The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[nugov2]

How are you so sure this isn't a loophole? (This is rhetorical, I know your reasoning and I think you assume too much)

I feel booking a ghost, canceling, and keeping the perks is stealing, not exploiting.

I think that's a terrible idea. I wouldn't want strangers linked to my reservation in anyway because I do not want to be held responsible for them.

No, a value is not less offensive. They only way they differ is that one could physically see that a site is going unused, and that could be aggravating for the customer if they happen to see empty sites but cannot book any.

I do not understand your other "61 day scenario/suggestion".

My dislike of this practice is multifaceted. I've been having different conversations with multiple people on this board. Some responses of mine have been in regard to "waste", some with "greed", some with "exploit", etc. When I respond to another individual about one of those matters it does not mean that is my only reason for disliking this practice. However, when I do respond to one person, another person will come along and interject their conversation with me into that conversation and this is where confusion is taking place. I think people are inferring that my main/only reasoning for disliking this practice is that it harms those that can't book a room, or can't reserve a certain FP. This is untrue. There are many reasons why I find this wrong. Now, there's a whole other motivator behind my thinking but I do not wish to discuss that topic with strangers. It has to with American overconsumption and what Jeremy Clarkson called "Americans warped sense of luxury". But I WILL NOT get into that.

I am just curious if wdw came out with an official statement that this was their intention to give people a rolling window with a one night stay if you would feel the same.

I don't get how this is any different than anyone who stays at the wdw...how is it any more warped? It is a budget friendly way to get both larger accommodations or cheaper for less than booking a full vacation at wdw and gets the same family some of the benefits. For some it is because their family is too large and others the only way to afford wdw is to be offsite. Seems frugal to me but I am not familiar with that person.

 

[DisneyDaddy-O]

Just my 2 cents....

The only issue I have with the whole situation is the fact that someone would get FPs at the 60 day window for the duration of the ticket rather than the length of stay. If the opportunity to secure FPs at 60 days were a by product of the ticket purchase rather than a by product of a resort stay then I wouldn't have a problem with this practice at all.

We asked a CM to book a room with free dining on the last day of a promo, but we wouldn't be checking in until the following day but willing to pay for the night. We were told you had to physically check in on the day and the promo would not apply the next day. I realize this is a different scenario but thought it interesting in part with the conversation.

 

[SmithSmith]

I'd argue that FPs are a virtual perk. They have no monetary value according to Disney (at present). As long as you didn't keep the MBs, I don't think you could call it stealing. I agree that it is a loophole, and I personally wouldn't do that.

I think the rolling 60 days is a pretty good indicator that this is intended. Do they want everyone to book a campsite for one night? Probably not. Are they happy to give you seven days of rolling FP access if it entices you to stay onsite at least a few nights? I'm going to guess that is what they had in mind. I anticipate that they may reduce some of the benefits to booking the campsite, but they'll leave the values alone.

I also wonder at what point you'd agree that this is intended. If WDW releases some official statement that it's not okay with them for people to leave rooms unoccupied or to use some benefits of a resort stay but not others or if they removing rolling 60 day access for all levels of resorts, then I'll agree that this was indeed a loophole. At what point would you agree that this is an intended Disney benefit and not a loophole?

I'd argue that the fact people are making ghost bookings just for FP means they do hold a monetary value.

Disney would have to promote in their literature for me to believe it but I still wouldn't agree with the practice. Until then, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If you're satisfied with your "proof" then it shouldn't matter what I think.

 

[DisneyKingpin]

I think the Rolling Stones said it best: You can't always get what you want.

Also John F. Kennedy: Life is not fair.

So sorry if someone scoops up your room or FP before you. Better luck next time.

 

[nugov2]

I'd argue that the fact people are making ghost bookings just for FP means they do hold a monetary value.

Disney would have to promote in their literature for me to believe it but I still wouldn't agree with the practice. Until then, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If you're satisfied with your "proof" then it shouldn't matter what I think.

Actually the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and your case is full of holes. Just remember if the gloves don't fit you must acquit!

 

[SmithSmith]

I am just curious if wdw came out with an official statement that this was their intention to give people a rolling window with a one night stay if you would feel the same.

I don't get how this is any different than anyone who stays at the wdw...how is it any more warped? It is a budget friendly way to get both larger accommodations or cheaper for less than booking a full vacation at wdw and gets the same family some of the benefits. For some it is because their family is too large and others the only way to afford wdw is to be offsite. Seems frugal to me but I am not familiar with that person.

Do not throw stones, but I do not have much sympathy for the "large family" whose only way to "afford" WDW is to stay offsite. I have an idea, don't have a large family or take fewer vacations. I don't think it's fair when people use their kids (or amount of kids) as an excuse for their behavior. In my opinion, Disney does a lot in terms of making vacations affordable. Booking multiple rooms at a value during free dining seems like a better deal to me than staying offsite. Also, if saving money is of importance to these hypothetical families than why even waste money on a throwaway room in the first place?

You asked basically the same question as famy, so here's the same response:
Disney would have to promote in their literature for me to believe it. Until then, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If you're satisfied with your "proof" then it shouldn't matter what I think.

 

[SmithSmith]

Actually the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and your case is full of holes. Just remember if the gloves don't fit you must acquit!

The burden of proof lies with the person making the charge. In this case, that would be you since you're the one contending that Disney is doing this intentionally.

 

[DisneyKingpin]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the charge.

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[DisneyKingpin]

Actually the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and your case is full of holes. Just remember if the gloves don't fit you must acquit!

I agree. Even a rookie judge would have dismissed this case on Page 1 of the thread. No evidence to support any wrongdoing here.

 

[nugov2]

Do not throw stones, but I do not have much sympathy for the "large family" whose only way to "afford" WDW is to stay offsite. I have an idea, don't have a large family or take fewer vacations. I don't think it's fair when people use their kids (or amount of kids) as an excuse for their behavior. In my opinion, Disney does a lot in terms of making vacations affordable. Booking multiple rooms at a value during free dining seems like a better deal to me than staying offsite. Also, if saving money is of importance to these hypothetical families than why even waste money on a throwaway room in the first place?

You asked basically the same question as famy, so here's the same response:
Disney would have to promote in their literature for me to believe it. Until then, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. If you're satisfied with your "proof" then it shouldn't matter what I think.

BWHAHAHAHAHA...don't have a large family I don't think it is an excuse why people do it, but a reason. Saying people are using their kids as an excuse for bad behavior is ridiculous. You don't have kids....so tell me what is your excuse for your bad behavior??

Not that I owe you why we do it, but here it is. Disney doesn't offer anything that I want. Values are motels so thanks, but no thanks. I will not put my family in two separate rooms anywhere. We stay in 2 bdrm suites b/c my husband and I like to be together and I would never put my kids in one room and us in another unless it was a suite. We could afford $700 a night for an onsite room and often pay premium pricing when we vacation, but I have stayed Deluxe at Disney and they IMO are no more than a decent hotel and do not justify those price tags. Concierge there is not what it is anywhere else. I have paid for nice places in almost all of our travels, even just staying boston we stay concierge and their are real perks associated with that and why we do it.

I can get my kids a home with the most beautiful themed room. My dd can sleep in Cinderella's carriage, my dh had an amazing Toy Story room while my youngest had good 'ol Mickey. We are a stones through away from the parks, so I'd never pick onsite anymore. I don't think Disney will ever change this perk of a rolling 60 day, but if they do we will pay for onsite the length of ticket so it makes no difference to me. We don't spend more than 5 days there so the few hundred dollars is worth it to have secured booking. Guess everyone will really be boo hoo hooing they can't get their reservation when people are booking throwaway rooms for multiple days.

It's not that it matters to me what you think...I have yet to lose a minute of sleep, but this is a discussion board so I was discussing not so much why I think it is OK, but more that Disney has set this as an intentional perk.

 

[nugov2]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the charge. In this case, that would be you since you're the one contending that Disney is doing this intentionally.

Do you have to prove you can use a coupon that a company gives to you? NO you go to the store, hand it to them and they scan it. You don't say to them...are you sure this is the perk you want to give me for shopping in your store. Are you sure it isn't a mistake or a computer glitch I got this perk for shopping here. Nope...you don't. You get a legit coupon in the mail, the store says it's legit, honors it and you go on your way.

In this situation, I have gone to Disney, made my legit reservation and they have given me what they feel are the perks I've earned. Do I need to call them again and say excuse me Disney are you sure you want me to get these perks you have given?? Most wouldn't, but b/c I booked on the phone the CM was the one who told me about this being entitled to book a rolling 60 days for the length of ticket with my one night(they even try to get you to buy more ticket days with this sales pitch). I can't offer any more proof than the CM says it, the program Disney developed currently works the way the CM told me it would. I guess I could call Disney back and tell them some people on a message board don't think it is fair to get this perk or how the people here feel this isn't what Disney really intended so are they really sure I should be getting that perk

Just because it makes you mad Disney has decided people are entitled to get these perks doesn't mean that we still won't continue to get them

Your understanding of prosecuting someone is like your understanding of how programs are developed....lacking. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution.

 

[famy27]

So, a few weeks ago, I took my car in for service. When I picked it up, it had been washed. But now I am so confused. How can I prove that the dealer intended to offer me the benefit of a washed car? They don't advertise or promote their car washing in any written materials. Perhaps the car wash was inadvertent and someone happened to turn on the hose when my car was nearby. I called and asked if car washing was a benefit provided with service, and the customer service rep informed me that it was. But I still don't think that is sufficient proof, since it isn't in writing. Should I return to the dealer and ask them to throw some dirt back on my car?

 

[SmithSmith]

BWHAHAHAHAHA...don't have a large family I don't think it is an excuse why people do it, but a reason. Saying people are using their kids as an excuse for bad behavior is ridiculous. You don't have kids....so tell me what is your excuse for your bad behavior??

Not that I owe you why we do it, but here it is. Disney doesn't offer anything that I want. Values are motels so thanks, but no thanks. I will not put my family in two separate rooms anywhere. We stay in 2 bdrm suites b/c my husband and I like to be together and I would never put my kids in one room and us in another unless it was a suite. We could afford $700 a night for an onsite room and often pay premium pricing when we vacation, but I have stayed Deluxe at Disney and they IMO are no more than a decent hotel and do not justify those price tags. Concierge there is not what it is anywhere else. I have paid for nice places in almost all of our travels, even just staying boston we stay concierge and their are real perks associated with that and why we do it.

I can get my kids a home with the most beautiful themed room. My dd can sleep in Cinderella's carriage, my dh had an amazing Toy Story room while my youngest had good 'ol Mickey. We are a stones through away from the parks, so I'd never pick onsite anymore. I don't think Disney will ever change this perk of a rolling 60 day, but if they do we will pay for onsite the length of ticket so it makes no difference to me. We don't spend more than 5 days there so the few hundred dollars is worth it to have secured booking. Guess everyone will really be boo hoo hooing they can't get their reservation when people are booking throwaway rooms for multiple days.

It's not that it matters to me what you think...I have yet to lose a minute of sleep, but this is a discussion board so I was discussing not so much why I think it is OK, but more that Disney has set this as an intentional perk.

I wasn't looking for, nor expecting, an explanation as to why you book offsite. I honestly forgot you were the one who booked offsite and used throwaway rooms. I'm sorry if you felt attacked but I thought we were speaking generally. You mentioned large families and I automatically thought of my brother and his large brood, and how he's always hours late for events and then blames it on the fact that he has kids. It's not just him. As I've gotten older I've come across a large number of parents who do this. Anyway, there was more to this train of thought but I honestly don't remember what that was, so just ignore this.

 

[SmithSmith]

Do you have to prove you can use a coupon that a company gives to you? NO you go to the store, hand it to them and they scan it. You don't say to them...are you sure this is the perk you want to give me for shopping in your store. Are you sure it isn't a mistake or a computer glitch I got this perk for shopping here. Nope...you don't. You get a legit coupon in the mail, the store says it's legit, honors it and you go on your way.

In this situation, I have gone to Disney, made my legit reservation and they have given me what they feel are the perks I've earned. Do I need to call them again and say excuse me Disney are you sure you want me to get these perks you have given?? Most wouldn't, but b/c I booked on the phone the CM was the one who told me about this being entitled to book a rolling 60 days for the length of ticket with my one night(they even try to get you to buy more ticket days with this sales pitch). I can't offer any more proof than the CM says it, the program Disney developed currently works the way the CM told me it would. I guess I could call Disney back and tell them some people on a message board don't think it is fair to get this perk or how the people here feel this isn't what Disney really intended so are they really sure I should be getting that perk

Just because it makes you mad Disney has decided people are entitled to get these perks doesn't mean that we still won't continue to get them

Your understanding of prosecuting someone is like your understanding of how programs are developed....lacking. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution.

A. I'm not going to rely on the word of a lowly CM in a sales position. I've been a sales rep, and telling the customer "yes" is regular procedure. For example, people have complained about throwaway rooms and the CM's commiserated, they did not say "sorry, that's standard practice".

B. I'm not mad. This issue doesn't anger me. I am however getting a little annoyed that I just can't have my opinion without it being persistently questioned by multiple people. My gosh, I'm just one girl.

C. Why do people keep calling me the prosecution?

 

[SmithSmith]

So, a few weeks ago, I took my car in for service. When I picked it up, it had been washed. But now I am so confused. How can I prove that the dealer intended to offer me the benefit of a washed car? They don't advertise or promote their car washing in any written materials. Perhaps the car wash was inadvertent and someone happened to turn on the hose when my car was nearby. I called and asked if car washing was a benefit provided with service, and the customer service rep informed me that it was. But I still don't think that is sufficient proof, since it isn't in writing. Should I return to the dealer and ask them to throw some dirt back on my car?

I'm having trouble following this analogy right now. Maybe I'll come back to it tomorrow after I had some sleep. Anyway, I'll talk more on the promotion of this practice, because I think that's what you want.

Disney will never promote this, no company would, especially a resort as environmentally minded as Disney. Even if a room is left untouched by the booker, Disney would still have to clean, change bedding, launder towels, etc.

 

[SmithSmith]

Are you guys calling me the prosecution because you think I'm trying to legislate morality? If so, you should know that I am so opposed to that idea it's not even funny. Go ahead and book throwaway rooms, I've never said "No, You can't do that", I just disagree with it.

I find that our bone of contention is whether Disney is doing this intentionally or not. There could be many reasons why they allow FP for length of stay. I think anyone who states that it's intended purpose is for ghost bookings should be subject to burden of proof.

 

[DisneyKingpin]

I find that our bone of contention is whether Disney is doing this intentionally or not.

Of course they are.

I've stated repeatedly that common business sense tells you Disney loves selling its rooms. Business 101.

All the analogies are spot on. Businesses give away perks to get more customers. And when it works, the business couldn't be happier. This notion is completely lost on you and I'm not sure why. Disney doesn't deny this even when you call and ask them, as other posters have pointed out.

My suggestion is that you call and/or write them yourself since you won't take our word for it. And you can bypass a sales rep by asking for a supervisor or going higher up the chain. You need to hear it straight from them so that you'll have peace if mind. And then you can decide how you want to handle future Disney trips - whether it be take advantage of the perks or boycott Disney on moral grounds.

 

[nugov2]

A. I'm not going to rely on the word of a lowly CM in a sales position. I've been a sales rep, and telling the customer "yes" is regular procedure. For example, people have complained about throwaway rooms and the CM's commiserated, they did not say "sorry, that's standard practice".

B. I'm not mad. This issue doesn't anger me. I am however getting a little annoyed that I just can't have my opinion without it being persistently questioned by multiple people. My gosh, I'm just one girl.

C. Why do people keep calling me the prosecution?

My point is
1. it isn't just one lowly CM, many have had this experience
2. When the system supports what the CM says I willing to believe what I am being told, honestly what other choice is there?

No good customer service Rep tells someone "yes" when it violates policy.

I have seen reports of CM's sympathetic to the complainers, but have not seen one say it is a violation of procedure. Again, the system now currently backs up the CM's saying it is accepted so either way, I am going to go with that as it is supported by the system and what I have been told. That is the way I operate in everyday life, so it isn't going to change b/c it's WDW. Like the PP stated, if I have service done on my car and they wash it and tell me it's a free courtesy, I'm not going to hunt down 10 more who tell me it is and then call corporate to then confirm this. It is told to me, I am not charged and I leave grateful that a company likes to give its customers some perks for giving them your business.

You are called the prosecution b/c you are the one saying that doing this is wrong and not what WDW intended....you have yet to prove it. We have proved our side(Multiple CM's state it is what they intend/CM's try to upsell ticket days based on the rolling 60 days..which IMO is very concrete proof/system aligns with what they are saying/has been going on for a long time) yet you have nothing concrete that supports it is a loophole other than speculation.

My mad was a general mad, not just you. People have their undies in a bunch b/c they feel they will use the site/room in a better way so are more entitled to the booking if they want it, which is a strange argument b/c all reports are plenty of availability. They are mad and wishful thinking that this is a loophole b/c for whatever reason they don't like that people can get both if they want to pay for it.

You are being questioned because you keep posting. Just like someone can keep questioning me b/c I keep posting. When you are active in the conversation people continue to talk/question you.

 

[SmithSmith]

I called the reservation line at 9:09 am this morning, spoke with Judith.

Lucked out and got Impressions de France as my wait music.

Judith: something about celebrations, then asked "How may I help you?"
Me: "Could you tell me about booking a throwaway hotel room?"
Judith: silence... "I'm sorry, I do not understand."
Me: "a ghost booking? You know when someone books a hotel room and doesn't stay there, just so they can get the benefits"
Judith: more silence
Me: "Do you have any idea what I'm talking about?"
Judith: "No, I'm sorry"
Me: "Its okay, this was just an experiment I'm conducting and you're proving my point. Am I right to assume that since you're unaware of this means that you've never received training to sell this and therefore it is just a loophole people are exploiting"
Judith: "No we are not trained on this. I never heard of this before."
Me: "People book one night at a campsite or a value just so they can get the perks of staying on site but they do not use the room."
Judith: "We expect people to use the room."
Me: So would you say this is against Disney policy?"
Judith: "Yes"

I couldn't have planned it better if I tried.

 

[DisneyKevin]

I called the reservation line at 9:09 am this morning, spoke with Judith.

Lucked out and got Impressions de France as my wait music.

Judith: something about celebrations, then asked "How may I help you?"
Me: "Could you tell me about booking a throwaway hotel room?"
Judith: silence... "I'm sorry, I do not understand."
Me: "a ghost booking? You know when someone books a hotel room and doesn't stay there, just so they can get the benefits"
Judith: more silence
Me: "Do you have any idea what I'm talking about?"
Judith: "No, I'm sorry"
Me: "Its okay, this was just an experiment I'm conducting and you're proving my point. Am I right to assume that since you're unaware of this means that you've never received training to sell this and therefore it is just a loophole people are exploiting"
Judith: "No we are not trained on this. I never heard of this before."
Me: "People book one night at a campsite or a value just so they can get the perks of staying on site but they do not use the room."
Judith: "We expect people to use the room."
Me: So would you say this is against Disney policy?"
Judith: "Yes"

I couldn't have planned it better if I tried.

This shows me that you are good at leading the conversation to achieve your desired outcome.