No ADR's For 2 at Rose & Crown

[ncsastudent]

Hey, I have another restaurant to add to the list of ones I could not get into. There was no ADR's for 2 at Rose and Crown on Sept. 7th... BUT get this, if there had been FOUR people in my party she said there were several tables available! That doesn't make sense, couldn't they seat a part of two at a table for four? I know they want to maximize the amount of money they make in the restaurant, but I really think it should be first come first serve, and if a part of two came first and wishes to eat they should get to sit at a table if seats are available. :-(

 

[m_kasch]

Just make the reservation for 3 or 4 so that they will let you have a table...and then say someone was sick when you show up for the reservation. I don't think it makes any sense at all for a party of 4 to be able to get a reservation but not a party of 2. A lot of times you end up sitting at a bigger table than your party size anyways. Good luck!

 

[If U Had Wings]

That is just wrong. It should definitely be first come first serve. I would call back and make a reservation for 3.

 

[dqpowell]

That is just wrong. It should definitely be first come first serve. I would call back and make a reservation for 3.

Personally, I think lying about the number of people in one's party to secure a table the restaurant has already set aside for larger groups is wrong. It's just a restaurant, people.

David

 

[If U Had Wings]

I just believe that if a table is available at the time someone calls to make the reservation, as long as the table is large enough to hold the party they should get the table.

It's hard enough to get a table for sit down restaurants with the free dining plan going on, even harder to nab one of the few tables for two that they may have at a restaurant.

 

[dqpowell]

I just believe that if a table is available at the time someone calls to make the reservation, as long as the table is large enough to hold the party they should get the table.

So by that logic my party of 7 should be out of luck because one of the very few tables that can seat 7 has already been reserved for two diners?

Lying is... lying. Tortured justifications for it don't change that fact. When you reserve a table for 3 or 4 knowing full well that only two will show up for the reservation, you are lying. Live by the restaurant's rules or don't eat at that restaurant.

David

 

[Pumbaa_]

I can read the writing on the wall.

Feel free to discuss the logic in Disney's ADR system, but taking potshots at each other will not be allowed.

I think it is a hard one. Why is Disney's policy that way? We have also seen reports here where CM have told guests they were putting down x number because that was the only size available.

I personally don't understand not allowing a party of 2 in the hopes of a party of 3 or 4. Seating 2 at a table for 8 makes no sense, but 2 at a table for 4?

 

[dqpowell]

I can read the writing on the wall.

Feel free to discuss the logic in Disney's ADR system, but taking potshots at each other will not be allowed.

Who's taking potshots? If I call for an ADR for my wife and myself, but tell the CM we have three or four in our party, I am lying. That's a simple fact.

I think it is a hard one. Why is Disney's policy that way? We have also seen reports here where CM have told guests they were putting down x number because that was the only size available.

That's based on either CM prerogative or (possibly outdated) policy. Reservations are very tight now that free dining is so common, and it's entirely possible CM's won't do that anymore. Given the fact that the CM told the OP no tables for two were available, and that tables for four were available, but didn't offer to book them one of those tables anyway is telling, I think.

I personally don't understand not allowing a party of 2 in the hopes of a party of 3 or 4.

You're "spinning" the situation in an attempt to make it seem less like lying. There's a difference between somebody who is likely to end up with 3 or 4 for whatever reason (uncertain plans on the part of traveling companions, for example) and somebody who knows they will only be 2 and makes a reservation for 3 just to get a table that wouldn't otherwise be available to them.

Seating 2 at a table for 8 makes no sense, but 2 at a table for 4?

How are those two situations any different? If it's so clear to everybody that a reservation for 2 at a table for 8 "makes no sense," then where do you cut it off? In both cases, you're denying larger groups a chance to eat at a table designed to accomodate them. It's okay to turn away groups of 3 or 4, but not okay to turn away groups of 7 or 8? Now I'm confused.

David

 

[Miniefan]

All lying nonsense aside.....I had a similar situation happen to me 6/1-6/6. Dh and I were traveling with another couple, some friends and at the very very last minute the other couple couldn't go, so all of our ADR's were for 4 people but when we checked in, I had to let them know that there only 2 of us. We never had to wait any extra amount of time or anything, in fact we walked in to Planet Hollywood for dinner one night with no wait. I dont think that the ADR's are that complex considering the amount of people each restaurant can accomodate and the fact that they are probably allowing a certain amount of free tables for walkins (I would think). I think everyone is having a hard time finding dining available during Aug-Sept due to free dining. What irritates me is the people who already make lots of reservations in hopes of going during free dining and then either not go and forget to cancel or go and then decide to skip one of their ADR's thereby not freeing up the space for anyone else. I have a group of 11, so I am having a tremendous time configuring all the dining. Good luck and keep trying.


Kim

 

[byoung]

Hey, I have another restaurant to add to the list of ones I could not get into. There was no ADR's for 2 at Rose and Crown on Sept. 7th... BUT get this, if there had been FOUR people in my party she said there were several tables available! That doesn't make sense, couldn't they seat a part of two at a table for four? I know they want to maximize the amount of money they make in the restaurant, but I really think it should be first come first serve, and if a part of two came first and wishes to eat they should get to sit at a table if seats are available. :-(

Free dining fills up quick.

 

[snowdrift7]

Hey, I have another restaurant to add to the list of ones I could not get into. There was no ADR's for 2 at Rose and Crown on Sept. 7th... BUT get this, if there had been FOUR people in my party she said there were several tables available! That doesn't make sense, couldn't they seat a part of two at a table for four? I know they want to maximize the amount of money they make in the restaurant, but I really think it should be first come first serve, and if a part of two came first and wishes to eat they should get to sit at a table if seats are available. :-(

It's frustrating (especially when you get to the restaurant and there are lots of empty tables); Sept 7th is my birthday and I was looking for ADR's at Rose & Crown too and was told the same thing you were. Perhaps we should meet and make a table of 4 Anyways, I hope someone cancels and you get in - they say that tons of people cancel so keep trying -

good luck!
cyn

 

[KQAN]

We were at epcot last Saturday (6/9) and it was empty...when we walked by Rose and Crown they had a waiter outside holding a menu and ADVERTISING the restaurant, saying that we could be seated immediately (this was lunch time).

 

[ncsastudent]

Cool, Sept 13th is my Birthday. We wanted to eat in the castle but they told me that there were not seats for two there either. However they didn't say anything about seats for four, so I don't know if our party size made much difference. I am surprised we can't get into Rose and Crown of all places.

 

[snowdrift7]

I tried the castle for Sept 11 (our 25th anniversary) for two and was told there was nothing - again, if we had four they had something - frustrating!

 

[dqpowell]

Cool, Sept 13th is my Birthday. We wanted to eat in the castle but they told me that there were not seats for two there either. However they didn't say anything about seats for four, so I don't know if our party size made much difference. I am surprised we can't get into Rose and Crown of all places.

Sept 13 is my daughter's birthday! We won't be in WDW then, though... going in December.

David

 

[Princess_Belle]

I work in a restaurant as a hostess and a server so I know both sides of this. And I am very good friends with the manager so i know all of the reasoning behind the seating of guests. Parties of 1 - 4 guests are allowed to sit at tables that hold up to four people. Then there are tables that hold between 5 - 7 people, so a party of 5 can sit at a table big enough for 7 people. Then there are large tables that will seat 8 - 11 people. Under no means is a party of less than 8 supposed to sit at these tables. Because that would be a waste. What if the next people in the door were a party of 11, then you'd have no where to put them. That is how every restaurant works. So you should not have been turned away. If the only tables available were for a party of 5 or more then turning you away would be policy. I would try calling again and saying you have a party of 2 and see what this CM tells you.

 

[If U Had Wings]

It seems though that Disney's policy is that parties of 2 can only be seated at tables for 2 - they don't seem to be putting them at any other size table. I can't imagine that they have more than a handful of tables for two in most of the in-park restaurants.

I would guess that the more expensive the restaurant the more smaller tables.

Princess Belle - your method is how I would have expected them to work the seating. That seems to make alot of sense.

I wonder why the CM's even bother to tell you about the table issue? It's kind of like saying - Gee, I'm sure your'd really like this seat for our restaurant, but tough you can't have it!

 

[dqpowell]

That is how every restaurant works.

That is not how every restaurant works. That's how one particular restaurant works where you live. There's a small restaurant in my hometown that is packed to the gills every Friday and Saturday -- and they will not seat fewer than three people at a table for four during those times. The same logic that dictates never seating a party of 5 at a table that can hold 8-11 diners applies to tables accomodating 4.

As I mentioned previously -- with the free dining promotion in effect, it would not be surprising at all if Disney policy on this has recently changed. Seating one or two people at a table that can accomodate four is nice when the restaurant is not full -- even up to the point that it's nearly (but not completely) full. However when the restaurant is guaranteed to be full for most of its operating hours (due to the free dining promotion), seating any fewer than three at tables that can accomodate four makes no sense.

David