I don't agree with you at all. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I think they are trying to fix a problem that was losing them money, and upsetting a large number of guests.
I can tell you that when I went to book an ADR yesterday I was thrilled at the number of choices I had. Le Ceiller, Chef Mickey's, and The California Grill all had availability. So from where I am sitting, the fee is already healping. People are not being ADR hogs like they were in the past, which is fine by me.
The problem here is, the "solution" does not address that problem.
Guests are upset because they can't get ADRs in advance (this is a general fact, the amount of upset guests is near impossible to accurately judge though). This "solution" does not address that. ADR hoarders will still hoard. Disney may have been losing money (this hasn't been proven and is only verifiable via Disney financial records), this "solution" does help with that, but not by making any effort, simply by letting the guests duke it out. It's poorly implemented.
The availability can be for several reasons, they could very well have opened up more tables (changed planned scheduling) or it could be a result of this policy or simply the downturn in food quality is catching up. To place it all on the policy, especially when those reservations have been available without a CC hold (well, except CG, since it's had a CC hold all along kinda suggests that this policy had nothing to do with the openings) is again, illogical.
Again though, they are not fixing a problem, they are fixing the result of a bigger problem. If Disney expanded TS selections, the guests would have more locations to eat and those in demand would not be nearly as tempting to cheat the system. If Disney implemented better infrastructure on the Dining System side, those gaming the system would have far less ability to do so in the first place. Both of these would be addressing actual problems without resorting to the cheap, easy, short-sighted method of just charging the guests. Guest satisfaction would likely stay higher and Disney would make more money in the long-term (especially with increasing TS availability).
Of course, Disney has no real desire to raise availability, they'd rather have people fighting to get into the limited locations than to have a spot for most everyone, thus driving the demand down for individual restaurants. Better to keep your guests fighting each other than to actually address the issues they are fighting.
We can't have an intelligent opinion unless we have access to information not publicly available.
We have no idea if there is an issue with "losers" who hog ADRs. Not sure how the new system will help. The same "losers" can still hog ADRs, as long as they remember to cancel a calendar day in advance.
We have no idea if the issue is with the "losers" with a family member who got sick on vacation. Losers who got soaking wet and prefer to go back to their resort and change rather then dine soaking wet. Losers who are smelly sweaty and would rather go back to their resort and shower rather offend other restaurant guests with offensive BO.
We do know Disney decided to increase $$$ with dining surcharges. We do have information which suggests Disney is looking for ways to extract $$$ from dining guests. Assuming the new policy is a "money grab" is supported by looking at Disney's recent actions. Any other conclusion can only be supported by "internet facts" but nothing else.
^^ Yep.
While there's very little real evidence on either side (since none of us are privy to the actual numbers and statistics), taking this along with the other bottom-line focused policies of late reeks of short-sightedness. It's a logical connection to suggest that this tied to all the other recent decisions (Monorail, Avatar-land, declining quality in food, merchandise, and lodging, as well as the finding ways to charge even more at each resort, above and beyond the basic room rates by adding more and more bookable categories) that they are looking out for the bottom-line first and foremost.
Now, I don't blame them for keeping an eye on their money, they ARE a business. However, they're a business based on the ideal of THE BEST customer service and experience around. Their recent decisions are going against that history and against the spirit of the company that we all once loved.
The fact that with this policy, they are absolving themselves of ANY responsibility in creating a proper system and proper dining environments and instead placing everything on the shoulders of the customers is very telling in what they see us as.
You dont know that for sure, it is speculation. They certainly could have tried other ways of curtailing this problem, if this is the true problem before they resorted to charging. Or they could have had the policy be charged true no shows. That would have discouraged the hoarders and other people from dismissing an ADR, but instead this new policy penalizes guests who could have legitimate reasons to cancel.
To be fair, the speculation is both sides. Myself very much included. However, speculation is NOT a bad word. Speculation gets you thinking and gets your mind working to identify and solve potential problems.
Speculation is good when acknowledged. When people just flat out believe it, then there's an issue. But that issue is with believing fully in something that cannot be evaluated, tested, verified, and proven.
I am going by what I have seen during recent trips. And what I have seen is empty tables during peak seasons at restaurants where it is almost impossible to get an ADR.
All anyone on this board can do is speculate, no matter their point of view on this issue. And I don't agree that many of the reasons given (I got wet, I wasn't hungry) are legitmate reasons for canceling an ADR. How on earth would Disney begin to say yes, you have a good reason, now you, your family has a bad reason for skipping and have to pay? Does anyone really want to leave it up to a judgement call? How could you plan for that?
For the bolded part, as I mentioned in response right above, I totally agree. Until/Unless we see the actual financials and statistics as well as other internal stuff (none of which we'll ever likely see), we can only reduce the given information to logic, which is what drives speculation. While we may disagree on legitimate reasons and even the root causes of the problem (you blame the guests, I blame the system, and there's nothing wrong with that). Speculation helps us flesh out what we know and don't know about the policy and gets all of our minds working on plausible ways to better it, or at least adjust our own plans to fit the round hole that Disney is giving us (yes, I'm a square peg
). Or, at least find ways to insult other guests...
The empty tables thing though is different. Fact is that empty tables are not only a result of no shows. Staffing, budget, and other factors also have a large effect on the number of tables available. Simply jumping to the conclusion that since a table is empty, there must be a no show is a faulty jump in logic. While no shows are very likely PART of the story with empty tables, they are not the WHOLE story. Suggesting that they are (by equating all empty tables to there being stupidly high no show rates) is fallacy.
---
Again, the idea that no shows are a symptom and not the problem is growing on me lately (and I will be pushing it in this, and future posts
). It's a revelation I had earlier in the thread and seems to fit what we are seeing better than anything else out there. The root of the problem lies in the system first and foremost, and the result of that problem is an increased no show rate. If they adjusted the system to better protect themselves and offer guests better information and selection, I'd very highly think that the no show rates would drop without stooping to the "let the guests deal with it as we collect the money" level that they are now with this policy.
