I'm wondering the same thing. CM's sign a confidentiality agreement, why are they not only posting this information but keep coming back to stir the pot. My employer does some things I may not agree with but I would never post information on a public board that could harm my company. It's unethical.
1) Don't give up yet.
2) Just find a Concierge with a Dining Override Code.
3) The code gets you a ressie at any ADR restaurant.
4) Even at the last minute.
5) Each resort has at least one, sometimes two with such ability.
NOTE: Any person that can make ADR's sometimes see ressies in "RED". These are overbookings put in by an override, and can be for Vice-President friends, or marketing friends, or people the concierge just wanted to help. For some eateries, like CRT, there could be 20-40 of these daily. The eatery must put them into the normal order, as if the ADR was not overbooked. Of course, this backs up other ADR's. Such is life.
Let's see, we are staying at a moderate (CSR


There is a major point that you are missing here.
The travel agent system is not the subject of this discussion; the travel agent system is irrelevent. The CM's have already stated that they are NOT talking about the travel agent system.
The CMs are talking about their internal Disney system, which has far more capabilities than Disney will ever give either travel agents or the general public. Therefore, it should surprise noone that the CMs' ability to get ADRs will always be far greater than yours or mine.
If and when Disney gets the online ADR system up and running, CMs with inside access are still going to have the ability to create available ADRs when none exist in the public system. The question is not whether Disney CMs have greater access to ADRs than you do as a travel agent. Of course they do! They always have, and always will.
The question is whether the "new system" will automatically generate preferences for specific groups of customers. And, if it does, what will be the pecking order and how will it affect your vacations?
I think we should all realize that just because the CMs have the ability to enter those designators does not necessarily mean those categories will be treated any better or worse than anyone else. Those designations could well be nothing more than a means for gathering marketing data.
Or stirring the pot...whichever you prefer.
yes but you are putting in your clients reservation number, and that can provide all the information the system needs.
Well, actually I edited for brevity but I also specifically noted that you said the TA and public systems were identical. That fact proves my point that the TA system is irrelevent to this discussion. We're not talking about what you can do, we're talking about what Disney can do.Why would Disney have one "tiered" system through CMs and one "non-tiered" system online???
Another consideration might be the cost to add a TA/online interface, although you'd think they would do everything they can to eliminate the necessity for people calling WDW-DINE. The purpose of the whole online ADR system is not customer service (although they'll obviously sell it that way) -- it's designed primarily to reduce headcount in their call centers.My point was it made no sense to have a "tiered" system for guests who call WDW-Dine, and a non-tiered system for all the guests who will eventually book their reservations online.
, i have never stayed club before, i got a code that made it less expensive than the same stay at cs.
Maybe during free dining they are trying to get people into the restaurants who have to pay cash money.It makes sense. Give people the free DDP, but give those who didn't/opted not to get it the ADR's. This way Disney makes money on people who stay at the resorts SPECIFICALLY for free dining, but they make money on the people in the eateries for those that do not have the free DDP. If people on the free DDP can't get TS, then they are forced to go to cheaper CS. Disney makes out on ALL points.
Glad I am not doing the dining plan this year, if this theory could even POSSIBLY be true.![]()