IS this Disney legal--renting a room for the EMH?

[jeni1072]

I honestly can't see why its an issue at all. You are paying for the sight, end of story.

 

[ElizabethB]

I actually think the campsite issue is a good idea! EMH, free parking, charge privileges, pool use and an on-site parking designation would be worth $50 per day to me. There is no legal or ethical issue involved here (and I'm always confused when people see an ethical issue where there isn't one -- do we live in a pious country or what?!)

You pay for a camping space, you can use it, not use it, stand in it all day and dance -- whatever. So long as you don't exceed obvious rules like occupancy maximums (if the campsites have them?) or fires?, there's no problem.

And, I should think if you told them at the front desk that you'll be pitching your tent later in the week or something, no one would think twice about it. Your neighbors aren't going to worry -- they'll just think it's an unoccupied spot.

As far as someone else wanted that space -- too bad! The way for WDW to prevent this is to charge a lot more for the spaces (and that's probably going to be the result, as they'll figure out that the spaces are a hot commodity and priced way too low). So be it.

 

[Lewisc]

To summarize the points:
You're going to have to:
1) Pay $40-$50 /night
2) Go over to FW to check in.

You may have to:
3) purchase some kind of tent
4) set up your tent
5) vist your site from time to time.

Even if Disney checks you out your parking pass will still work. AFAIK room keys don't get swiped so you could still use them for EMH even if Disney checked you out.

I'll join the posters who question if it's worth it.

 

[goofy4tink]

We tend to not do the EMHs. But we do hit the park that had EMH the previous night. It seems to be quite a bit less crowded. I'm not sure I would go to all the trouble of checking in, and such, just to be able to do EMHs.

 

[Cindy's Mom]

have you never heard of first come first served?! comparing PAYING for a site vs HOLDING A FREE RESERVATION are not even close to apples to apples... the OP wants a perk and is willing to pay for it... if another family wants a campsite, then they should reserve one before the OP does...

although i am not condoning the practice, the "other family may want it" argument doesn't really hold water to me...

how 'bout your family, you're staying CR/Club level in august... my family has never stayed there and would like to stay there in august but it's not available... should you give up your ressie 'cause you've been there before and i haven't? of course not, you made your ressie first and secured that room for yourselves... too bad for me for dragging my feet and not reserving before you... that's a closer comparison than ADRs...

arggh! I couldn't take it anymore - I am breaking my self imposed rule that I must read the entire thread prior to posting.....

Gigi1313 - I agree with you 100%.

People are comparing apples and oranges. I love your analogy about the club level. PERFECT!

OP, I see no problem whatsoever, if this is what you want to do, then go ahead and do it. Its totally ethical and legal.

 

[Mary2e]

I often check into inexpensive hotels in the chain I frequent to help me maintain top tier status.

I don't actually stay at the hotel. I check in, enter the room and then go home.

Renting a campsite and not using it is really no different.

If you have the money to spend and think it is a benefit - go for it.

 

[gigi1313]

whew! whenever i see myself quoted i always get nervous that i'm going to get flamed! LOL! glad you see my pov

have a magical day everyone...

 

[disneyfan67]

Disneyhappy,

well said. that would have been my take on it as well.

and really, one less person using the facilities, is hardly a bad thing for those on site using them.

understand the ethical debate, but really, you are using what you paid for.

we often have to rent a suite b/c of number in our party when we really do not need it for sleeping arrangments or whatever so not a huge difference to me.

and if someone else really wanted that tent site, well, I guess they should have booked it before OP who actually did book and is using it.

I think you pretty much summed up there. There's nothing really wrong about it. You're paying for it, fair and square, so there's nothing shady about it. It's just another loop hole/Disney trick or tip, etc, some have found useful. I have heard that this is really popular during the free dining promotion. I'm sure Disney is aware of it and when the time comes, they will close that loop hole.

 

[La2kw]

You pay for a camping space, you can use it, not use it, stand in it all day and dance -- whatever. So long as you don't exceed obvious rules like occupancy maximums (if the campsites have them?) or fires?, there's no problem. .

I agree. Dance away!

Personally, I don't think it's worth the hassle, but I don't see what the problem is as long as they are paying for the campsite.

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

Since WDW does not mind guests doing what the OP wants to do, here is a hypothetical situation. Let's say a family really liked the SAB bool at the Yacht & Beach Club, however they did not like the Resort. If they got some great AP rate or something would it be ok if they made a reservation there only to use the pool, however they would be staying somewhere else. I know on paper that sounds like a stupid thing to do. Although they would be technically guests who are staying there, so it would not be considered pool hopping and they could go and change in their room. So if a family wanted to do that, would anyone else have a problem with that?

 

[bavaria]

I'm assuming that you are referring to 'pool hopping', correct? (the use of 'hoping' confuses me)

it would not be considered pool hoping

There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying for two rooms at two hotels/resorts. I have often done it myself. I often stay in one place for a month at a time, but take a weekend away and pay for a room elsewhere while still paying for my original room.

I simply put a DND on my door of my original room.

Would you suggest that in that example I would not be eligible to use the facilities at the second hotel/resort, or the first?

I think not.

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

I'm assuming that you are referring to 'pool hopping', correct? (the use of 'hoping' confuses me)

Well if you use my example if someone only booked a room at the Yacht or Beach Club just for the use of SAB but did not stay there, it would not be pool hopping since they would a registered guests at either Resort.

 

[bavaria]

whooosh! what just flew by overhead?

Exactly my point - if I book and pay for a room, I am entitled to use the facilities. In fact, I am doing that next month - going to DLRP for a weekend during a very long trip. Do not suggest that I should be denied EMH for that weekend trip as I will also be paying for a room in Germany over the same dates.

 

[gigi1313]

your hypothetical example is absolutely legal... and nothing wrong with it... they are using the resort in the way they see fit... they are not paying for a room at pop century and swimming at the y/bc... they are using what they are entitled to... who really cares where they sleep? there is no clause in a hotel contract that says you must sleep in the room... and even if there were, who says they can't sleep mid-day? your example in no way bears resemblence to the op's question...

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

I used SAB as my example because that seems to be one of the very popular pools among the WDW Resorts and seems to be where they always check your KTTW card when entering the area. So if a family wanted to use my example because there is nothing wrong with that, I thought it would upset some guests who stay there because SAB has all these rules and seems to have had problems in the past with pool hoppers.

 

[bavaria]

I thought it would upset some guests who stay there because SAB has all these rules

ah, so your intent was to 'upset some' here?

 

[Cindy's Mom]

ah, so your intent was to 'upset some' here?

No, I don't think it was his intent at all....is it yours?

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

ah, so your intent was to 'upset some' here?

No it was not. In the past I read that SAB is a very popular pool and has had problems with pool hoppers. So that is why I used them as my example since the topic of staying somewhere for the perks was brought up.

 

[bavaria]

But again, your example is not the same as the OP's example. In your example, the guest is paying for two rooms at two different resorts.

The OP asked about paying for a 'room'/campsite, and not using it for sleep. And I agree that there is no issue with that, either.

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

But again, your example is not the same as the OP's example. In your example, the guest is paying for two rooms at two different resorts.

The OP asked about paying for a 'room'/campsite, and not using it for sleep. And I agree that there is no issue with that, either.

In my example I said the people would be staying somewhere else and have their reservation at the Yacht & Beach Club, just like the OP wants to do.

Let's say a family really liked the SAB bool at the Yacht & Beach Club, however they did not like the Resort. If they got some great AP rate or something would it be ok if they made a reservation there only to use the pool, however they would be staying somewhere else.

So it's similar to what the OP said.