An alarm clock is your friend.
You're words were actually, "
So, now, If I find out I have no appetite shortly before my ADR (which happens), I have to either order and pay for food that will go in the trash (thus taking up server, host(ess), chef time and materials), or pay $10 pp? Since I didn't realize that I wouldn't be hungry enough for a meal until just a few hours before it (if that, but I'd be happy if the timeframe were just a couple hours), and this certainly wouldn't qualify for "Extreme Circumstances", there's no way I could get out of paying this."
Waking up for it is even more of a friend
. (I slept through it).
But yeah, like I thought, it was a what-if. And the truth of the matter is, I wasn't hungry enough for a meal for my last 3 days of my recent trip. That's abnormal. I did go to the ADRs and picked at the meals, but more so because my mind wanted the food I'd been waiting for, not because I needed it.
Do you really think you should be able to get out of an ADR last minute, because you've decided to eat more than you can hold? What about the person that wanted the ADR you no longer want, but couldn't get in? Their vacation has been negatively affected, so you could book more meals than you could actually eat. How can people not see why stuff like this is a problem?
Waking up for it is even more of a friend
. (I slept through it).
But yeah, like I thought, it was a what-if.
In my specific case, it wasn't so much of an eating more than I can hold. It's probably closer to not feeling well, as it happens several times a year where I simply won't be hungry for 2, 3, or 4 days. I'll usually try to get something so I don't end up sick, but certainly not a full meal. This is what happened last trip. I went 4 days without feeling hungry and not really eating a full meal. While I did show up at ADRs, I mostly picked at my food and ate very little of it, all without snacking. So, just because someone says "I'm not hungry" doesn't necessarily mean it's something they could have controlled by not eating so much before that.
I could also say "Do you really think you should be able to make an ADR because you waited until the last minute", but I won't
.
I don't just think my family has to show up for every ADR I make. I think I have to show up for everything I book in life & obligate myself to. To me, the right people to punish are those who will book things, then not feel completely obligated to follow through, regardless of how many commitments they've signed up for.
I feel the same, but to a point. That point is on the wrong side of Disney dining apparently. Doctors, dentists, work, personal obligations, etc, are all one thing. A meal at Disney is something different, especially since Disney goes on record to state that ADRs are NOT reservations. If they did treat them as such, I may have a slightly different outlook (though, the "full day" policy is still asinine). Looks like Disney Dining just isn't for me anymore. I'll now just do 10 days without going to the TS restaurants but a couple times. I'll save money, take more pictures, see more stuff, and have more money when I come home. Works for me. Of course, I'm now taking up the same space (in the whole of the Disney resort) while putting forth less money. So I matter even less in Disney's eyes now.
I don't see that at all. The info received states there will be an exemption for serious illness & travel delays. These are the two things beyond the guests control. If it were nothing but an additional source of revenue, they wouldn't be making exceptions. The fact is, with effort, most others things can be controlled.
Travel delays and "serious illness/injury" are likely to be outliers. They don't happen enough to really matter, thus the cost of waiving those is likely very low. It's tossing you crumbs and calling them cookies. If they were really concerned about guest experience, they'd realize what guests actually experience.
I agree the website needs to be much more clear on the policy requirements. Unfortunately, people have always found ways around them catching double bookings. If people really want to cheat, it's pretty much impossible to stop them from doing so.
The hammer approach never works either. We're now all about stopping families from either dining at these locations, or from having any unexpected things coming up. We're not addressing the problem. There are methods that could be put in place that would maintain guest satisfaction without punishing those who intend to use the system the "correct" way. I outlined several already. Some of these would have been easy to implement (the 4-6 hour window, yeah, that's likely a value in a database somewhere). Some of the others may have been trickier (especially the multiple account one), but there are still ways to combat that without making it too difficult on those using the system in the proper ways. These should have been tried first, before they decided to bring the hammer down on the families that are not the root of the problem.
In Jan/Feb there could be more last minute opportunities to get into another restaurant that's closer to where a guest wants to be, which results in them not showing at the restaurant they originally booked. In the busier months, they're not as much availability at other restaurants. I don't know that for sure though. It's purely speculation on my part.
That's my point. Just saying that the range was 10% to 33% says nothing. It's useless numbers trying to prove a point to people who can't see past them. Those are potential factors, as is weather, as are the bugs that go around, as are the types of people that visit during those months.
Basically, everything that's been posted is speculation. The only people who know the truth are WDW employees, & we see what they've chosen to do to address the problem. To say we have a better solution, when we don't even know what the true problem is, proves we don't know what we're talking about.
Except logic and rational thinking tell us they jumped from "we may have a potential issue" to the current policy without any intermediate steps. They tried to cut back with that crappy window thing. That didn't work, so the next step logically should be... not this. Expand the window, attempt other website improvements to combat the real issues. Not just flat out charge a penalty, especially with a crazy cancellation window.
We're taught these simple problem solving steps in grade school. You start out with the minimal possible change needed, and then move up from there incrementally. In other words, you don't smash an ant with a sledgehammer.
This would be great, if it helped all guests. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It doesn't address early morning, same day ADRs at all. I realize this has been said before, but some of us think a shorter window won't address all issues. It will only really help those who want to cancel last minute.
It doesn't have to solve all of the issues to be a better solution, it simply has to solve the current ones better. While the shorter window may not perfectly address the breakfast situation, it addresses the other meals (which are many more in number and popularity) much better that the current (and now former) policy does. But, since Disney wants us to either have ESP and know when we'll get sick (but less than a "major illness") or just show up when we're sick (but again, less than a "major illness"), then it's not surprising the direction they went in. After all, this takes far less thought and effort and puts all the responsibility on the guests' shoulders. After all, they can be 30, 45, 60 minutes late in seating us, but god forbid that we're more than 15 minutes late in checking in, we're charged and deemed an abuser and looked down upon! "Maybe we can seat you, you'll have to wait a bit".
Amen!
I can't argue with that logic. Allowing an hour for a 15-20 minute ride seems like a lot of time. Telling guests to allow 90 minutes is over the top.
Other posters are making up statistics based on posts in the reservations being cancelled threads.
