"Go Find a Table and I'll wait in line"

[Tigger's ally]

Whatever the problem is, the answer is not me holding a tray of food with nowhere to sit. If Disney stops people from going to a table unless they have food, that's what I'll do. If they allow people to save tables while someone else is ordering, that's what I'll do. Even if everyone following this thread agreed saving tables is bad or selfish and vowed never to do it again, it would have no impact on what goes on at Disney. This is a problem Disney has to solve, and they won't do it until they actually believe it's a problem.

The only way to do this is to close after the tables are full and only let people in when people leave.

Here's the thing- Disney is just like other restaurants around the globe.. They only have so many seats. Every McDonalds on the planet only has so many seats. If everybody in Magic Kingdom suddenly decides to eat at Cosmic Ray's then they are going to run out of seats. Same goes for every McDonalds. That is just part of QS (ordering at the counter) means. Disney has added seating at most of their QS places (including outside seating at Cosmic Rays) but cant add more without affecting flow around the outer perimeter.

 

[Disneypro1]

Well. It all boils down to—- just do what best for your family. Don’t worry what others do and life is so much simpler. We save tables. Maybe some don’t. Great! I don’t care what anyone does. Free country as they say.
I just do and take care of my family best I can. That’s all that really matters. Because if I don’t. I can’t expect anyone else to. Well all do our vacation different. And table saving is really a non issue..

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You are right, I do not know what Disney has or has not looked into, but I do know approximately what they are paying their CMs. But really, all I was doing was making a hypothetical suggestion on an internet discussion board, not proposing a business plan. I am sorry you feel like my post was judging you in some way. Again, it was a hypothetical suggestion. No plan would be perfect. I apologize for using vague terms that you do not like. If it makes you feel any better, I would be in the less "entitled" group as I have no kids or special circumstances. I wasn't trying to make anyone feel like anything. I cannot help how people choose to react.

I do understand you were making a hypothetical comment. I was responding to that hypothetical comment.

It's not about terms I don't like. It's that I don't have a clue what your parameters are. You explained that you would give more than 30mins to people with special circumstances and those with kids but you don't explain just what you mean by that. Personal opinion here but by special circumstances I don't think it would be appropriate to make people explain why they need longer time. And I personally believe it would leave the door open to people fudging things just so they can get longer time. But yes you can infer that I wouldn't appreciate anyone getting special treatment which giving longer time to whomever would be.

I understand you weren't attempting to go uber in-depth of your thoughtprocess when you made your initial comment still made me want to discuss your comment though

On that note it's totally fine for us to agree to disagree on that front so no worries on feeling like you need to further explain yourself.

But I would mention this as a general comment though tied to yours since you posed the question as well:
In regards to just how long it takes people to eat--

• Next time you (general you) go to a sit down restaurant time yourself just on the food part.
• Not the time it takes to order the food, not the time it takes have the food made, but only the time it takes to physically eat the food.
• For whatever reason the amount of time it takes one to eat food is a sticking point for some people in the distinction between QS/CS and TS. Personally I don't really care to know how long it actually takes someone, I know I'm not timing myself, but I also don't personally believe someone should be shooed from their table as quickly as possible simply because the place is categorized as QS/CS as opposed to TS on the basis of "well how long does it take someone to eat QS".

***Don't worry that last part wasn't meant for you to actually answer me just making a generalized comment***

 

[Tigger's ally]

I do understand you were making a hypothetical comment. I was responding to that hypothetical comment.

• For whatever reason the amount of time it takes one to eat food is a sticking point for some people in the distinction between QS/CS and TS. Personally I don't really care to know how long it actually takes someone, I know I'm not timing myself, but I also don't personally believe someone should be shooed from their table as quickly as possible simply because the place is categorized as QS/CS as opposed to TS on the basis of "well how long does it take someone to eat QS".

And to add a thought, I think the modern day invention called the cell phone has an affect here too. Often times it isn't the time spent eating that is frustrating for those trying to find a seat, but often you see people using the seat as a chance to catch up on their texts/Fast Passes/internet time etc simply because they have a seat and it is inside where they can see the screen. Not to mention just enjoy the air conditioning. It is what it is. I prefer to take the stance that If I am in a long line ordering during a busy time, chances are I am not going to get a seat. But we don't worry about that at Disney because we always schedule two meals a day- late breakfast or early lunch and then signature dinner.

 

[kaytieeldr]

We do this, my dad and I wait in line for food. My husband and mom take the 3 kids to the bathroom and then look for a table. Typically we are getting the food as the are just finding a table. Or they will wait with us till after we order and then find a table while we are getting the food.

Right now it is just me and my husband so we don't generally have to split up when ordering, but when we do it is after we have ordered. One will wait for the food while the other gathers utensils and what not and finds a spot. Never a lot of waiting without food on the table.

This is virtually the same as the entire party waiting until they have their food before grabbing a table, so thank you!

But you are blaming visitors for taking tables without trays of food. Are you not? Isn’t that due to seating capacity issues? Sorry. I just don’t see the difference.

Again, it appears different people define "blaming" differently. But no, I am saying.

I admit that we've done this, but only when there are already plenty of empty tables, so we're not depriving anyone of anything.

Yep. Plenty of empty tables, zero issue. Thank you!

It appears that, if WDW wants to keep people from sitting at tables before they have food, they dispatch CMs to be sure that doesn't happen. Otherwise, it would seem that it's fair game.

It doesn't have to be like that. There is no reason I can see why virtually everyone gets their food then finds a table. When everybody follows the same steps, the process works. It works when Disney monitors, it will work when they don't.

 

[AndreaA]

!

Then suggest that to Disney. But you don't know the wage situation with Disney and you don't know if Disney hasn't already looked at the ROI for paying that CM to do what you want them to do especially all the time.

Attack? No.

Judgement? Yes.

Judgment to anyone who doesn't fit your "special circumstance" (vague) or has kids as if those two things mean someone is more entitled to something than someone who doesn't fit into those.

As far as how long it takes that's exactly why I mentioned those things. There's no set time that people take to eat, some eat faster than others, some eat slower than others.

Does having kids or special circumstances (vague) mean you no matter what take longer to eat? I'm unaware of that. I didn't know that digestion times varied so much when someone automatically had kids (which what's the age limit for your definition of kids?) or whatever special circumstance you're talking about.

Your reasoning is the same for TS though. If you're going to single out QS/CS for a time limit in order to turn over tables quicker then do the same for TS. They have the same issue--turning over tables in order to seat more guests. But I doubt you'd find many people appreciating feeling like they are being shooed out in TS (and I know some have expressed that in posts that they feel they were being rushed) nor do I think people would appreciate the feeling of being shooed out in QS/CS.

People just want to be able to enjoy their food. There's no need to try and make someone feel like they don't deserve that because they are in a non-TS place.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?? Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the original commenter was being JUDGEMENTAL?? PLEASE check your entitlement. It is a simple FACT that in the vast majority of cases, a couple of adults is going to be able to finish their meal faster than a couple of adults who are trying to wrangle a couple (or more!) kids. And I’m pretty sure that any reasonable person can use their common sense to decide what a “kid” is, but if not, feel free to use Disney’s own categorization of <10.

And I seriously doubt anyone would be “shooing” anyone anywhere, the suggestion is basically sound - you stay at your table for as long as it takes you to eat, and then you LEAVE. Sorry, no lingering when there are crowds waiting to sit. If you take issue with that, then go eat somewhere other than a crowded theme-park. Sheeesh!

And if you think that the servers at TS restaurants don’t try to hurry people along once the food is eaten, then you are simply very, very, mistaken.

 

[AndreaA]

I really can’t believe this is a problem some people take so serious. If we go to a QS and it’s full with no tables we go somewhere else. We don’t get mad. We don’t pout. If there is an empty table some of the family goes to claim it. If we order food we will know for sure we have a place to sit. Don’t be sensitive and assume people like me and apparently 65% of others are bad people or disrespectful. We are smart and plan ahead...

If I was a solo traveler and unable to save a seat I would personally go when it is less busy and not the lunch rush or find somewhere that may not be so busy.

Yes, EXACTLY. And anyone who keeps bringing up the “poll” here is just whistling in the wind. The population of DIS is NOT representative of the population of Disney visitors as a whole. The majority of people are splitting up and claiming a table just as soon as they can, which is the sensible thing to do. And if you are unable to split up, then it is NOT difficult to spot someone about to leave and kindly ask for their table, OR ask someone who is almost done eating if they would mind holding the table for you while you order.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

!


Seriously? SERIOUSLY?? Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the original commenter was being JUDGEMENTAL?? PLEASE check your entitlement. It is a simple FACT that in the vast majority of cases, a couple of adults is going to be able to finish their meal faster than a couple of adults who are trying to wrangle a couple (or more!) kids. And I’m pretty sure that any reasonable person can use their common sense to decide what a “kid” is, but if not, feel free to use Disney’s own categorization of <10.

And I seriously doubt anyone would be “shooing” anyone anywhere, the suggestion is basically sound - you stay at your table for as long as it takes you to eat, and then you LEAVE. Sorry, no lingering when there are crowds waiting to sit. If you take issue with that, then go eat somewhere other than a crowded theme-park. Sheeesh!

And if you think that the servers at TS restaurants don’t try to hurry people along once the food is eaten, then you are simply very, very, mistaken.

lol I have no entitlement. Weird that you would say that. The poster made reference to other people should get a longer time because of x and y and I advised no one should get a longer time; i.e. being fair to everyone. Somehow you make that out to me being entitled because I want everyone to be treated the same. I guess we have a different definition of 'sense of entitlement'.


You know people are able to say they feel judgement without it being a heated match.


The poster said "they should also put a limit on how long you have to occupy the table once you get your food. Maybe 30 minutes" A time limit only works...if you actually enforce it. Otherwise it's not a time limit and we're back to where we are now where it's up to each individual party.

As far as a kid are you aware of some dietary reason a kid who is aged 9 takes longer to eat than a kid who is aged 10? Hence why I asked.

In either case TBH you're getting a heck of a lot more worked up over this. And you're misinterpreting what I was saying.

Meh. Respectfully, if you want to discuss further with me you're welcome to PM me **I don't expect you to do that but you're more than welcome to**

 

[kaytieeldr]

They said Disney could help by making the extra seating in QS.

They could, but where without reg migrating numerous buildings?

And you think it was a knock on people eating alone.

It seemed that way to me, too. " Well, you're alone, you can be relegated to the counter. You one of two contender to occupy a real table." I 'm sure not the intent, but the result.

Your only other option is to take the wheelchair into the orderline, with no room to turn it around, and have the person in the chair hold the food...and hope no one steps in front of the chair or runs into the side of you (yep it happens) while searching for a table.

Are there no longer accessible ordering lines?

Read my later post explaining why saying “solos could eat there” and a bar or counter gets my defenses up. And if they were there, I can easily see people in groups making it clear that THEY have a right to tables and solos should be at the counters

Ah. You mean like your initial experience at that concert

Grabbing a table at a crowded QS before we have our food is something we've learned to do. Just like getting a 4th FP, or the first 3 for that matter. Everyone is "entitled" to do it.

Again, not everybody is able to do it. There seems to be a genuine lack of consideration for small/single parties.

Don’t be sensitive and assume people like me and apparently 65% of others are bad people or disrespectful.

It would be greatly appreciated if the table saving contingent would stop usurping the "it depends" responses. The statistics you want is 57.5%, or at most 63.4%.

If I was a solo traveler and unable to save a seat I would personally go when it is less busy and not the lunch rush or find somewhere that may not be so busy.

I am confused why solo travelers and small parties are expected to sacrifice, or to change their restaurant choice or dining time.

 

[anomamatt]

Wow, what a hot button issue...

Anyway, it seems like the real issue is lack of sufficient seating in the parks. Instead of fighting with each other, send an email to WDW and tell them your trip was negatively impacted by them not having enough seating... Look at WLB in TSL, that was all about cutting costs and it puts the park-goers in a bad situation.

(Oh, I totally voted YES. A million times YES. And sometimes I just sit for like 6 hours. No food anywhere in sight. And while sitting there (with no food! except sometimes a PB&J Sammy I bring to the park from home), I also refresh constantly and book FPs for Tier-1 rides -- and I don't use them!)

(I really did vote yes. We mobile order when using QS and don't show up until "food is ready". I will work on my penance now.)

Okay, back to all the fighting...

 

[DisneyArkie]

They could, but where without reg migrating numerous buildings?

It seemed that way to me, too. " Well, you're alone, you can be relegated to the counter. You one of two contender to occupy a real table." I 'm sure not the intent, but the result.

Are there no longer accessible ordering lines?

Ah. You mean like your initial experience at that concert

Again, not everybody is able to do it. There seems to be a genuine lack of consideration for small/single parties.

It would be greatly appreciated if the table saving contingent would stop usurping the "it depends" responses. The statistics you want is 57.5%, or at most 63.4%.

I am confused why solo travelers and small parties are expected to sacrifice, or to change their restaurant choice or dining time.

It’s obvious you are confused. 57% says they save a seat and another 8 percent say they do depending on how there legs feel. That would add up to 65%. Math is not your strong suit I see. Complaining is...

Granted I think this poll is not reflecting of the mass majority of who goes to Disney and I would assume that number to be higher.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Disney has added seating at most of their QS places (including outside seating at Cosmic Rays)

Those tables aren't new. They have been there for at least a dozen years, definitely during the recession when restaurants weren't nearly as busy.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?? Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the original commenter was being JUDGEMENTAL?? PLEASE check your entitlement. It is a simple FACT that in the vast majority of cases, a couple of adults is going to be able to finish their meal faster than a couple of adults who are trying to wrangle a couple (or more!) kids. And I’m pretty sure that any reasonable person can use their common sense to decide what a “kid” is, but if not, feel free to use Disney’s own categorization of <10.

I think the time limit is a bad suggestion, but it should be the same for everyone. In fact, it should be a solid time limit: 30 minutes total, for example. Diners who choose to save a table have it for 30 minutes, even if takes 20 minutes for the food to get there.

And I seriously doubt anyone would be “shooing” anyone anywhere, the suggestion is basically sound - you stay at your table for as long as it takes you to eat, and then you LEAVE. Sorry, no lingering when there are crowds waiting to sit.

Taking a table before one's food is even offered is lingering as well.

And if you think that the servers at TS restaurants don’t try to hurry people along once the food is eaten, then you are simply very, very, mistaken

Restaurant servers rely on tips for the bulk of their earnings. Of course they are going to politely attempt to turn over their stations at a reasonable pace.

Yes, EXACTLY. And anyone who keeps bringing up the “poll” here is just whistling in the wind. The population of DIS is NOT representative of the population of Disney visitors as a whole. The majority of people are splitting up and claiming a table just as soon as they can,

It's disingenuous to denigrate persons using poll statistics, then cite statistics to support a claim. A large minority can't or won't save a table before foodfood is ready.

 

[cruisin5]

Again, not everybody is able to do it. There seems to be a genuine lack of consideration for small/single parties.

Agreed, but it's substantially easier to find a table for two versus a table for eight. The opposite of the ability to snag fast passes.

If it's just DH and me there's no need to save a table. If it's only me and my 78-year-old mother, you betcha she's going to find a table and rest while I order the food. Last week we were a party of eight, we ordered then sent two of the teens to find a table.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It’s obvious you are confused. 57% says they save a seat and another 8 percent say they do depending on how there legs feel. That would add up to 65%. Math is not your strong suit I see. Complaining is

I bet to differ. I am a numbers person.
57.8% of respondents always save tables.
33.8% never save tables.
8.4% sometimes save tables.
57.8% of 8.4 is 4.9%.
On average, 63.7% save tables.
On average, 37.3% do not save tables.
Yes, the majority save tables.
37.8% is more than one out three.
A large minority do not or can not save tables.
Simple.
The 8.4% cannot reasonably or fairly all be relegated to one category or the other.
We could disregard these responses completely. This would reduce the table saver to three out of five, with the nonsavers still representing one of every three responders.
The lowest common denominator of three and five is 15.
Nine out of 15 save tables.
Five out of 15 dont don't, can't or won't save tables.
if you want to include the 8.4%:
Lowest common denominator is 50.
29 out of 50 save.
17 out of 50 don't save.
Four out of 50 do/don't save.
Yes, a majority save, but a substantial minority don't.

 

[cobright]

Ten-fifteen minutes prior to have food, plus ten-fifteen minutes after finishing, plus X minutes to actually eat? Overly presumptuous.

Let's evaluate the matter of 'presumption' please. Consider my most recent family trip.
A party of 4 to the Satu'li Canteen. 4 entrees (about $15 ea) and 4 drinks (2 x $5.00 and 2 x $10). That make's a $90 tab for food at a restaurant we have already paid $400 for the privilege of dining at that day. Assume it takes us a half hour to eat the meal (I'm certain it did not take that long but ... to make the argument easier) and that it took 15 minutes to get the food from the time we claimed our table and that we spent another full 15 minutes to finish our drinks and plan the rest of our day in the park (again, an extreme and unlikely proposition but within the parameters I mentioned). I think that a $1.50 a minute is more than fair for what is essentially 8 sq. ft. of real estate.

 

[cobright]

And if you think that the servers at TS restaurants don’t try to hurry people along once the food is eaten, then you are simply very, very, mistaken.

Any waiter that 'hurries' me along will lose more from my tip than they would earn in that extra 10-20 minutes they gain.

 

[kaytieeldr]

and that it took 15 minutes to get the food from the time we claimed our table and that we spent another full 15 minutes to finish our drinks and plan the rest of our day

Just to be clear, I do not support time restrictions on dining AT ALL.

 

[marikujawa]

I bet to differ. I am a numbers person.
57.8% of respondents always save tables.
33.8% never save tables.
8.4% sometimes save tables.
57.8% of 8.4 is 4.9%.
On average, 63.7% save tables.
On average, 37.3% do not save tables.
Yes, the majority save tables.
37.8% is more than one out three.
A large minority do not or can not save tables.
Simple.
The 8.4% cannot reasonably or fairly all be relegated to one category or the other.
We could disregard these responses completely. This would reduce the table saver to three out of five, with the nonsavers still representing one of every three responders.
The lowest common denominator of three and five is 15.
Nine out of 15 save tables.
Five out of 15 dont don't, can't or won't save tables.
if you want to include the 8.4%:
Lowest common denominator is 50.
29 out of 50 save.
17 out of 50 don't save.
Four out of 50 do/don't save.
Yes, a majority save, but a substantial minority don't.

The incredibly tiny number of people who answered the poll doesn’t seem to warrant this much effort. Means nothing.

 

[robinb]

I will say, if you have a manual wheelchair user in your party, and it is just the two of you, you almost have to place the wheelchair person at a table before you order. There is no way to safely juggle a tray of food in one hand, search for a table, and push a wheelchair with your other hand. Food is going to almost certainly fall, or you will run into someone with the wheelchair. Your only other option is to take the wheelchair into the orderline, with no room to turn it around, and have the person in the chair hold the food...and hope no one steps in front of the chair or runs into the side of you (yep it happens) while searching for a table. Wheelchairs seem to be invisible to a lot of people, likely because of the height difference.

I don’t think that anyone has an issue with people with disabilities sitting at a table before ordering.

 

[cruisin5]

I bet to differ. I am a numbers person.
57.8% of respondents always save tables.
33.8% never save tables.
8.4% sometimes save tables.
57.8% of 8.4 is 4.9%.
On average, 63.7% save tables.
On average, 37.3% do not save tables.
Yes, the majority save tables.
37.8% is more than one out three.
A large minority do not or can not save tables.
Simple.
The 8.4% cannot reasonably or fairly all be relegated to one category or the other.
We could disregard these responses completely. This would reduce the table saver to three out of five, with the nonsavers still representing one of every three responders.
The lowest common denominator of three and five is 15.
Nine out of 15 save tables.
Five out of 15 dont don't, can't or won't save tables.
if you want to include the 8.4%:
Lowest common denominator is 50.
29 out of 50 save.
17 out of 50 don't save.
Four out of 50 do/don't save.
Yes, a majority save, but a substantial minority don't.

The survey asked if you sit at a QS without having your meal. Always, sometimes and never wasn't the question. I answered Yes, but am in the depends on circumstances group.