Disney bans kids from restaurant!!!

[jenm2878]

I do understand that there are plenty of parents out there that don't manage their kids in restaurants (I've seen them ), but I also know that there are plenty of kids out there that can handle the nicer restaurants and behave appropriately (I've seen them too ).

Unfortunately it's the few rotten apples thing. I've seen my share of well behaved children as well as some that are over the top misbehaving. I have no problem with kids in nice restaurants if they can handle it, and if Disney had a better policy for removing disruptive people of all ages.

My 3yr old niece is a very calm kid and can sit there for hours coloring - she's always been great in restaurants. My other niece 2.5 can't sit still for more then 10 minutes - she'd be one of the running/crawling/shrieking kids. Unfortunately not every parent is willing to accept that their kid has limits to what they can handle. It's these same people that think their right to have dinner trumps the comfort level of everyone around them. Common courtesy seems to be dying.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Yeah me too but for a different reason. 2-3 families per month hardly like a good reason for a new policy.

I'm sure more noise was made by the people that were outraged to even see children at V&A than the few kids that were actually there.

But we don't know that-do we? It seems to me that everyone is quick to make the people who want a child-free or at least a less disruptive dining experience into the Blue Meanies. If those 2 to 3 families were the kind that allow their kids to tantrum, race around tables and generally disrupt the experience than that just might have been enough.

Disney is all about maximizing profit and there is no way they're throwing back $150 unless they've got a really good reason. I'm sure they'd much rather have the $450 for Mommy, Daddy and Darling 3 year old than just get the $300 for Mommy and Daddy alone. There's no way they are doing this unless they know it won't hurt them in the wallet.

 

[jrmasm]

But we don't know that-do we? It seems to me that everyone is quick to make the people who want a child-free or at least a less disruptive dining experience into the Blue Meanies. If those 2 to 3 families were the kind that allow their kids to tantrum, race around tables and generally disrupt the experience than that just might have been enough.

Disney is all about maximizing profit and there is no way they're throwing back $150 unless they've got a really good reason. I'm sure they'd much rather have the $450 for Mommy, Daddy and Darling 3 year old than just get the $300 for Mommy and Daddy alone. There's no way they are doing this unless they know it won't hurt them in the wallet.

I honestly don't think that the policy has anything to do with V&A. I think that was an easy first step and I don't like the direction that I think they're headed. I do believe that we will see this policy instituted for more restaraunts in the future.

I am more than willing to admit that there are plenty of unruly kids in restaruants. I don't like it any more than anyone else. But let's be honest and admit that there are plenty of adults that are put out by the mere presence of children as well.

 

[Jennasis]

Now this is just silly. Of course Disney is a "familly park" (though it seems when most people say "family" they mena "kids". My DH and I are a family). But there are a lot of places where Disney does not allow children...many of the tours, scuba diving, Richard Petty, parasailing etc. And Disney has a great many places where adults aren't welcome (the numerous kids clubs). So why can't we have an adults only time at a restaurant?

Of course my family (remember just me and DH) expect to see lots of kids at Disney. But why can't I EXPECT to see lots of well behaved kids? I can't..

We wouldn't even be discussing this if parents would just step up and parent AND Disney hadn't set a precedence with their cruise ship.

 

[jenm2878]

I honestly don't think that the policy has anything to do with V&A. I think that was an easy first step and I don't like the direction that I think they're headed. I do believe that we will see this policy instituted for more restaraunts in the future.

On our last trip my DH and I were commenting that they seem to be removing more and more 'adult friendly' things in place of kids things. Maybe this is a step towards making it more 'even?' WDW is a multigenerational place. If everything revolves around kids, less adults will show up in general. (with and without kids) If all WS restaurants became character dining (Norway), every empty spot becomes a character meet and greet, and every slightly educational attraction becomes centered around a cartoon (Crush) you can bet that there will be a drop in attendance.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

 

[JR6ooo4]

On our last trip my DH and I were commenting that they seem to be removing more and more 'adult friendly' things in place of kids things. Maybe this is a step towards making it more 'even?' WDW is a multigenerational place. If everything reveloves around kids, less adults will show up in general. (with and without kids) If all WS restaurants became character dining (Norway) and every slightly educational attraction becomes centered around a cartoon (Crush) you can bet that there will be a drop in attendance.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

But when you have more adult friendly places you will find more of those "over 21" kids who might drink a little too much. I have seen a few staggering around epcot...

Mikeeee

 

[jenm2878]

Like I said, there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

 

[jrmasm]

Like I said, there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

I agree with you but don't think more rules are the answer. I think more tolerance of each other is the way to go.

 

[jenm2878]

I agree with you but don't think more rules are the answer. I think more tolerance of each other is the way to go.

I agree that we all need to be more tolerant, but people also need to be more considerate. I'm not one that's upset by the 'mere sight of a child,' but I am upset if a child is running around, climbing things, screaming, hitting, throwing food, biting, etc., and the parent does nothing.

 

[jrmasm]

I agree that we all need to be more tolerant, but people also need to be more considerate. I'm not one that's upset by the 'mere sight of a child,' but I am upset if a child is running around, climbing things, screaming, hitting, throwing food, biting, etc., and the parent does nothing.

Me too but that doesn't mean that children shouldn't be allowed in restaruants. Heck I bet I'm probably too easily annoyed by bad behavior because I'm busting my rear to make sure mine are behaving. There are plenty of times that it's not easy and my dinner is ruined so that yours isn't.

Parents need to parent and when they aren't, if the staff receives a sufficient number of complaints, they should address it with the offenders. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Hixski]

I think something no one is thinking about is how children in V&A can affect their rating. V&A is a AAA 5-diamond rated restaurant. I'm know the reviewers do not announce they are coming to rate you. I think something may have happened recently that could have affected their rating (ie a child under 10 misbehaving). That is something that could affect knocking them down a notch. It does not matter if there are supposedly only 2 to 3 families a month. If a reviewer came when a family was there and the children were acting up (or not dressed appropriately) that would not look good. It takes away from the ambiance. Disney does not want to lose their rating either.

This move could have happened for a number of reasons but I think the above could be one of them. JMHO.

 

[Jennasis]

Seems pretty simple to me.

Yes...it does, in theory. But it isn't, in reality. If Disney would toss people out who are disruptive (they'd NEVER do it). If all parents would demand correct behavior from their kids (they don't).

If, if, if...

So what do we do? V&A's is a start (not the start I had hoped for, but a start).

 

[Camicar]

I am in favor of it.

When I get dressed up and pay that kind of money, I don't even want to take the chance of having that experience (which for me would be something I could afford to do once every 5 years) ruined. I want a nice experience from start to finish. I don't want to have to endure even one minute of some kid shrieking or throwing stuff. Not one minute at a place like V&A. I don't have the same expectations at a family restaurant. But V&A is not a family restaurant.

Unfortunately, too many parents today do not parent their children and thus such rules are necessary.

 

[jrmasm]

Is it really so hard to understand that the presumption of guilt simply because you have a child in your party is a little tiresome?

 

[Jennasis]

Not at all. I understand your frustration. But you don't seem to understand ours.

It only takes a couple of bad apples to spoil it for the bunch. So very true. Would you REALLY be that inconvenienced if you couldn't go to one restaurant out of 96 on one or two nights after 8pm during an entire week?

While I am not inconvenienced by children, it would be nice to have the option of dining without screaming infants or burnt out toddlers or spoiled kids once in a while.

 

[Bob Slydell]

I don't see any problem with this new policy. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have one restaurant on property to be set aside for truly fine dining. My kids are really good at restaurants, but it would never even cross my mind to take them to V&A's. Not only would they not enjoy it, my wife and I wouldn't fully enjoy the experience either. And for that kind of $$, we prefer to be able to sit and relax through the meal.

 

[jrmasm]

Not at all. I understand your frustration. But you don't seem to understand ours.

It only takes a couple of bad apples to spoil it for the bunch. So very true. Would you REALLY be that inconvenienced if you couldn't go to one restaurant out of 96 on one or two nights after 8pm during an enite week?

I do understand your frustration. I experience it as well both when my children are with me and when they're not.

I would not be inconvenienced by restricting later ADR times because we chose to eat at earlier times but I also don't think that is a pratical solution.


Look, I have no problem with V&A being restrictive. I'm too cheap to take myself there let alone bring my children. If they made the move to preserve their 5 star rating, I really don't have an issue with that reasoning. But I am concerned that this will become the policy at other Disney restaruants.

 

[jenm2878]

I guess what tweaks my butt about this whole argument is that when people say that we should be more tolerant, (not refering to anyone in particular) they only mean the people without kids. Why is it such an over the top expectation that parents take their kid out of situations that the kids can clearly not handle? Why should I tolerate the screaming when you won't tolerate my wanting a somewhat quiet dinner? It just seems awfully one sided and the quiet dinner people are suddenly turned into child haters who shouldn't bother going to WDW.

 

[lilyv]

I do understand your frustration. I experience it as well both when my children are with me and when they're not.

I would not be inconvenienced by restricting later ADR times because we chose to eat at earlier times but I also don't think that is a pratical solution.


Look, I have no problem with V&A being restrictive. I'm too cheap to take myself there let alone bring my children. If they made the move to preserve their 5 star rating, I really don't have an issue with that reasoning. But I am concerned that this will become the policy at other Disney restaruants.

I don't think you need to worry that this is a policy that will spread. V&A is a unique, special case. It really isn't a restaurant for children, period. (Of course, this is just my opinion....)

I have seen kids do fine in Jiko's, Flying Fish among others.

 

[Jennasis]

I probably should qualify my opinion a bit. We NEVER (well rarely) go to the signature restaurants. V&A's is WAY out of my budget and the menu is about as appealing to me as a root canal. Part of why we generally don't go to the "nicer" restaurants is that we don't like the idea of paying a ton of money, and part of it is paying a ton of money to have it potentially ruined by the shriekers, the runners, the fighter etc. So we almost always stick to the very kid-friendly places like Primetime, Sci-fi, LTT, Boma. This way we expect a touch of rowdiness and aren't surprised or offended when it happens.

On our honeymoon, DH and I went to the Yachstman Steakhouse for a delicious and pricey dinner. We were treated like royalty and recieved several apologies from the staff in regards to the screaming infant two tables over. Then their was the kid complaining that he was bored...

Same trip we had a raucous good time at Chef-Mickeys, where we delighted in watching the kiddos streak from one end of the restaurant to the other, bumping into our table while playing with Pluto and screeching like banshees.