Why does the WDW reservation system allow for multiple reservations at the same time?

[Jalva22]

You have no way of knowing what impact it would have.



However, in doing so you're effectively claiming that WDW would be better off financially without ADRs, since it costs something to maintain the system, but according to you, the restaurants would be filled just as much regardless of how many ADRs are made.


An explosion is not necessary. All that is necessary is any amount of decrease above the cost of maintaining the ADR system.

That we can agree to disagree about.

I'm saying eliminating the practice of booking duplicate ADR's by those who have no intention of using all of them solves a problem for guests, not a problem for Disney.

On the question of impact the imposition of a cc hold would have on the number of ADR's, I go back to your earlier post where you asked "If walk-in demand was as healthy as you suggest then there would be no reason for WDW to incur the expense of an ADR system at all. " Reservation systems are tools for managing SURPLUSES of demand, not for CREATING demand. Did Disney institute Fastpass because seats on Splash Mountain were going empty? Of course not. They instituted it to get as many people out of line as possible. Because you're not spending money when you are standing in line. Fastpass does not create demand any more than ADR's do. ADR's eliminate the need for guests to wait in stand-by for long periods for a table seating, which gets them into other areas of the parks, hopefully near cash registers.

 

[Uncleromulus]

What I'm looking at is that if I want CG for Saturday night on such and such a date and at such and such a time, I MIGHT not be able to get it. If that time is already booked by someone who has also booked Narcoosee's for the same date and time (and later on decided they had no real desire to do CG anyway) I may have lost the chance to make the reservation I originally wanted.

No problem if I get skunked out of a date/time because I waited too long, etc,--the system should be "first come, first served". But I'm not not particulary happy if I get skunked by someone who was just flopping around and had no real desire to keep one or more reservations.
And making it even worse by not canceling the ones they don't really want!!

The cure--I don't know.

 

[Tricia1972]

This discussion comes up fairly regularly on the boards, and there strong feelings on both sides of the issue.

My theory is that if the tables weren't full every night, then they would institute a system to ensure that guests arrive where they have reserved. they already do this with certain restaurants, dinner shows, and dinner packages.

In general though, Disney has addressed no-shows by overbooking. So if 500 seats are available for one evening, Disney will book for 600 people to show up. Their 100 no-shows aren't a concern in the grand scheme of things because that restaurant is still at capacity.

Rumor, from fairly reliable sources, is that the reason there are occasionally extraordinary waits at a restaurant is when everyone shows up and throws Disney's system out of whack. (Suddenly they need to push 600 through when they are used to 500)

I strongly feel that as soon as Disney starts losing money because of double booking, they will take measures to ensure that people show up.

 

[mouseaddictoldschool]

Labattblue, I just came in to say that I'm a BIG fan of your username!

OK, carry on! Have a Disney day!

 

[bicker]

I'm saying eliminating the practice of booking duplicate ADR's by those who have no intention of using all of them solves a problem for guests, not a problem for Disney.

Well, that solves the problem some guests are concerned about, but remember that the folks who book duplicate ADRs have their reasons, and so what you're suggesting makes things more difficult for those guests. Even though I don't do that, nor see the need to do so, myself, I respect those guests who do use that approach to serve their needs.

Beyond that, there are loads of things that Disney "could do" that would solve the problem you are highlighting: They can start by putting some major effort into increasing the size of each popular restaurant. I like what they're doing in Italy and Mexico, and so perhaps they can do the same thing in France, turning one of those islands there into a new restaurant. I wouldn't mind them re-doing the space above Liberty Tree Tavern (for example) to give it a second story, similar to how Yak & Yeti works. And so on.

I also think they could address your concern a bit by discounting the menu, say 50%, for folks making reservations and presenting themselves to be seated, explicitly between the hours of 2:30 PM and 4:30 PM. That kind of deep discount can really drive a lot guests to move their meals to these hours when the restaurants are often mostly empty.

On the question of impact the imposition of a cc hold would have on the number of ADR's, I go back to your earlier post where you asked "If walk-in demand was as healthy as you suggest then there would be no reason for WDW to incur the expense of an ADR system at all. " Reservation systems are tools for managing SURPLUSES of demand, not for CREATING demand.

I never implied anything else. The statement you quoted is saying that they wouldn't need to manage surplus of demand if they'd do the same business without managing that surplus.

Did Disney institute Fastpass because seats on Splash Mountain were going empty? Of course not. They instituted it to get as many people out of line as possible.

No they didn't. Actually, they instituted FastPass to get more people into the shops, and to attract folks to choose Disney because of the promise of not having to wait in queue. Whether that was successful or not is a good question, but if Disney didn't "lose" opportunities by leaving folks in queue then they wouldn't have bothered.

Because you're not spending money when you are standing in line.

Precisely. It has nothing to do with people standing in queue - it has to do with Disney's revenue stream - just like my analogy to the ADRs and the restaurants.

 

[mcd2745]

I'm saying eliminating the practice of booking duplicate ADR's by those who have no intention of using all of them solves a problem for guests, not a problem for Disney.

Reservation systems are tools for managing SURPLUSES of demand, not for CREATING demand.

While I generally agree with that statement about demand, I think Disney's ADR system has definitely created additional demand - albiet unitentionally. The way the ADR rules are set up (particulalry the absurd 180 days), combined with the DDP (free or not, but of course it's worse during free dining) has created this "monster" where you have all this double-booking and/or booking of ADRs that people know at the time of making them there is little chance they will actually use it.

But at the end of the day, it goes back to the first statement I quoted above which I also agree with. Improving the "fairness" of the ADR system/rules does nothing for WDW, only guests. So I would imagine their motivation to do so is very minimal, if there is any at all.

 

[Jalva22]

While I generally agree with that statement about demand, I think Disney's ADR system has definitely created additional demand - albiet unitentionally. The way the ADR rules are set up (particulalry the absurd 180 days), combined with the DDP (free or not, but of course it's worse during free dining) has created this "monster" where you have all this double-booking and/or booking of ADRs that people know at the time of making them there is little chance they will actually use it.

But at the end of the day, it goes back to the first statement I quoted above which I also agree with. Improving the "fairness" of the ADR system/rules does nothing for WDW, only guests. So I would imagine their motivation to do so is very minimal, if there is any at all.

Yes, it's created additional demand for ADR's as some people book everything they MIGHT want so they don't get shut out if they do end up wanting it. But that's not the same thing as creating additional demand for the tables themselves, which is what I was talking about.

 

[Jalva22]

This discussion comes up fairly regularly on the boards, and there strong feelings on both sides of the issue.

My theory is that if the tables weren't full every night, then they would institute a system to ensure that guests arrive where they have reserved. they already do this with certain restaurants, dinner shows, and dinner packages.

In general though, Disney has addressed no-shows by overbooking. So if 500 seats are available for one evening, Disney will book for 600 people to show up. Their 100 no-shows aren't a concern in the grand scheme of things because that restaurant is still at capacity.

Rumor, from fairly reliable sources, is that the reason there are occasionally extraordinary waits at a restaurant is when everyone shows up and throws Disney's system out of whack. (Suddenly they need to push 600 through when they are used to 500)

I strongly feel that as soon as Disney starts losing money because of double booking, they will take measures to ensure that people show up.

Best post of the entire thread.

 

[mcd2745]

Yes, it's created additional demand for ADR's as some people book everything they MIGHT want so they don't get shut out if they do end up wanting it. But that's not the same thing as creating additional demand for the tables themselves, which is what I was talking about.

I understand the distiction you're making. There certainly is more demand for ADRs than the actual tables. But for the guy getting shut out, does that difference really matter?

 

[Jalva22]

I understand the distiction you're making. There certainly is more demand for ADRs than the actual tables. But for the guy getting shut out, does that difference really matter?

No, it doesn't. That was actually the only reason I entered this thread in the first place: to suggest a means by which that situation could be remedied in a way as to solve a problem for those guests who are getting needlessly shut out. I'm not suggesting that everyone who makes duplicate ADR's is abusing the system. I'm not suggesting that the practice of making duplicate ADR's even constitutes an abuse of the system. It's just a natural result given the way the system has been designed.

The problem to me is not the booking of multiple ADR's in order to cover yourself. It's the failure to cancel ADR's that people don't plan on using as soon as they know they are not going to use them. That's why I came up with the cc plan. It doesn't discourage the booking of ADR's (at least, it wouldn't for me), but it discourages people from keeping ADR's they find they have no plans to use.

Whether or not that constitutes a hardship for Disney is irrelevant to me. I don't believe it does, though; in fact, I think it makes the system work better for Disney by getting people out of waiting areas for restaurants and back into the shops.

 

[mcd2745]

No, it doesn't. That was actually the only reason I entered this thread in the first place: to suggest a means by which that situation could be remedied in a way as to solve a problem for those guests who are getting needlessly shut out. I'm not suggesting that everyone who makes duplicate ADR's is abusing the system. I'm not suggesting that the practice of making duplicate ADR's even constitutes an abuse of the system. It's just a natural result given the way the system has been designed.

The problem to me is not the booking of multiple ADR's in order to cover yourself. It's the failure to cancel ADR's that people don't plan on using as soon as they know they are not going to use them. That's why I came up with the cc plan. It doesn't discourage the booking of ADR's (at least, it wouldn't for me), but it discourages people from keeping ADR's they find they have no plans to use.

Whether or not that constitutes a hardship for Disney is irrelevant to me. I don't believe it does, though; in fact, I think it makes the system work better for Disney by getting people out of waiting areas for restaurants and back into the shops.

We are pretty much in total ingreement. In fact, in another thread, I suggested that Disney actually charge a fee to your CC for every ADR at the time of booking (in addaition to no-show fees). That will certainly reduce the number of ADRs that are made, while increasing revenues for Disney. And I can't see it resulting in empty tables either.

 

[cigar95]

The problem to me is not the booking of multiple ADR's in order to cover yourself. It's the failure to cancel ADR's that people don't plan on using as soon as they know they are not going to use them. That's why I came up with the cc plan. It doesn't discourage the booking of ADR's (at least, it wouldn't for me), but it discourages people from keeping ADR's they find they have no plans to use.

While this may be a good idea and a fair one, I think it's a safe bet that it will never happen. Why? Because from Disney's perspective, it will create a bigger headache for them than the one they already have.

When people get hit with a credit card charge, some percentage of them are going to complain. They're going to be mad at the folks at WDW. They'll make excuses. Some of them might even be genuine. They'll end up with a bad taste in their mouth and be less likely to return.

None of these are things that Disney wants. So I think it's likely that directly or indirectly, someone has weighed the cost of imposing such a system against the inconvenience of some guests being unable to get a reservation, and they've decided that dinging them for actual money will create more hard feelings. Some might respond "Well, they deserve it". And from an ethical standpoint, that may be true. but that doesn't mean it is the right thing from a *business* perspective.

So from a business standpoint, I suspect that the decision to address the problem by overbooking may be the best one for the company. Ultimately, minimizing the anger of potential customers is probably the long-term strategy, even with the short-term cost of implementing an ADR system. I think Brian would agree with this one.

 

[scubamouse]

I was just checking my reservations since I wanted to cancel one (at WCC for 6 people on August 30 at 6pm if anyone cares). I did some reservations early on and then set up an account over there. It turns out I had double booked because the non-account ones were still there but not showing up in my account. I didn't see them in the account so I thought they hadn't taken so I booked the same places again.

I cleaned it up and now only have one resi/night. Sometimes it can be an honest mistake given that the system doesn't link by email or phone number. I used the same email and phone number for all the resis.

 

[Jalva22]

While this may be a good idea and a fair one, I think it's a safe bet that it will never happen. Why? Because from Disney's perspective, it will create a bigger headache for them than the one they already have.

When people get hit with a credit card charge, some percentage of them are going to complain. They're going to be mad at the folks at WDW. They'll make excuses. Some of them might even be genuine. They'll end up with a bad taste in their mouth and be less likely to return.

None of these are things that Disney wants. So I think it's likely that directly or indirectly, someone has weighed the cost of imposing such a system against the inconvenience of some guests being unable to get a reservation, and they've decided that dinging them for actual money will create more hard feelings. Some might respond "Well, they deserve it". And from an ethical standpoint, that may be true. but that doesn't mean it is the right thing from a *business* perspective.

So from a business standpoint, I suspect that the decision to address the problem by overbooking may be the best one for the company. Ultimately, minimizing the anger of potential customers is probably the long-term strategy, even with the short-term cost of implementing an ADR system. I think Brian would agree with this one.

I don't think there would be significant complaints over having to give a cc number if the only charge to it would be if you didn't show up. What I'm suggesting is a system like hotels use when they take your cc number to hold your room when you call in to reserve it. Hotels hold on to your number and reserve the right to charge you (typically) one night's charges if you don't show up. They give you a generous amt of time to cancel without being charged, and Disney could do the same with their ADR's.

But I agree with your suggestion that nothing is likely to change. Right now, it's a problem for some guests, but not a problem that's causing a significant reaction against the company. It would be nice if they would do something, and I think it would benefit them financially to do so to a certain extent. But it's just blue sky thinking on my part (not that it's an original idea).

 

[bicker]

I don't understand why you'd say that there wouldn't be loads of complaints about charges for no-shows. "It is because of your long lines!" "You issued me a FastPass for 7pm so I couldn't park hop to make my reservation." "You didn't answer the cancellation line." And so forth.

A restaurant is quite a bit different from a hotel, in terms of how folks in our society respect their right to charge no-show fees, regardless of how clear the charge is made clear up-front. Consumers in our society have learned that their best bet is to complaint complain complain, regardless of whether they're in the right or wrong, because often they'll get their way regardless. That very heavily, now, factors into how companies have to structure their operations. You can see this in many threads here and on the Budget Board.

 

[cigar95]

I don't think there would be significant complaints over having to give a cc number if the only charge to it would be if you didn't show up.

I have to disagree. I think there would be a *lot* of complaints. Inability to get a reservation is one thing, but actually dinging them for real money? They might not complain about having to leave a number, but they would complain when they actually got hit with the fee.

Just imagine the excuses:

"But I cancelled that one." "No you didn't, sir" "Are you calling me a liar?"

"I forgot. I'm sorry, can't you do something?"

"We were in line at Toy Story for two hours"

"The bus from the Beach Club broke down" "Let me call transportation to check on that." "What, you don't trust me?"

"I've never even heard of that restaurant"

"But I'm one of your best customers."

"Do you know how much I paid for this vacation?"

Or, my all-time favorite:

"I pay your salary." "Actually, ma'am, the Walt Disney Company pays my salary."

Truly, I think you're giving the general public too much credit for having integrity and accepting responsibility. Even if 5% of the guests had a no-show and only 10% of those complained, that's still a few hundred complaints every day.

Call me a cynic, if you must.

 

[Jalva22]

I have to disagree. I think there would be a *lot* of complaints. Inability to get a reservation is one thing, but actually dinging them for real money? They might not complain about having to leave a number, but they would complain when they actually got hit with the fee.

Just imagine the excuses:

"But I cancelled that one." "No you didn't, sir" "Are you calling me a liar?"

"I forgot. I'm sorry, can't you do something?"

"We were in line at Toy Story for two hours"

"The bus from the Beach Club broke down" "Let me call transportation to check on that." "What, you don't trust me?"

"I've never even heard of that restaurant"

"But I'm one of your best customers."

"Do you know how much I paid for this vacation?"

Or, my all-time favorite:

"I pay your salary." "Actually, ma'am, the Walt Disney Company pays my salary."

Truly, I think you're giving the general public too much credit for having integrity and accepting responsibility. Even if 5% of the guests had a no-show and only 10% of those complained, that's still a few hundred complaints every day.

Call me a cynic, if you must.

It's not like my suggestion is something brand new to Disney. They already require cc holds for a few upper end restaurants, plus the Akershus breakfast in Norway, the Fantasmic package, and even require pre-payment in full at others, including Cinderella's Royal Table.

 

[cigar95]

It's not like my suggestion is something brand new to Disney. They already require cc holds for a few upper end restaurants, plus the Akershus breakfast in Norway, the Fantasmic package, and even require pre-payment in full at others, including Cinderella's Royal Table.

I suspect that the no-show rate for "event meals" like those is much lower. Plus there are very few of them.

Being charged a no-show fee for not showing up for a lunch reservation at a nearly-empty Captain's Grille is a whole different matter.

For the most part, overbooking takes care of almost all of the problem.

 

[loveDmouse]

Strange. The message I got gave you two options(I just tried it again). Replace existing ADR with the new one or keep both ADR's.

That is strange. That is the choice it gave me cause I remember thinking that was nice.

 

[Jalva22]

I suspect that the no-show rate for "event meals" like those is much lower. Plus there are very few of them.

Being charged a no-show fee for not showing up for a lunch reservation at a nearly-empty Captain's Grille is a whole different matter.

For the most part, overbooking takes care of almost all of the problem.

I agree. Because there is a consequence for missing them. People pay more attn when there's a consequence.