Disney to cancel FPs if room is cancelled

[Brett Wyman]

I also have added dining to an existing room only room, that gives an entire new reservation number because it becomes a package. Hopefully the FPs would remain.

We will see what happens, but good to see this before Galaxy's Edge.

I've added a DP to a room only res, which changes it to a package, before(with a new res number) and all my FPs stuck.

 

[chiisai]

If I'm reading the pp correctly, then yes. I end up doing that for a lot of trips, either because a different resort with a better rate becomes available, or I change to a split stay which cancels the original reservation for two new ones, I believe. Come to think of it, even if you rebook the same resort, same dates to get a better rate or free dining or something, I think it creates a new reservation.

Gotcha. I don’t imagine they’d wipe fp for that. I just rebooked the same resort to add the dining plan to one leg of my split stay, which changed the res number and all.

 

[Runnsally]

Do you mean they cancel the first on-site booking, but then book a different on-site resort with the exact same dates?

Not necessarily the same dates.

 

[momof2n2]

People who are saying that it is unfair to reserve a room and pay for it and then not show up are making no sense.

We travel frequently and book hotels in multiple ways. Almost without exception there is a penalty if you do not cancel by a specific date. If I don’t show up, they still get my money.

Not showing up actually HELPS WDW... why would they care if I actually sleep in the room or use the camp site? This is not a loophole.

 

[Branderson610]

People who are saying that it is unfair to reserve a room and pay for it and then not show up are making no sense.

We travel frequently and book hotels in multiple ways. Almost without exception there is a penalty if you do not cancel by a specific date. If I don’t show up, they still get my money.

Not showing up actually HELPS WDW... why would they care if I actually sleep in the room or use the camp site? This is not a loophole.

I think Disney cares, because if you stay at the resort you are more than likely to buy food from the resort, also you might buy things from the gift shop. Also, for the value resorts, maids and bellhops are loosing out on tips on empty rooms.

 

[Ben E N]

People who are saying that it is unfair to reserve a room and pay for it and then not show up are making no sense.

We travel frequently and book hotels in multiple ways. Almost without exception there is a penalty if you do not cancel by a specific date. If I don’t show up, they still get my money.

Not showing up actually HELPS WDW... why would they care if I actually sleep in the room or use the camp site? This is not a loophole.

I would even call it entitlement. They feel they are entitled to a room that someone else paid for.
As a DVC member, if someone else wants to use their points to book a room that I want, and then doesn't make use of it, that's my problem, not theirs. They still paid their fair share for that room, and I'm sure Disney loves them for not wearing it down more.

As for a mid-week night booking messing up someone else's whole week, that can happen whether someone stays there or not. It your job to book it before someone else, not Disney's job to make sure you get exactly what you want when someone else will pay the same price for it.

 

[Runnsally]

I think Disney cares, because if you stay at the resort you are more than likely to buy food from the resort, also you might buy things from the gift shop. Also, for the value resorts, maids and bellhops are loosing out on tips on empty rooms.

This thread is not a discussion of throwaway rooms.

 

[Capang]

People who are saying that it is unfair to reserve a room and pay for it and then not show up are making no sense.

We travel frequently and book hotels in multiple ways. Almost without exception there is a penalty if you do not cancel by a specific date. If I don’t show up, they still get my money.

Not showing up actually HELPS WDW... why would they care if I actually sleep in the room or use the camp site? This is not a loophole.

If you don't actually stay there Disney loses a lot of cash. It's not like booking a room at a Hyatt, where you probably won't spend much money outside the cost of the room. No room occupants mean no retail sales, no food sales, etc. I guarantee you Disney cares about every penny they lose.

 

[rteetz]

Already discussed here, although under the incorrect term of "throwaway room"

https://www.disboards.com/threads/t...ancel-fps-if-room-is-cancelled.3732429/unread

The title was changed however to me throwaway room doesn’t mean something that you pay for but I guess I was wrong. People will still buy campsites and not stay in them.

 

[mckennarose]

I think Disney cares, because if you stay at the resort you are more than likely to buy food from the resort, also you might buy things from the gift shop. Also, for the value resorts, maids and bellhops are loosing out on tips on empty rooms.

If you don't actually stay there Disney loses a lot of cash. It's not like booking a room at a Hyatt, where you probably won't spend much money outside the cost of the room. No room occupants mean no retail sales, no food sales, etc. I guarantee you Disney cares about every penny they lose.

But if a person reserves a throwaway room or campsite they are doing it with the intent of being in the parks on their check in day and the day after, the two days of their resort stay. So Disney is not losing out on food or souvenir sales. And as a camper (never at Disney, only in my area) I bring food and drinks to my campsite and eat my meals there. How much could Disney lose in food sales from a campsite? We bring our own kitchens.

Disney gets the best of both the sale of the resort room and the food and gift shop sales in the parks.

 

[Ben E N]

If you don't actually stay there Disney loses a lot of cash. It's not like booking a room at a Hyatt, where you probably won't spend much money outside the cost of the room. No room occupants mean no retail sales, no food sales, etc. I guarantee you Disney cares about every penny they lose.

Is that really true of campsites, though? I do not have any statistics to back this up, but I bet a large amount of campsite people drive to get there, just because all the materials involved in setting up a tent, sleeping bags, etc. If this is the case they have just as much opportunity to drive off property as someone who books the room and stays just off site.
Those who would book those sites as throwaway are doing so with the intention of staying the day at Disney. Considering their actual hotel is further away, I would bet that they spend even more money dining on property in order to maximize their time there.

 

[Marionnette]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a difference between a throwaway (paid for, never canceled) and someone booking a room for the 60-day FP advantage and then canceling once they are inside the 30-day window? To me, the former is not in play when this new rule goes into effect because the reservation never gets canceled. The latter, which is verboten to discuss on the TPAS, is done solely for the purpose of getting an advantage meant for onsite guests and those staying in the participating good neighbor hotels, while not paying a dime for it.

 

[Julie K]

But there is enough wrong with their statements about what happened pre-2/4 that it's hard to trust what they say will happen after. It didn't matter when you cancelled pre-2/4, the FPs never went away. You could cancel at T-minus 59 and the FPs were not cancelled.

So as it stands right now, before the 2/4 change, people can have a hotel reservation, then book FP at 60 days, then cancel their hotel reservation before the 30 day window, and the FP don't get cancelled (even though they no longer have a hotel reservation and they aren't yet to the 30 day mark)?

 

[Runnsally]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a difference between a throwaway (paid for, never canceled) and someone booking a room for the 60-day FP advantage and then canceling once they are inside the 30-day window? To me, the former is not in play when this new rule goes into effect because the reservation never gets canceled. The latter, which is verboten to discuss on the TPAS, is done solely for the purpose of getting an advantage meant for onsite guests and those staying in the participating good neighbor hotels, while not paying a dime for it.

You’re correct - two different things. Folks have gotten off topic.

 

[mckennarose]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a difference between a throwaway (paid for, never canceled) and someone booking a room for the 60-day FP advantage and then canceling once they are inside the 30-day window? To me, the former is not in play when this new rule goes into effect because the reservation never gets canceled. The latter, which is verboten to discuss on the TPAS, is done solely for the purpose of getting an advantage meant for onsite guests and those staying in the participating good neighbor hotels, while not paying a dime for it.

You are correct. There is a difference. I think things got lumped together under "throwaway room" and there's confusion. Rteetz changed the title to clarify.

 

[rteetz]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a difference between a throwaway (paid for, never canceled) and someone booking a room for the 60-day FP advantage and then canceling once they are inside the 30-day window? To me, the former is not in play when this new rule goes into effect because the reservation never gets canceled. The latter, which is verboten to discuss on the TPAS, is done solely for the purpose of getting an advantage meant for onsite guests and those staying in the participating good neighbor hotels, while not paying a dime for it.

You are correct.

 

[Branderson610]

This thread is not a discussion of throwaway rooms.

I was responding to the posed question. I know what the thread is about.

 

[Marionnette]

Something tells me that this move is in anticipation of a paid-for FP advantage program for onsite guests, similar to what they offer CL guests now but without the extra FPs. Imagine paying $5/person per day for the length of your stay just to be able to book your FPs at 90 days instead of 60. A lot of people would pay it. Pure profit for Disney with very little outlay for IT. But if someone can book a dummy reservation and cancel it later with no consequences, then Disney loses money.

Just a thought to throw out there.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It doesn't stop the booking and paying for a night and not showing up, though. I can see that loophole being the next to somehow close.

That's not a loophole though. Physical presence is not a requirement for a hotel stay. And while you may not agree with it that's presently how Disney operates. In all honesty they've gotten their money in majority of cases. The person isn't cancelling and getting a refund. They are paying for the room. I do understand feelings towards taking up a room without being there though it is not a loophole to do so (presently).

 

[lmcarr49]

I sometimes book a value or moderate resort for a night. I don’t cancel, but I also don’t sleep there. We only eat at a Disney restaurant when we’re in the parks. We rarely buy anything from the gift shops. This doesn’t affect me at all.