The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[SmithSmith]

If you were to call and find that the pricing was above your comfort limit, but were still asking about perks...this could be suggested.

This was also suggested back when certain dining reservations were extremely difficult to secure.

Clearer?

Yes, thanks.

I feel there's a difference between some reservationists offering this and it being a company wide policy. It's not like Disney is advertising throwaway rooms.

The part I'm disgusted with is the results of the poll. The majority of people polled felt this practice acceptable. It's sad that so many people need the rules and regulations, whether imposed by a society or a company, to tell them what is acceptable. Just because Disney doesn't outright forbid doesn't mean it's not wrong.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

In any non-commodity market with more demand than supply, a consumer making a purchase "hurts" another because it keeps another consumer from purchasing the desired good or service. If you've ever bought, for example, a house or land, you've made a purchase without thinking about who it is hurting.

Actually it would be more akin to purchasing a small piece of land, not living on it, but claiming it as your primary residence so your children can attend the local school.

Of course that doesn't take into account those that claim 10 people are staying at the campsite, when the family consists of only 3 or 4.

For some people it seems that this is become an obsession, how can I milk every ounce out of my trip and they don't seem to care that it's really not fair to others. The multiple bookings of ADRS is a new one to me. How unfair is that? I see so many posts from people begging to get one dinner for their kids at BOG and to find out that someone has them for every hour of service and will be canceling, upsets me more then anything else I have seen. I very well could be the one stalking the website trying to get that reservation because that's the one thing my DD wants to do. It burns me that I could have to waste all my time because someone else who could book before me is holding multiple just in case.

I was a shocked as you. I couldn't believe that people had 3 or 4 lunch reservations plus 3 or 4 for dinner, for each day of their trip. Basically, they grabbed everything they could, knowing that they will only eat one lunch and one dinner.

 

[FelisLachesis]

Sorry, in your initial response I though you said you were comparing "apples to apples".

No, it's fine. My apologies for confusing you. My "apples to apples" term referred to paying for the room, and then add on the things that being on site provides as part of the price vs. having to pay for them individually, like parking at the theme parks (I'm planning on driving everywhere), use of amenities, etc. I didn't mean providing a near-equivalent level of service between Champions and Port Orleans.

 

[tjevans]

Actually it would be more akin to purchasing a small piece of land, not living on it, but claiming it as your primary residence so your children can attend the local school.

Well, yeah, that's more similar. My point was that people make purchases everyday that "hurt" someone. If I buy a home (real estate is probably the most common non-commodity purchase) that someone else also wanted, they are "hurt," whether or not I live there. So why should vacations be any different

In fact, I can honestly say I've never considered the ramifications on others when I've purchased (or rented) anything.

I think throwaway rooms are wrong, but for different reasons.

 

[FelisLachesis]

I was a shocked as you. I couldn't believe that people had 3 or 4 lunch reservations plus 3 or 4 for dinner, for each day of their trip. Basically, they grabbed everything they could, knowing that they will only eat one lunch and one dinner.

Ugh, and and all I want is one CP reservation on 12/30 for CdF (time is irrelevant) and I can stop looking at the WDW site until after Christmas.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

Well, yeah, that's more similar. My point was that people make purchases everyday that "hurt" someone. If I buy a home (real estate is probably the most common non-commodity purchase) that someone else also wanted, they are "hurt," whether or not I live there. So why should vacations be any different

In fact, I can honestly say I've never considered the ramifications on others when I've purchased (or rented) anything.

I think throwaway rooms are wrong, but for different reasons.

But I bet when you purchase something or rent something, you actually purchase it or rent it. Rather than say you are going to rent it, then not show up.

Oh, and I think throwaway rooms are wrong, for a multitude of reasons.

 

[SmithSmith]

Ugh, and and all I want is one CP reservation on 12/30 for CdF (time is irrelevant) and I can stop looking at the WDW site until after Christmas.

I encountered similar ADR problems before we left for Disney, but luckily I found a whole lot of ADR's opened up while I was there. It's completely awful that people feel the need to hoard ADR's but the bright side is you can score hard to get ones last minute.

 

[DisneyKingpin]

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

 

[WebmasterMike]

Mike those rooms cost several hundred dollars - and if the children are 16 or older, you have to pay quite a lot of money extra for each one.

It's not a cheap throwaway room.

We did this on the disney cruise 14 years ago when we paid $360 for a room so that we could use the atlantis pool (there was no other way to use the atlantis pools at the time - there was no excursion at all - this was the only way).

$360 for a room for one day so that the 4 of us could use the pools for 2 hours...
i don't think i was 'ripping anyone off"

i was paying through the nose for the privilege of using those pools for a few hours.
(some people actually used the rooms to shower - we never did.)

it's not the same as paying for one day in fort wilderness and getting 10 days worth of perks

..

It is still taking a room out of the pool of rooms for Water Park perks.

 

[olwyngdh]

It is still taking a room out of the pool of rooms for Water Park perks.

Not a cruiser, so no dog in this fight, but I think the difference is in this statement "there was no other way to use the atlantis pools at the time - there was no excursion at all - this was the only way." With the throwaway rooms/campsites, there is another way--actually stay on site rather than insist you are entitled to the same privileges as those who do.

I like the comparison with the empty lot used as an address to send your children to a different school. That one actually will get you arrested.

 

[famy27]

But I bet when you purchase something or rent something, you actually purchase it or rent it. Rather than say you are going to rent it, then not show up.

Oh, and I think throwaway rooms are wrong, for a multitude of reasons.

So, if someone showed up and used the room, then it would be fine? How long do they need to use it? Is a nap sufficient? Must it be overnight? How many hours overnight?

 

[disneyholic family]

It's not? So is the only difference the price? Is it ok to book a throwaway room on the concierge level of GF?

the difference is i paid for a room to be used for one day and i used it for one day...

the people in this article are paying for a room for one day and using the perks for 10 days.

that's the difference

.

 

[disneyholic family]

It is still taking a room out of the pool of rooms for Water Park perks.

but you're only using the perks FOR ONE DAY.

i'm paying for one day and using the perks for one day. That's what i'm paying for.

in the case of the throwaway disney rooms, people are paying for one day and using the perks for 10 days.

.

 

[tjevans]

but you're only using the perks FOR ONE DAY. i'm paying for one day and using the perks for one day. That's what i'm paying for. in the case of the throwaway disney rooms, people are paying for one day and using the perks for 10 days. .

But, as another pointed out, you're taking that room away from others who could have stayed there.

Ok, so what if they rent a room, actually spend the night there, and then spend nine more nights off property. Is it that person's fault Disney made the decision to give them ten nights of FP+ privileges?

 

[tjevans]

But I bet when you purchase something or rent something, you actually purchase it or rent it. Rather than say you are going to rent it, then not show up. Oh, and I think throwaway rooms are wrong, for a multitude of reasons.

I may or I may not. It's no one else's business what I decide to do with a purchase I make.

 

[tjevans]

Not a cruiser, so no dog in this fight, but I think the difference is in this statement "there was no other way to use the atlantis pools at the time - there was no excursion at all - this was the only way." With the throwaway rooms/campsites, there is another way--actually stay on site rather than insist you are entitled to the same privileges as those who do. I like the comparison with the empty lot used as an address to send your children to a different school. That one actually will get you arrested.

So renting a room when there's no way to use a pool is ok, but renting a room when there is no other way to get FP+ 60 days out is bad? Gotcha.

So I can rent a room to get FP+ at 60 days IF I also use the pool at that resort for a few hours?

 

[kbelle8995]

Close the loophole.

Disney could also get rid of the 60 days advance reserve (and the 30 day as well) or they could make off siters pay for the perk like Universal does.

Legacy FP was not perfect but at least there was no throwaway room involved to get the darn thing.

Frankly I feel bad for those who want to camp. There are just not that many camping options at Disney. Perhaps Disney needs to build more campsites for tent campers as well as close the loophole. When I was in College, I went to Disney with some friends and the only way we could go is by tent camping at FW. So I feel like that option is being taken by other people who don't want the campsite just the perks.

Sorry longwinded post.

 

[tjevans]

I like the comparison with the empty lot used as an address to send your children to a different school. That one actually will get you arrested.

I like it too. In one, the regulating authority made the loophole illegal. In the other, the regulating authority (Disney), is aware of the problem and chooses to do nothing.

 

[WebmasterMike]

Not a cruiser, so no dog in this fight, but I think the difference is in this statement "there was no other way to use the atlantis pools at the time - there was no excursion at all - this was the only way." With the throwaway rooms/campsites, there is another way--actually stay on site rather than insist you are entitled to the same privileges as those who do.

I like the comparison with the empty lot used as an address to send your children to a different school. That one actually will get you arrested.

but you're only using the perks FOR ONE DAY.

i'm paying for one day and using the perks for one day. That's what i'm paying for.

in the case of the throwaway disney rooms, people are paying for one day and using the perks for 10 days.

.

I think the principle is the same. The dynamic might be greater at WDW, but in principle, it is the same exact thing.

But, as another pointed out, you're taking that room away from others who could have stayed there.

Ok, so what if they rent a room, actually spend the night there, and then spend nine more nights off property. Is it that person's fault Disney made the decision to give them ten nights of FP+ privileges?

I see how Disney does not want to close this loophole. It may not be a loophole. We often stay at a resort for 1 day, cruise for 4 to 5 days, then go back to a WDW resort. With a 4 or 5 day ticket, that expires 14 days after first use, why would WDW limit the Fastpass+ time over my split reservation if my ticket expires 14 days after first use?

 

[strangebutspecial]

What if, at midnight on the night of the throwaway stay, if no one has checked in to the room, any subsequent fastpasses on those magic bands just disappear? Call it the Pumpkin Rule.