New Counter Service Seating Program Trials
in [Disney Parks]
|
From: Charlie Foxtrot on 9 Oct 2009 04:02 On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:13:00 -0500, Rudeney <rudeney(a)mickeypics.com> 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. I'm with you 100% on that one, Rodney. I'm constantly telling my employees that dealing with a handful of customers from 7PM to 10PM is the price they pay to be there from 10PM to 2AM when they make their money. The ones who take my advice and keep a diary find out that a month worth of those "deadbeats" in the first three hours adds a significant amount to their income. Maybe I should go consult WDW and explain the concept of those down hours being the price you pay to have the great hours. 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.
From: Charlie Foxtrot on 9 Oct 2009 04:11 On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0700 (PDT), rct <Ron.Thompson(a)faa.gov> wrote: >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. > My word is not official, in any way, but what you describe is, exactly, what I've been told by several insiders. The whole reason, for example, PI had 8Trax was because the prior incarnation, The Cage, did not cover the overhead of that individual location. 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.
From: Rudeney on 9 Oct 2009 09:42 Charlie Foxtrot wrote: > 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. Ron, I think you missed the sarcasm in my statements. Restaurants at WDW should *never* refuse seating to guests based on the quantity of food ordered, nor should they ask guests who have finished a meal to leave. While I agree that it is rude for guests to take up table space unnecessarily when it is very crowded, I just don't believe it is Disney's job to police that. Now, I would have no problem,during crowded times, if Disney placed signs at the restaurant entrances stating, "Please reserve tables for guests with food." I think this would get the message out and 99% of guests would comply, but I truly believe Walt Disney would roll over in his grave if he knew that any CM's were policing table usage. -- - 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: Erwin M. on 9 Oct 2009 13:47 Rob Steere wrote: > I'm sure that back when Disney was planning the restaurants, there were some > big, complicated formulas used to figure out the best number of tables in > each location, basing it on the average time spent by a Guest eating, the > serving speed of the food counters, time spent looking for a table, how long > a table sits empty, etc etc etc. > > > The food counters put out food at a pretty consistent rate during peak > times. So the flow of Guests from the counter to the seating area is a > pretty constant value. > If *no* tables were ever saved by non-eating Guests, and there were enough > tables in a location, you'd have a balanced flow of some Guests just sitting > down, some currently eating, some getting up to leave, and some empty > tables. (And some rude Guests leaving their trash behind, waiting for a CM > to come along and throw it away, but in the meantime making that table > rather undesirable to sit down at) > > But as more and more people save tables because they THINK they have to (and > not simply the families who need to seat the little kids at the table while > a parents goes and orders), those available open tables diminish, throwing a > wrench in the works. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. More people save > tables, meaning less open ones visible to new arrivals, so MORE people save > tables because of the perceived shortage... Taken to the extreme, you could > have EVERY table in the place being held by non-eaters, leaving absolutely > nothing available for people just entering the dining room with food. > > The best-planned systems can be totally fouled up by guests who don't know > any better. Exactly. When DW mentioned this news item to me, her analysis went as follows: Alice and Bob enter the Cosmic Backlot Sunshine Tree. Alice sits down to reserve a table while Bob gets in line to order and pick up the food. Since this is a busy time of year, it takes him 20 minutes to get up to the CM, place his order, pay, wait for his food, and take it out of the queue. The moment that Bob enters the queue, Carol and Dave exit the queue with their food. Again, this is a busy time of year. It ends up taking them 10 minutes of circling the dining room to find a table, and since they're in a hurry to catch the last showing of Dream Along with Dragon Land Motors -- The Musical, they wolf their food down, bus their table, and leave in the space of 10 minutes. Had Alice not been reserving the table, Carol and Dave could have sat down immediately and eaten at a more leisurely pace and still left the table vacant in time for Alice and Bob to get through the food queue. Reserving a table does not get you your food any faster. One possible advantage, in fact, to having everyone wait in the food queue is that the amount of physical space taken up will slow the queue down a bit, but at the same time make the food distribution more efficient. Consider this: At the Cosmic Backlot Sunshine Tree, the part of the queue where you wait for your food after you've ordered and paid can hold 12 people. A good CM running the register won't process more orders if the line can't advance. This is a very average day during a somewhat busy time of year (not the February dead season, nor the Christmas-New Year insanity season), so miraculously every party entering the CBST is composed of 4 people. With having every party waiting for their food in full in the queue, the kitchen is processing 4 tickets for 16 orders at any given time (the 12 people in the corral plus the 4-person party standing at the register) for each register. When 4 people leave with food, 4 more enter waiting for it, and there at most only 3 tickets with 12 orders ahead of you when you step up to the register. If one person from each party is ordering while the other 3 go to sit down, the kitchen is processing 13 tickets for 52 orders at any given time for each register -- 12*4 in the corral, plus another 1*4 for the person at the register. Sure, when one person leaves with 4 orders, another person enters waiting for 4 orders...but when you step up to that register, there are 12 tickets with 48 orders ahead of you. Plus, once each of these party leaders has actually gotten their order up, they're either struggling with multiple trays themselves, or they're summoning another party member to swim upstream to help them out with taking the food to the table. Since the kitchen has a pretty constant throughput regardless of how many tickets are actually up for processing, it's easy to see which situation ends up getting ugly in a faster time. Say that the kitchen takes 1.5 minutes to process a ticket with 4 orders, and only one ticket per register is being processed at any time. In the first case, it will take you 6 minutes from placing your order to get out of the queue to start looking for a table for your whole party. (Never mind time spent waiting to get up to the register.) In the second case, it will take you 19.5 minutes, and in the meantime, the remainder of your party has been holding a table and keeping others from sitting down to eat. You may not have to search for a table, but it has taken you longer to get through the queue! If the rate of incoming orders could be slowed down to the rate at which the kitchen can actually fill them, you would have fewer mistakes, happier guests, and less-disgruntled CMs. (Well, maybe not the last part so much, but at least guest attitude will be contributing less to any disgruntlement.) People may not spend any less time waiting since it will take them longer to get up to the register in the first place, but psychologically I've always felt that a minute spent waiting for the food after I've paid for it is a longer minute than a minute spent waiting to get up to place the order. Feel free to tell me that I'm blowing smoke out of the wrong end, but just based on what I've seen at counter service over the last 5 years, getting more orders into the kitchen at any given time only seems to make service less efficient. Getting whole parties into the queue would slow down the rate of orders entering the kitchen.
From: Keane on 9 Oct 2009 14:50
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:47:08 -0400, "Erwin M." <erwin71m(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Rob Steere wrote: > >> I'm sure that back when Disney was planning the restaurants, there were some >> big, complicated formulas used to figure out the best number of tables in >> each location, basing it on the average time spent by a Guest eating, the >> serving speed of the food counters, time spent looking for a table, how long >> a table sits empty, etc etc etc. I don't remember Pecos Bill's from 1977. (I'm not sure I remember a lot of the 70's, but I digress.) Was it ever expanded? Pecos Bill's outdates Pirates. (Though I'm sure Pirates was part of their capacity planning.) Adventureland used to end at the tiki room. A lot of park traffic was shifted to the West because of Thunder, then Splash. Was Pecos Bill's ever expanded for the population shift? It looks like it could have been expanded twice, but I don't know. <snip> >If the rate of incoming orders could be slowed down to the rate at which >the kitchen can actually fill them, you would have fewer mistakes, >happier guests, and less-disgruntled CMs. (Well, maybe not the last part >so much, but at least guest attitude will be contributing less to any >disgruntlement.) People may not spend any less time waiting since it >will take them longer to get up to the register in the first place, but >psychologically I've always felt that a minute spent waiting for the >food after I've paid for it is a longer minute than a minute spent >waiting to get up to place the order. This is where your idea falls apart. :-) In this article (that Joe posted earlier): On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 05:49:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe <joe.raube(a)gmail.com> wrote: >here's a post on wdwmagic from a Pecos Bill CM that clarifies some >things: > >http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=3784703&postcount=55 With 8 self-serve terminals, that's what, 16 possible registers now? We should start a pool on when the first CM back there goes insane. And also note that they've only used the system 3 times since July. I've been in the parks on those crowded days, and it's not just the restaurants, it's the shops, the attractions, and anywhere else you can cram a human being. The bane of Disneyworld. I have happily gone back to my room for an adult beverage when that happens. Note: I don't do WDW May-August anymore... I can wait until the crowds diminish a little. The heat and humidity, too. Keane -- When stars are born, They possess a gift or two, One of them is this, They have the power to make a wish come true... -- Wishes Visit my site: http://keanespics.com |