No tables for 2.....only for 3 or more

[UrsulasShadow]

I agree with Kevin. The system is flawed, and makes it difficult for those traveling alone or in smaller groups to get seated. Lie or not, I would have no problem booking for 3 if I had difficulty getting seated as 1 or 2. If the larger table is available, I'm clearly not putting anyone else out. And solos need to eat, too.

 

[DisBride2007]

This is interesting... in the many, many MANY times I have tried to make reservations for 2, I have never heard "but there is availability for 3 or more..."

I have heard things like, "The only availability is 9:55 p.m. or 4:30 p.m." (when I asked for 7) or simply, "There is no availability." It does almost seem like they wanted you to know that you could just ask for a table for 3.

I'm not saying I'm going to do this... but there have been many occasions on which DH and I had an ADR for two people, and saw several groups of 4 who came in after us get 4-top after 4-top after 4-top... meanwhile there were only two 2-tops in the restaurant and we had to wait for one of those. (Granted, this depended on the time of day and the general crowd level of the parks.) So while I don't think it's necessarily fair to lie, I don't really think that it's fair to the parties of 2 who keep getting put off either...

 

[dqpowell]

"I would like to..." or "I want to..." is saying EXACTLY what the Guest means. "There are three of us coming for dinner" is a lie.

Your intention is to deceive the CM into making an ADR contrary to policy by implying that three people will be dining. Pointing out (here) that technically speaking, you haven't used those actual words does not change the fact. It is a lie of omission, as the truth would be, "I'd like to make a reservation for three, but unfortunately there are only two in my party." There is no need to respond to this, as it's clear neither of us will convince the other.

I've never encountered a CM at the podium with that much time to chat, but my response would be, "They didn't come".

Which is, of course, the very lie I described a couple posts back -- the one in which you are implying the existence of somebody that does not exist (the third diner).

David

 

[dqpowell]

It does almost seem like they wanted you to know that you could just ask for a table for 3.

It seems to me that they're offering useful information, as if they wanted you to actually find another diner or two to join you. They want to keep the restaurants filled. If you can't get a table for two, perhaps you could join another couple or bring a friend/relative/etc to dinner. You get the coveted ADR and the restaurant gets 50 - 100% more business.

In fact, the CMs used to tell people making ADRs that there weren't tables for two available, but that they would gladly reserve a 4-top for a couple. Now that the DDP is so popular, they no longer offer to do so. By telling people that a table for four is available, they're encouraging people to consider dining in a larger group. They're not encouraging people to lie.

David

 

[MissMichelle]

I say do whatever makes you feel good at the end of the day. If you feel ok getting the larger table for 2 diners then who is anyone else to say differently. Guaranteed that after that wonderful meal you won't look back and say " I never should have taken a table for 4, the meal just didn't taste as good. " JMO
But you already pointed out that you aren't feeling comfortable with the idea---so keeping your existing ADR and not getting into the "is it a lie" debate may just justify your feelings. Go with your gut...Unless you post what you did here nobody will know and be able to give you moral advice.

 

[DisneyKevin]

If a table is available when a guest calls, the guest should get the table regardless of the ridiculous parameters set by Disney's computers.

To suggest that parties of two be discriminated against due a lack of tables for two (or deuces as they are often called) is almost as silly as suggesting that the OP look for additional "friends" needed to acquire a reservation or questioning her morality for doing what she is forced to do in order to get a reservation in the restaurant of her choice.

And to suggest that she pick a different restaurant until she find the "perfect" table is even sillier.

It's a restaurant reservation for goodness sake.

Kevin

 

[MissMichelle]

If a table is available when a guest calls, the guest should get the table regardless of the ridiculous parameters set by Disney's computers.

To suggest that parties of two be discriminated against due a lack of tables for two (or deuces as they are often called) is almost as silly as suggesting that the OP look for additional "friends" needed to acquire a reservation or questioning her morality for doing what she is forced to do in order to get a reservation in the restaurant of her choice.

And to suggest that she pick a different restaurant until she find the "perfect" table is even sillier.

It's a restaurant reservation for goodness sake.

Kevin

While reading your post Kevin I started thinking about dining at home..If I walked into a restaurant and put my name on a waiting list for 2 and was told "Sorry, we are booked up tonight for 2 person tables", I'd be likely to pitch a fit. You better believe that I should be placed in ORDER of my request. What makes Disney different? Oh right---I am shelling out $5,000 to visit them.

 

[kaytieeldr]

By telling people that a table for four is available, they're encouraging people to consider dining in a larger group. They're not encouraging people to lie.

And where, pray tell, am I supposed to GET this larger party? I'm sure as heck not spending another thousand dollars or so to get a reluctant (read: non-Disney-fan) friend or relative on vacation with me. And why should I make myself uncomfortable dining with a couple I don't know and whom I had to solicit to join me - and with whom I would likely converse little, if at all, given that they KNOW each other?

 

[Allison]

By telling people that a table for four is available, they're encouraging people to consider dining in a larger group. David

How do you know this? This seems to be an assumption on your part based on the way you want things to be.

With all due respect, that doesn't make sense. Where are people supposed to come up with a larger group?

 

[Pumbaa_]

This topic pops up every couple of weeks. The same types of responses are made back and forth regarding that is lying versus the practicality of going for dinner.

Have I lied to get a ressie at Disney? Not yet. Would I say 3 if there are no 2 spots left? Sure would!

I am waiting for the time when Disney reservations are even more precise. Sorry ma;am, we only have a 4 topper available, your party of 3 is just not big enough for the table. 3 topper? oh no, we don't actually HAVE any of those

The debate can continue as long as no one starts calling someone else direct names, that is.

 

[dburg30]

Well the answer of course is do whatever you feel is right. No one is going to starve to death if they dont get that table for 3 or 4.

I guess it could be different if you didnt already have ressies made and were just moving them, but probably still wouldnt matter to me. I'm not perfect. The system isnt perfect. If I want to eat at a certain place and the only choice would be to 'lie' and say I had 3 so I could eat there to make my vacation complete, or more fun, I'm doing it. I'd just be freeing it up for another party of 2, and would think to myself if a party of 3 or 4 wanted this ressie so badly, they should've got it before me!

 

[wilde_oscar]

In my opinion, making a reservation for three when you know there will only be two in order to circumvent the ADR rules is lying. I wouldn't do it. I know (based on a recent discussion here) that many others disagree with me.

David

What ever happened to WDW is for couples? They have on the planning DVD and the whole wedding chapel thing, and couples on honeymoon or anniversary? Seems they are excited to have you on property but then screw ya over on making ressies. Last year my party of two got the shaft on being seated on time to larger parties.

 

[hddanis]

I just called for breakfast at Chef Mickeys in December. They had nothing available for 2 people until 11:00 AM..I'm looking for around 7:30. I checked 2 different days and got the same answer..11:00 AM

So I hung up dissapointed, and thought oh well, I'll hope for a cancellation and then thought about this thread (read it earlier today)

I called back, and asked about a reservation for 3...yep, they can seat a party of three at 7:30..even 7 or 7:40 or 7:50..as a matter of fact, I had my choice of times....

Darn right I took that reservation for 7:30. Do I feel guilty? Nope, not at all.

If they want to know where the 3rd person is, I'll introduce them to my friend Harvey.

 

[dburg30]

I just called for breakfast at Chef Mickeys in December. They had nothing available for 2 people until 11:00 AM..I'm looking for around 7:30. I checked 2 different days and got the same answer..11:00 AM

So I hung up dissapointed, and thought oh well, I'll hope for a cancellation and then thought about this thread (read it earlier today)

I called back, and asked about a reservation for 3...yep, they can seat a party of three at 7:30..even 7 or 7:40 or 7:50..as a matter of fact, I had my choice of times....

Darn right I took that reservation for 7:30. Do I feel guilty? Nope, not at all.

If they want to know where the 3rd person is, I'll introduce them to my friend Harvey.

LOL, well disney is all about the magic and imagination and all

 

[honeymo78]

DH and I are also often frustrated by the lack of reservations for parties of 2. We too have taken a ressie for 3 in order to eat where and when we want. No guilt at all. Even when we manage to get one for 2 people, I really can't remember the last time we were actually seated at a table for 2, it's almost always a 4top. If that is where they are going to seat us anyway why not just allow for more ressies for 2. *I know, I know, disney makes more money off the party of four but last I checked disney still markets to couples and there has never been a party minimum lol. I really feel for those solo travelers - I can't imagine how you manage to get an ADR.

 

[grumpy.uncle]

I had a similar problem when booking ADR's. I had this incredible trip planned where there was going to be about 20 people going. As we got closer to blast off, more and more people kept cancelling. When I finally called to change my ADR's I couldn't believe the problems involved. They cancelled my large party, but had nothing available for my now smaller party. Ended up having to completely change time of dinner. It seems that their system is set up w/ a certain number of each size of table and once those are filled, that's it. I know that I made some ADR's for a party of 2 in the past, so they must take them, but I'm assuming that they only have a limited number of setups for each party size. Considering the size of WDW and the number of reservations and changes to reservations made each day, I guess it is a miracle that they are able to keep it all straight. With the free dining plan now a part of so many vacation packages, I think that dining at WDW has taken on a whole different aspect. We had no problem walking in and being seated for meals as a party of 2 w/o ADR's. If you were travelling w/ a party larger than that, I can see where it might be nearly impossible to get anything other that CS w/o ressies. With the free dining, I think visitors have figured out that they need to make ADR's and so they are making more reservations per party than in the past. Consequently, there are fewer chances of getting an ADR.

 

[smidgy]

as empty nesters, I have to agree: it should be first come, first served. silly me, all this time I thought it was easier for us to get ADRS, since there are only 2 of us (you can always squeeze in a 2top). I just now found out from this thread differently. gee, you think some of those times I couldn't get at my fav. rest. might be available for a party for 3? thanks for the hint!!
nope, don't feel bad about it at all. we have visited 2X with kids, and sept will be our EIGHTH!! without. I think we spend enough money there, just us 2, that they can accomodate couples at the restaurants. (no, I'm not going to "borrow" people, and I can't bring "friends and relatives" to dinner with us, they are in Illinois! )

 

[PrincessMinnie28]

I'm not going to argue whether it's lying or not, I'll just answer your question. I do not think that they would turn you away, but you may have a longer wait for a table. When you call to make your ADR's, they always say something about being seated at the next available table for your party size (or something like that). My guess is that they will seat you, but at a table for two, so you could have a much longer wait than you would have had if you were really 3 people with an ADR for 3 people. Does that make sense? It does in my head, but I don't know if I'm saying it right - it's been a long day!

What you said makes sense to me laughinplace. OP, I agree that even if you make the ADR for 3, when you check in with only 2 people, they will make you wait for a table for 2. I worked in a restaurant for a long time and this was similar to a policy we had. It is certainly understandable that you could have really had 3 people when you made the reservation, but that the third person was sick or didn't want to come, etc. But since the ADR system really isn't a reservation per se (i.e., they aren't holding an empty table until you arrive), I think they might make you wait until a table for 2 becomes available. However, I could be completely wrong... just thought I'd offer an opinion. Good luck!

 

[kaytieeldr]

Darn right I took that reservation for 7:30. Do I feel guilty? Nope, not at all.

If they want to know where the 3rd person is, I'll introduce them to my friend Harvey.

Oh, no - bring your friend Flat Mickey!

 

[Battousai]

As a CM, this thread makes me sad.