Guests coming over for to BLT the evening...possible?

[delmar411]

We'll have to disagree. IMO it's the intent that's the issue. I don't see a difference between adding a day guest or a night guest in this scenario. They can have them come visit without adding them but in this case they're trying to bypass 2 rules as I understand it the DP and the TOWL requirements.

I thought the OP just wanted friends to be able to come visit them hassle free? When our family comes here to visit, they add us as day guests at the front desk. That gives us access to the resort (can enter as a guest w/o stopping at the guard) and access to their room. That's it. I don't see the issue? The OP can still bring their friends to the TOWL without them being day guests but it is easier for everyone if they are.

 

[Deb & Bill]

...The OP can still bring their friends to the TOWL without them being day guests but it is easier for everyone if they are.

No, the guests have to be on the same reservation as the member.

 

[DenLo]

We parked at BLT on 12/30, we told them we were going up to the TOWL (wanted to watch the practice fireworks) and they just waved us on in. We didn't even find out we couldn't go up there until we went inside and asked to go up. So during the most busy time of year, during a time we weren't even supposed to go up, we were allowed to park there. And the lot was pretty empty. The lot is mostly empty all the time. Not as many ppl drive to BLT as they have spots for.

I don't remember paying much attention to the lot pre-BLT but I'm thinking they've managed to crack down on parking cheaters over the years and it just isn't an issue like it may have been in the past.

I have never seen a sign or information saying TOWL guests shouldn't park there. Where does it say that? You aren't required to take Disney transport if you don't want to AFAIK.

We stayed at BLT in November at the lot was full every day.

Here's a quote from the DVC Member website regarding TOTWL and members not staying at BLT:

Note that Members traveling from other Resorts must use Walt Disney World Transportation, as parking is unavailable to anyone not staying at Bay Lake Tower or Disney's Contemporary Resort. Upon arrival, Members must walk to the Bay Lake Tower main lobby entrance on the ground floor and check in at the Top of the World Lounge desk in the lobby.

 

[AbbeBelle]

Here's a quote from the DVC Member website regarding TOTWL and members not staying at BLT:

Maybe that's the distinction the guards are using. The rule specifically addresses those going to TOTWL and not necessarily those visiting a guest staying at BLT. Maybe they are more lenient on those who say they are just visiting and not going to TOTWL, especially if the parking lot isn't full.

 

[delmar411]

No, the guests have to be on the same reservation as the member.

Day guests are on.the reservation. You get a marked room key just like a regular guest.
And you are limited to room capacity so a 2 bedroom could have 5 normal guests and 4 day guests.

 

[Dean]

I thought the OP just wanted friends to be able to come visit them hassle free? When our family comes here to visit, they add us as day guests at the front desk. That gives us access to the resort (can enter as a guest w/o stopping at the guard) and access to their room. That's it. I don't see the issue? The OP can still bring their friends to the TOWL without them being day guests but it is easier for everyone if they are.

No, they must be on the reservation (technically) to go to the TOWL. Truthfully I have no issue with the principle of adding the members to the reservation to gain benefits assuming the occupancy issue isn't breached. The issue in this case would be the idea of adding them but purposefully waiting until check in to add them to bypass the DDP rules. IMO they should change this rule to that it's paid at check in for several reasons then you'd have to do the DDP even if you added them at check in. They create this catch 22 by the current rule. To me it comes down to intent. If one is intentionally manipulating the rules to bypass two rules as in the OP situation, that is unethical and dishonest. I know the OP was only asking what the options were and not trying to be dishonest thus my response accordingly is to the suggestions that are applicable.

 

[Figamento]

It is quite interesting to see folks so heatedly defending a rule set by a corporation for the sole purpose of sucking money out of us. It's a corporate policy--not a law.

 

[Dean]

It is quite interesting to see folks so heatedly defending a rule set by a corporation for the sole purpose of sucking money out of us. It's a corporate policy--not a law.

And they can change or waive it if they like. However, it's not the rule that's really in question but the honesty and integrity of the person it affects. Picking and choosing the rules one follows and doesn't based on either the affect on that person or who sets the rule is still dishonest plain and simple. It's the principle and not the rule itself that I am addressing.

 

[Deb & Bill]

And they can change or waive it if they like. However, it's not the rule that's really in question but the honesty and integrity of the person it affects. Picking and choosing the rules one follows and doesn't based on either the affect on that person or who sets the rule is still dishonest plain and simple. It's the principle and not the rule itself that I am addressing.