ADR - do I include person who doesn’t eat in party count

[Elle23]

The thing is that they can and will waive the charge on an individual basis at the time. The servers or managers have discretion to make exceptions, based on circumstances.
They don’t do it ahead of time for one very good reason - if they did it ahead of time, people whose family member don’t have any special needs will lie to save money.

Well I think that is fine. But a blanket “we will charge everyone regardless of their circumstances” just isn’t right.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[DisneyOma]

I’m sorry, but charging a meal to someone who medically cannot eat and is receiving tube feedings is just crass and ridiculous. I don’t care if it a character buffet or not. I hope Disney will change this policy. It’s not like they are choosing not to eat. They cannot eat!

How about a cover charge that would take care of the missed revenue for the seat the non-eating person that could have been used for a person who would be dining (and paying)?

 

[marcyleecorgan]

How about a cover charge that would take care of the missed revenue for the seat the non-eating person that could have been used for a person who would be dining (and paying)?

How about an over-inflated charge for the seat, in a themed area that has high volume of skilled CM's as well as personal interactive Character M&G action? Maybe even access to a buffet? Oh wait... that's what they already do...

 

[Mrsjvb]

Not necessarily. And it’s still ridiculous and unfair.

no more unfair than charging full price in a buffet for a person who has half a plate worth of food total. or charging full price to someone to enter the parks yet they don't ride any rides.

there are set costs to do X thing. whether or not an individual perceives a good value, or getting their money's worth, is not the company's problem. we don't do buffets any more because we don't perceive it to be worth the expense based on our eating habits. we also don't need to have a selfie with Gaston or whoever.

 

[gap2368]

Ok I have a question ( and I am not trying to start an argument) but someone said ( no one in this group) that if someone dose not eat then they do not pay. Is this true even for character dinning ( where I heard everyone has too pay since they are meeting characters and it is extra. Really just wondering

 

[Betty Rohrer]

Ok I have a question ( and I am not trying to start an argument) but someone said ( no one in this group) that if someone dose not eat then they do not pay. Is this true even for character dinning ( where I heard everyone has too pay since they are meeting characters and it is extra. Really just wondering

from what I have seen they would be charged as the Servers can not watch all to be sure they are not eating anything

 

[gap2368]

from what I have seen they would be charged as the Servers can not watch all to be sure they are not eating anything

This is what I thought

 

[camper06]

Ok I have a question ( and I am not trying to start an argument) but someone said ( no one in this group) that if someone dose not eat then they do not pay. Is this true even for character dinning ( where I heard everyone has too pay since they are meeting characters and it is extra. Really just wondering

The thing is that they can and will waive the charge on an individual basis at the time. The servers or managers have discretion to make exceptions, based on circumstances.
They don’t do it ahead of time for one very good reason - if they did it ahead of time, people whose family member don’t have any special needs will lie to save money.

The difference would be if they don't eat vs. can't eat. Based on Sue's post above, looks like there is some wiggle room if the person cannot eat (eg. tube fed). But she did state its on a case by case basis, so I would plan on paying and hope for some pixie dust!

 

[I Believe in Pixie dust]

You will need to include everyone in your ADR. My family of five includes my 13 year old daughter who has CP. She is non verbal and is not mobile. She is TPN dependent and also fed via g-tube. We have been to WDW twice and we were never charged for her meals after explaining her situation to our server. Every server treated us respectfully and with the managers approval never charged us for any meal (that included character meals). On our second trip we had the deluxe dining plan and when I booked/purchased it I explained her short bowel diagnosis and TPN dependency and they made an exception and only charged us for the four. I would suggest you call and inquire. WDW is the only place where my family and my daughter feel accepted and can participate in activities like other families who don't have children with disabilities. We scrimp and save for years because when we get there my daughter is so incredibly happy and we can feel 'normal like everyone else. Just let your servers know your situation and you will be surprised how accommodating they are. Have an awesome and memorable trip!

 

[Toffeewoffy]

A lot of these arguments only apply when going to a buffet restaurant. If you're going to a normal 'a la carte' place then you only pay for what you order. If you order 4 meals, say, for 5 people because 2 are going to share, they don't then add on a charge for the meal not being ordered. In the same way, they wouldn't charge an adult price for an adult (or child over 10) ordering a meal from the child's menu.

Quite honestly, if you're doing DVC and don't get/qualify for free dining, why pay OOP for a dining package? As you say, only 4 out of the 5 of you will actually be able to eat anything, and why pay unnecessarily for a 5th person when they can't eat anything? If you pay OOP for your meals, you will have total flexibility on what you order - including only having an entree if you don't want a dessert (I'm always too full for a dessert anyway), or you could order an appetiser and a dessert and not order an entree at all. Plus, if you just took the 5th meal to go, you're also paying a totally unnecessary tip, remember!

On paper, paying for the DDP has never worked out cheaper for us - even when eating at TS restaurants.

There is no question of a non-eating person taking up a seat that an eating person would use otherwise! That's saying that we, as a party of 3, would be charged a surcharge for 'wasting' the 4th seat on our table! That just wouldn't happen. Hubby and I have been sat at tables for 4 before now as that was what was available when we were next on the waiting list!

 

[tinkerbelllacey]

My daughter who is now 21 is tube fed, Has CHARGE Syndrome,non verbal, DeafBlind, uses a wheelchair and we are DVC members. We go to Disney usually twice a year and we have been going for years since she was a baby.We have never been charged for a meal for her even at the character buffets. Everyone is always wonderful with her and she was even chosen once to be princess of the day at breakfast opening at Cinderella’s Royal Table even though she wasn’t eating. I always explain when we check in. When I book our reservations I always include her as she takes up a space. We even did the dessert party and they did not charge for her and I explained everything when we booked. When we get the dining plan I pay for her and then when we get to the hotel they take her off and put our money back on our credit card. Again- We have never been charged for her and everyone is always so nice and the characters are also wonderful with her spending lots of time when I explain she is DeafBlind!

 

[Lewisc]

There is no question of a non-eating person taking up a seat that an eating person would use otherwise! That's saying that we, as a party of 3, would be charged a surcharge for 'wasting' the 4th seat on our table! That just wouldn't happen. Hubby and I have been sat at tables for 4 before now as that was what was available when we were next on the waiting list!

This is more a hypothetical then real world...A non-eating person counts against the fire code maximum number of guests in the restaurant. An empty chair resulting from a party if 3 being seated at a table for 4 doesn't count.

Disney restaurants are frequently packed, I doubt a CM counts the number of guests vs fire code maximums. I might be wrong

 

[SueM in MN]

This is more a hypothetical then real world...A non-eating person counts against the fire code maximum number of guests in the restaurant. An empty chair resulting from a party if 3 being seated at a table for 4 doesn't count.

Disney restaurants are frequently packed, I doubt a CM counts the number of guests vs fire code maximums. I might be wrong

Places that I am aware of generally have the number of chairs/seats that correspond to/are a bit under the number the fire code allows for the area.
As long as there are empty seats, they know they are not above the number allowed by the fire code.
I expect that would be how Disney does it for restaurants.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

that, and it would be kind of a burden on the prix fixe restaurants to "police" everyone who claimed they were "not going to eat" in order to make sure they didn't eat food from someone else's plate. This is also why everyone on the same reservation has to get the dining plan. At least with the dining plan, the credits can be used by anyone in the party and this is easy to take care of with a la carte restaurants. It's just the ones where everyone pays the same price that have issues. With some prix fixe restaurants, they may allow a medical waiver at the restaurant, but they won't do so ahead of time. You need to ask when you are there.

 

[ttintagel]

Even without the maximum occupancy / fire code issue, not all restaurants are going to be roomy enough to squeeze a wheelchair in between two existing seats at a table. If you'll be taking up the physical space of five people, your reservation should be made for 5.

And, yes, I have heard of individual cases where the manager of a character/dinner show buffet either waived the cost for a person who was unable to eat or charged a smaller "entertainment fee." But I've also heard of other cases where they haven't. it's completely within the manager's discretion; there's no rule saying they *have* to do it.