximum occupancy and you do not have to be sitting in a seat to count as a building occupant, as long as you are inside the building. What if someone walks in to use the bathroom and doesn't plan to stay? Yep, that's an occupant too. What you are saying just plain makes no sense in any real world scenario.

As I said, I can see if Disney will not allow people to pull up extra chairs and overload tables because it will shrink aisles not just for service but for exiting (which is not safe). And I can see that Disney will not allow you to upgrade to a larger table because they have tables allocated to other parties as part of their reservation system. But if you are holding a table for 6 and only have 5 bodies to put in it, they would be nuts to turn away a 6th body and the revenue their meal would generate. Doesn't mean it can't happen and it doesn't mean that a manager might not use the occupancy argument to turn away someone who wants to turn their party of 8 into a part of 10 or something just so that they don't have to argue, but that is plain not how occupancy works.

The thing is we don't know how Disney accounted for occupancy at Sci-Fi. Is it 2 per a car bench or is it 3. If it is 3 then yeah shouldn't be an issue. If it is 2 then they start to get overcrowded as soon as they say it is okay to squeeze a 3rd person (usually a kid) into a car bench. I've only ever seen the benches with 2 but someone here suggested squeezing 3 per a bench.

Occupancy really isn't that hard to deal with at Disney. Sci-Fi doesn't have a bar so all they have to do is check people in at their actual party number and they will have a good head count of how many people are actually in the restaurant and and idea of the waiting area.

Of course occupancy isn't the only reason you may be turned away at any restaurant. Wait staff, kitchen load, etc are all reasons they may turn away an extra guest. Yes for your table it is only 1 more person but if a good percentage of people show up with their "local cousin on a surprise day stop" then it isn't just 1 extra person any more it is 20-30 each turn which drastically affects the kitchen.

Some restaurants also have odd table tops so even going from 3 to 4 or 5 to 6 may not work because your odd number was the max capacity for the table you were assigned and if the restaurant is at full capacity they can't just take you to a bigger table or add a chair.

 

[Lisa F]

The thing is we don't know how Disney accounted for occupancy at Sci-Fi. Is it 2 per a car bench or is it 3. If it is 3 then yeah shouldn't be an issue. If it is 2 then they start to get overcrowded as soon as they say it is okay to squeeze a 3rd person (usually a kid) into a car bench. I've only ever seen the benches with 2 but someone here suggested squeezing 3 per a bench.

Occupancy really isn't that hard to deal with at Disney. Sci-Fi doesn't have a bar so all they have to do is check people in at their actual party number and they will have a good head count of how many people are actually in the restaurant and and idea of the waiting area.

Of course occupancy isn't the only reason you may be turned away at any restaurant. Wait staff, kitchen load, etc are all reasons they may turn away an extra guest. Yes for your table it is only 1 more person but if a good percentage of people show up with their "local cousin on a surprise day stop" then it isn't just 1 extra person any more it is 20-30 each turn which drastically affects the kitchen.

Some restaurants also have odd table tops so even going from 3 to 4 or 5 to 6 may not work because your odd number was the max capacity for the table you were assigned and if the restaurant is at full capacity they can't just take you to a bigger table or add a chair.

We do know how disney calculated it, because it is dictated by building codes. Occupancy is related to one thing and one thing only... getting people OUT of the building safely and quickly in case of a fire. Occupancy is allocated not just to spaces where people tend to congregate, but also to storage and bathrooms and ancillary spaces and lobbies etc. Architects pretty much will design something to reasonably fit the number of people who are going to be using it... and for a restaurant that is not just diners but also waiters, managers, food delivery people, people waiting in the lobby, people coming in to use the bathroom and not stay for a meal, people coming in to look at the menu. Even if every seat is filled (which is never the case, at least some number of tables are always in some state of being turned over since Disney staggers seatings and doesn't just suddenly seat an entire restaurant full of people at one time) you are not going to be in danger of going over occupancy. It's just not how things are designed. Not only would a restaurant lose money designing their restaurant for some number short of 100% capacity, a building inspector would never allow a business to out of its own moral sense purposely keep their capacity low to meet occupancy. It makes no sense and enforcement would be a nightmare. The time this is really hard to enforce is in bars and nightclubs where there is a set square footage per person that is accounted for to calculate occupancy but you can actually cram a lot more people in as everyone is standing. At that point yes, for safety reasons they do have someone keeping an accurate head count at all times (which is why you have lines outside of these places). There is also a reason that fires at nightclubs are so devastating - because if they go over occupancy and there is a fire you just cannot move that volume of people out of the building in a reasonable amount of time. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a restaurant that was designed and built from scratch by disney for the purpose of being a restaurant.

 

[wilkeliza]

We do know how disney calculated it, because it is dictated by building codes. Occupancy is related to one thing and one thing only... getting people OUT of the building safely and quickly in case of a fire. Occupancy is allocated not just to spaces where people tend to congregate, but also to storage and bathrooms and ancillary spaces and lobbies etc. Architects pretty much will design something to reasonably fit the number of people who are going to be using it... and for a restaurant that is not just diners but also waiters, managers, food delivery people, people waiting in the lobby, people coming in to use the bathroom and not stay for a meal, people coming in to look at the menu. Even if every seat is filled (which is never the case, at least some number of tables are always in some state of being turned over since Disney staggers seatings and doesn't just suddenly seat an entire restaurant full of people at one time) you are not going to be in danger of going over occupancy. It's just not how things are designed. Not only would a restaurant lose money designing their restaurant for some number short of 100% capacity, a building inspector would never allow a business to out of its own moral sense purposely keep their capacity low to meet occupancy. It makes no sense and enforcement would be a nightmare. The time this is really hard to enforce is in bars and nightclubs where there is a set square footage per person that is accounted for to calculate occupancy but you can actually cram a lot more people in as everyone is standing. At that point yes, for safety reasons they do have someone keeping an accurate head count at all times (which is why you have lines outside of these places). There is also a reason that fires at nightclubs are so devastating - because if they go over occupancy and there is a fire you just cannot move that volume of people out of the building in a reasonable amount of time. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a restaurant that was designed and built from scratch by disney for the purpose of being a restaurant.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Clearly you just aren't getting it. There are indeed times that Disney has all tables full at a restaurant. A turn over take 2 minutes tops and during the summers and Christmas break in that 2 minutes it is a family walking to the table while a family walks away from it. Leaving tables empty for any significant amount of time is not great for a restaurant.

Again with the tables yes you family of 5 may be set at a 6 top but if a family who came early of say 8 was allowed to fit in an extra person for 9 then in fact your 1 person could indeed put them over the fire code because they were only planning for you to have 5 so already allowed another head based on the reservation system telling them they could let 1 more guest in. They wouldn't necessarily need to put the person into the isle because they just squeezed in but now what you assume is your free 1 person for the count actually is already taken.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Clearly you just aren't getting it. There are indeed times that Disney has all tables full at a restaurant. A turn over take 2 minutes tops and during the summers and Christmas break in that 2 minutes it is a family walking to the table while a family walks away from it. Leaving tables empty for any significant amount of time is not great for a restaurant.

Again with the tables yes you family of 5 may be set at a 6 top but if a family who came early of say 8 was allowed to fit in an extra person for 9 then in fact your 1 person could indeed put them over the fire code because they were only planning for you to have 5 so already allowed another head based on the reservation system telling them they could let 1 more guest in. They wouldn't necessarily need to put the person into the isle because they just squeezed in but now what you assume is your free 1 person for the count actually is already taken.

THIS! you get it!

 

[eeyoreandtink]

We do know how disney calculated it, because it is dictated by building codes. Occupancy is related to one thing and one thing only... getting people OUT of the building safely and quickly in case of a fire. Occupancy is allocated not just to spaces where people tend to congregate, but also to storage and bathrooms and ancillary spaces and lobbies etc. Architects pretty much will design something to reasonably fit the number of people who are going to be using it... and for a restaurant that is not just diners but also waiters, managers, food delivery people, people waiting in the lobby, people coming in to use the bathroom and not stay for a meal, people coming in to look at the menu. Even if every seat is filled (which is never the case, at least some number of tables are always in some state of being turned over since Disney staggers seatings and doesn't just suddenly seat an entire restaurant full of people at one time) you are not going to be in danger of going over occupancy. It's just not how things are designed. Not only would a restaurant lose money designing their restaurant for some number short of 100% capacity, a building inspector would never allow a business to out of its own moral sense purposely keep their capacity low to meet occupancy. It makes no sense and enforcement would be a nightmare. The time this is really hard to enforce is in bars and nightclubs where there is a set square footage per person that is accounted for to calculate occupancy but you can actually cram a lot more people in as everyone is standing. At that point yes, for safety reasons they do have someone keeping an accurate head count at all times (which is why you have lines outside of these places). There is also a reason that fires at nightclubs are so devastating - because if they go over occupancy and there is a fire you just cannot move that volume of people out of the building in a reasonable amount of time. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a restaurant that was designed and built from scratch by disney for the purpose of being a restaurant.

last thing, occupancy laws and requirements vary by STATE. this isn;t the way my state sets occupancy limits. Nowhere close.

 

[disnut8]

OK - getting WELL over the occupancy thing, let's get back to the original post. OP - your party will have been in a car that seats six. Your original party was five so you would have been in a car to yourselves. Adding the sixth person will do no harm. You can get another reservation for six or you can show up with the extra person and they will more than likely be seated with you in that car.