New Counter Service Seating Program Trials
in [Disney Parks]
|
From: Rudeney on 8 Oct 2009 11:51 Charlie Foxtrot wrote: > On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:27:34 -0500, Rudeney <rudeney(a)mickeypics.com> > wrote: > > >> No, what I mean is, if we don't want people who aren't using tables for >> eating to be occupying them, then we need to define that. What defines >> an appropriate use? If we get a bag of fries and a soda to split, is >> that enough to warrant using a table for 10 minutes? > > No. > >> 15? > > No. > >> Or not at all? > > Yes. > >> What if only one person in the party is eating, can other sit at >> the table? > > No. > >> I'm not trying to be facetious or argumentative here. These >> are reall issues that have to be addressed...unless...we add more tables! >> > I'm still trying to figure out where you get this line of thought. > You used to be rational in your arguments/statements. My line of thought is very rational, you just aren't following it. Let me state this as clearly as I can. We have a problem, a theory as to its cause, and a proposed solution. The problem is that people who have bought food at a counter-service restaurant sometimes have a hard time finding an open table. Because they have just paid Disney for that food, we believe that Disney is obligated to provide them with a place to sit and eat it. From observing the situation, we see that one cause of this is that some tables are being used by guests who are not currently eating. There are three possible scenarios that we might observe. One is guests who are simply using the tables in the restaurant as a place to rest and relax and are not eating. The second is where some members of a party have seated themselves at a table and are waiting for other members of their party to purchase and return with the food. Finally, there may be guests who have finished eating their food, but remain at the tables. The solution is to not allow guests to be seated until they have purchased food in had and need a table. This will prevent guests who are not purchasing food from using the tables as a place to rest. So, that will solve part of the problem. However, this also prohibits the second scenario, where guests can't go ahead and grab a table while others in the party get the food; everyone will have to either wait in the food line, or stand somewhere else and wait on the food. It does nothing to address the third scenario wheres guests linger after eating. My problems with this solution are many. First of all, I don't believe there are a significant number of tables being used in the first scenario (i..e guests who did not purchase food). This means that the observations of guests at tables without food fall into the latter two scenarios (waiting on food, or finished but lingering). I do not believe it is reasonable to deny guests, who are tired, hot, and with tired, cranky children in tow, a seat until food is in hand. I also do not believe it is appropriate to ask guests to leave a table when they are through eating. Dining is not just about putting food into your body, but it is also a social event and a time to rest and relax and slow down (OK, I am having a problem feeling this at Pecos Bill, but in it is this way in general). If Disney refuses to add enough tables to accommodate all the guests who want to use them for whatever reason, then they need to enforce a strict policy of table usage. They should not just prevent guest without food in hand from sitting, but they also should prevent guests without "meals" from sitting. Fries and a drink can be consumed as you walk or stand. IF only one guest is eating, then the rest of the party needs to stay out of the restaurant so as not to occupy excess seats. Once guests are through eating, they should be given only a few minutes before vacating the table. I see this being no more heavy-handed than not allowing guests to sit at tables because there aren't enough. It's just as ridiculous! So, that is my line of thought on the subject. Now, I do understand that this policy is only in effect during the busiest times, and that is probably the only value I see in it. > Jesus H. Christ, Rodney! There are ample benchs all around the damn > parks! But there aren't! That's part of the problem. WDW simply needs more places for guests to sit and relax *and eat*. > The eateries have to hold their own, financially, and do > operate as any other restaurant at any other location in the world. That may be the case, but it is certainly within parameters. While the manager of Pecos Bill may be able to decide how many CM's to schedule for a shift, I am sure he has no control over adding table space or opening another restaurant in the next "land". > Try wandering into a large city downtown McDonalds and just spend some > time cooling off and grabbing a seat during lunch rush. > You aren't going to get to stay there and if you insist upon your > right to stay, a nice police man will be speaking with you shortly. That is not a valid analogy. This is all "Disney" and the guests are pretty much a captive audience when it comes to finding food or a place to rest. > Where are you getting the idea that seating in a WDW theme park > restaurant area should be any different? Because Walt Disney World is a theme park that was founded on the idea of providing a magical place for guests to enjoy and not to be anything like the real world, especially not a large city downtown. -- - RODNEY Next WDW Vacation? Who knows! Need to know more about RADP (rec.arts.disney.parks)? http://www.radp.org http://allears.net/btp/radp_bk.htm http://allears.net/tp/abrev.htm
From: Rudeney on 8 Oct 2009 16:13 rct wrote: > Rudeney wrote: > >> I'm not talking necessarily about sitting and relaxing in a restaurant, >> but just someplace. Besides, like I pointed out to Ron (Foxtrot), you >> can't compare restaurants in the "real world" to those in WDW. Disney >> has a captive audience and owns every square inch of the their parks. >> Denying tired, exhausted, overheated guests a place to sit and cool off >> is cruel and will certainly end up creating ill will and lost revenue in >> the end. > > Well yeah, but you think denying tired, exhausted, overheated, 50 > DOLLARS LIGHTER guests a place to sit and eat that which just made > them 50 dollars lighter is going to create great friends and repeat > visitors? My argument is that no one should be denied - just give us enough places to sit. We don't need a place for every man, woman and child in WDW to sit all at the same time, just the ones who want to sit at any given time. Obviously, by having to turn away some guests from being able to use the tables, it means there aren't enough. We don't need rules and "table police", we need *tables*. > A restaurant is a restaurant, it has to meet overhead. If it didn't, > why would Disney cut costs by eliminating resataurants and restaurant > hours? Can't have it both ways. If you are running a restaurant in the open market and competing with others down the street, then you are correct. Given that Disney serves a captive audience, they are obligated to provide food. In the past, they managed restaurant OI on a monthly or maybe daily basis. It seems now they are doing it on an hourly, or even 15-minute basis. Instead of realizing that there will be some slow times during the day and evening it out with the "rush hours", they are trying to cut it too close. If not enough guests buy food between, say 9:30am and 10:30am, then they won't open. This means those early eaters will show up with everyone else at 11:00am and the place will be packed, there won't be enough tables, and we will have knee-jerk reactions. Or, they will eventually get fed up with it and Disney will lose that revenue completely. >>> Attendance Down = Cut Costs, I don't think anyone can begrudge that. >>> Attendance Back Up = Continue At Cut Cost Levels AND Continue Raising >>> Prices, that doesn't work at all, and you don't need an MBA to figure >>> that out. > >> And of course the executives will blame all this on "the economy", and >> the Board will nod in agreement, and the shareholders will nod in >> agreement, and the press will nod in agreement and they will all still >> get their bonuses. ;-) > > The only thing wrong with the above is that it should say "...and the > shareholders that matter...". Us little shareholders don't matter, we > don't hold enough. We're also the ones that would actually want to > change things, because when we go there we don't have our own chef in > the next room. Well, yes! ;-) -- - RODNEY Next WDW Vacation? Who knows! Need to know more about RADP (rec.arts.disney.parks)? http://www.radp.org http://allears.net/btp/radp_bk.htm http://allears.net/tp/abrev.htm
From: rct on 8 Oct 2009 16:52 Rudeney wrote: > If you are running a restaurant in the open market and competing with > others down the street, then you are correct. Given that Disney serves > a captive audience, they are obligated to provide food. In the past, > they managed restaurant OI on a monthly or maybe daily basis. It seems > now they are doing it on an hourly, or even 15-minute basis. Instead of > realizing that there will be some slow times during the day and evening > it out with the "rush hours", they are trying to cut it too close. If > not enough guests buy food between, say 9:30am and 10:30am, then they > won't open. This means those early eaters will show up with everyone > else at 11:00am and the place will be packed, there won't be enough > tables, and we will have knee-jerk reactions. Or, they will eventually > get fed up with it and Disney will lose that revenue completely. It is my understanding, from yakking a little too much probably after a little too much wine probably with the chef types at a few joints that the restaurants are run as though they were in the open market. They have budget that is not aware of the budgets of others, they have nearly 100% autonomy in a lot of operational phases, and they report upward as an independant line of business. That's how I understand it, I may have it wrong, and it may only be at certain levels of overhead, Flying Fish, CG, Narcoosies, that sorta place. But my understanding(s) in these conversations has been ALL food service works that way. Maybe someone else here can enlighten us. So if that is the case, the restaurant runners are responding to the conditions imposed by the environment their restaurant runs in, that is, if nobody in to eat they have to close a while I guess, or in some other way recoup the overhead for that time. Unfortunately, their restaurants are also in an environment that doesn't include enough places for people to rest, and an environment that finds it difficult to...educate the guest on the purpose of the table they are at! Or something. But we agree for the most part. Whatever the case, whatever the problem, it hasn't turned us away for good, and I don't see anyone else in this thread saying that, so it can't be that bad. Right? rct
From: Disney Wizard the Fantasmic! on 8 Oct 2009 22:03 Out here on the left coast, the benches that are left are truly there for temporary barricades for shows, parades and events, with the added plus of seating guests at other times, because seated guests are guests not shopping. They have even gone as far as the studios to steal a bench from Griffith Park, sequester it to the Happiest Place on Earth. so they can put a velvet rope across it and add a label prohibiting its use. http://disneygeek.com/updates/disneyland_update.php?page_id=25&update_dir=2009_10_02 When Walt focused on overflowing trash cans - what he saw was a market niche as he reflected on the many other nearby amusement venues which were disgusting. http://www.flickr.com/photos/disneywizard/2504954629/ such as _The_Pike_ > Amusement along the shore. That's Long Beach, California, circa mid 1960's. The Pike was one of the reasons Disneyland was created. Although Walt is quoted as having been sitting on a bench near Griffith Park's carousel when the question of "Why isn't there a place where parents and their kids can both have fun?" This is the place... Joe wrote: > "There are ample benches all around the damn parks!" > > Actually, there are fewer and fewer benches each time I visit. > > The main hub in the MK used to be lined with benches, now there are > hardly any. -- All larders in the Temple of the Forbidden Eye rung a bakers dozen true. There are thirteen steps to the tallows, firing square or salivation. The first step is dental... Don't be bamboo skewered: Secrets of the Temple of the Forbidden Eye revealed! Indiana Jones(tm) Discovers The Jewel of Power! visit --(o=8> http://disneywizard.com/ <8=o)-- visit
From: Charlie Foxtrot on 9 Oct 2009 03:46
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:51:54 -0500, Rudeney <rudeney(a)mickeypics.com> wrote: > >If Disney refuses to add enough tables to accommodate all the guests who >want to use them for whatever reason, then they need to enforce a strict >policy of table usage. They should not just prevent guest without food >in hand from sitting, but they also should prevent guests without >"meals" from sitting. Fries and a drink can be consumed as you walk or >stand. IF only one guest is eating, then the rest of the party needs to >stay out of the restaurant so as not to occupy excess seats. Once >guests are through eating, they should be given only a few minutes >before vacating the table. I see this being no more heavy-handed than >not allowing guests to sit at tables because there aren't enough. It's >just as ridiculous! > Okay, then you are right there with my line of thought. Until the last two sentences. It's not ridiculous. It's something that has to be done at times. Foxtrot If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace. |