The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[SmithSmith]

Again, I think you misread what I wrote.

Earlier, I said I didn't necessarily believe your anecdotal evidence and you suggested you didn't believe mine. Then you suggested your anecdotal evidence was an indicator. I disagreed and stated it wasn't fact.

The facts are that Disney doesn't seem to be doing anything about this and that's an indicator.

I also don't believe that I said anything about Disney selling property on last week's show. I also never suggested that Disney should do this.

You seem to be trying to twist my words or misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not sure why.

At 1:00:16 of this weeks podcast you said: "Does it not seem that they maybe should've take some more of that land and build some more campsites? If this is such a pressing issue that there's these hoards of people unable to get a campsite? Build more."

Trust me, I'm not twisting your words.

 

[SmithSmith]

I tried searching this topic and used a bunch of different wording an the only thread that pops up with a report is the one you posted(and that thread you posted is only one page long ) I even google searched it and the only information that came up was that thread you posted that related to it. So for grins I called WDW and asked how many days of inactivity on a room before you get checked out and he checked with a supervisor and said as long as the room is being paid for you never get checked out b/c of inactivity on a room. I said if I was booking a room for a week, but had family in the area so I am not 100% sure if I am going to stay in the room, but want it just in case would I get checked out if on day 3 or 4 still hadn't been to the hotel and only did online check in. He put me on hold b/c he wasn't aware of any policy on this to speak with a supervisor and came back after some time and that was the answer I got. Obviously CM's are notorious for misinformation so take it or leave it. Either way nobody is going to be checked out and lose their perks on a one night stay for not showing up in person so it IMO is a moot point.

Yeah, I believe you couldn't find any other reports by searching because not everyone has the same name for the practice or even a name at all. So while your search for "throwaway rooms" yielded no results doesn't mean other reports aren't there.

 

[DisneyKevin]

At 1:00:16 of this weeks podcast you said: "Does it not seem that they maybe should've take some more of that land and build some more campsites? If this is such a pressing issue that there's these hoards of people unable to get a campsite? Build more."

Trust me, I'm not twisting your words.

My apologies. I don't listen to what I say.

That being said....I am certain that you understand my position.

 

[SmithSmith]

Again, I think you misread what I wrote.

Earlier, I said I didn't necessarily believe your anecdotal evidence and you suggested you didn't believe mine. Then you suggested your anecdotal evidence was an indicator. I disagreed and stated it wasn't fact.

The facts are that Disney doesn't seem to be doing anything about this and that's an indicator.

I also don't believe that I said anything about Disney selling property on last week's show. I also never suggested that Disney should do this.

You seem to be trying to twist my words or misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not sure why.

Not quite, from the beginning of our conversation you have been using your anecdotal evidence as an indicator of Disney's stance on this matter. Yet, pages later, when I offer up opposing anecdotal evidence of Disney's stance on the matter, you dismiss it... because it's anecdotal evidence.

What I don't understand is why you're playing devils advocate for a practice that your own company is opposed to. Do you really find it fair that booking one night at a campsite should net you a weeks worth of benefits?

 

[SmithSmith]

My apologies. I don't listen to what I say.

That being said....I am certain that you understand my position.

No problem, it's a bit unfair anyway, it's not like you have sound bites of me on this issue.

 

[nugov2]

Yeah, I believe you couldn't find any other reports by searching because not everyone has the same name for the practice or even a name at all. So while you search for "throwaway rooms" yielded no results doesn't mean other reports aren't there.

I searched that, being checked out of throwaway room, being checked out due to inactivity, magic bands to track if you are using your hotel room and nothing. Again, if this was an issue I would think it would be mentioned on the big throwaway thread. I know if I booked a room and got checked out and lost all my resies I would come back and post to alert others and I am 100% sure others feel the same. So the fact that on a thread with 2,000+ posts there isn't anyone who says this happened to them seems telling.

 

[SmithSmith]

I searched that, being checked out of throwaway room, being checked out due to inactivity, magic bands to track if you are using your hotel room and nothing. Again, if this was an issue I would think it would be mentioned on the big throwaway thread. I know if I booked a room and got checked out and lost all my resies I would come back and post to alert others and I am 100% sure others feel the same. So the fact that on a thread with 2,000+ posts there isn't anyone who says this happened to them seems telling.

Again, just 2 seconds into my 2nd search.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3218652&page=12


So that's 3 people that say Disney has been known to declare a room abandoned.

 

[famy27]

Again, just 2 seconds into my 2nd search.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3218652&page=12


So that's 3 people that say Disney has been known to declare a room abandoned.

Huh? That's not a concrete example. That's an "I heard it from the bus driver" type of example. If she said her friend Jill checked into POP on April 27th 2012 and was checked out by WDW automatically due to inactivity on the 29th, that would be a real world example.

 

[SmithSmith]

Huh? That's not a concrete example. That's an "I heard it from the bus driver" type of example. If she said her friend Jill checked into POP on April 27th 2012 and was checked out by WDW automatically due to inactivity on the 29th, that would be a real world example.

No one has been giving concrete examples of anything. It's all hearsay.

I don't know why my examples should be singled out and held to a different standard as everyone else's.

 

[nugov2]

Again, just 2 seconds into my 2nd search.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3218652&page=12


So that's 3 people that say Disney has been known to declare a room abandoned.

LOL, I even responded to it didn't remember and apparently the idea of this happening was hysterical to me

I am not a good at searching apparently, but regardless...I still don't believe the posters. If it happened frequently it would be more than just a couple of posts. There would be threads strictly dedicated to it. Look how a simple change in Disney's schedule leads to thread after thread about how plans are ruined. Can you imagine the firestorm of threads if this was a policy WDW enforced? Especially with the apparently high number of people who participate in this strategy according to many of the posters on the board. Plus, I don't think WDW wouldn't tell you that if the room is paid for it is yours if you asked a reservation specialist(either way they have to refund you so they are out money so what is the purpose of keeping this policy secret), this is something they would want people to be aware of b/c the public backlash they would get if people starting losing ADR's and other reservations b/c they decided to stay at Aunt Suzie's house and decided not to sleep at pop, but still paid for the room. If on the remote chance this is WDW secret policy that they choose to enforce once or twice a year, as I stated earlier it is not going to happen for a one or two day throwaway room. Also maybe I missed one but that is still only 2 reports on those two threads, but my son was up at 4:30 so I am a little sleepy today

 

[Napria]

FWIW, I camp. I book about 6 to 9 months out, but because of my job, I cannot book any farther out than that. If I cannot get a site at Fort Wilderness, we do not go to Disney. We have camped off property and we do not enjoy the campgrounds in the area.

Yes, if you book a throwaway campsite you are losing Disney money because I will not go to Disney. Yes, this is a problem for many who camp. It comes up regularly on more than one Fort Wilderness discussion board. When my family is at Disney, we spend an average of $2000 to $3000 per trip. Pocket change for Disney, but multiply it by the number of unoccupied campsites.

At the very least it's bad business practice to have lots of unoccupied inventory. It creates a poor perception for those who don't know the reason and it creates bad feelings for those who do know what's going on.

Why would Disney build more campsites just to have more empty campsites? They may be booked and paid for, but yeah, it's losing Disney money.

In many campgrounds throughout the country if you do not occupy the site the first night, you lose the site. There are no perks like FP or ADRs, obviously, but Disney has more of an incentive to do a similar thing with their campground.

So here's a question: Would you still stay offsite if you couldn't gain anything from booking a throwaway room? Yes or no, it's in Disney's best interest to close this loophole.

 

[famy27]

No one has been giving concrete examples of anything. It's all hearsay.

I don't know why my examples should be singled out and held to a different standard as everyone else's.

I stated that I called WDW in October 2013 and was advised by the CM that booking a room and not using it was fine and would cause no issues.

Nugov called WDW today and asked what would happen if a room was not used and was told the room wouldn't be considered abandoned.

In the thread you referenced, someone was checking out of a DVC unit early and told Disney to re-rent it as it was empty but was told that it couldn't be re-rented since it belonged to the poster for that week.

The Swolphin thread did have a concrete example of someone having a stay at a value voided after a few days, but that was the only concrete example.

"I've heard about Disney declaring rooms abandoned" is about the same as a game of telephone. I'd ask for the 5 Ws and 1 H. There is no detail. It's just a vague statement.

 

[Luckybee]

Not quite, from the beginning of our conversation you have been using your anecdotal evidence as an indicator of Disney's stance on this matter. Yet, pages later, when I offer up opposing anecdotal evidence of Disney's stance on the matter, you dismiss it... because it's anecdotal evidence.

What I don't understand is why you're playing devils advocate for a practice that your own company is opposed to. Do you really find it fair that booking one night at a campsite should net you a weeks worth of benefits?

Since you seem interested in having more than anecdotal evidence or "hearsay" as you put it, why don't you spend 5 minutes and call Disney yourself. I've done just that. More than once. On this issue. I satisfied myself by the responses I obtained.
Don't call them and say "hey this is terrible, when are you going to stop it". If you do that the CM is more likely to want to commiserate with you. Simply call them and ask whether one can book a room and not use it in order to take advantage of FP+ 60 day bookings. After they tell you that you can, and perhaps as one agent did with me, tell me the best way to take adnatage of this for purposes of my trip, then feel free to give them your opinion.
I'm beginning to think this will all be eventually moot, not because I believe that Disney will change it because they dont want these bookings but rather because I now believe with all these fp tests they keep doing, the apple pay system etc. that they will eventually go to some sort of pay for add'l/early booking fp's. Imho the writing is on the wall on that one !

 

[nugov2]

FWIW, I camp. I book about 6 to 9 months out, but because of my job, I cannot book any farther out than that. If I cannot get a site at Fort Wilderness, we do not go to Disney. We have camped off property and we do not enjoy the campgrounds in the area.

Yes, if you book a throwaway campsite you are losing Disney money because I will not go to Disney. Yes, this is a problem for many who camp. It comes up regularly on more than one Fort Wilderness discussion board. When my family is at Disney, we spend an average of $2000 to $3000 per trip. Pocket change for Disney, but multiply it by the number of unoccupied campsites.

At the very least it's bad business practice to have lots of unoccupied inventory. It creates a poor perception for those who don't know the reason and it creates bad feelings for those who do know what's going on.

Why would Disney build more campsites just to have more empty campsites? They may be booked and paid for, but yeah, it's losing Disney money.

In many campgrounds throughout the country if you do not occupy the site the first night, you lose the site. There are no perks like FP or ADRs, obviously, but Disney has more of an incentive to do a similar thing with their campground.

So here's a question: Would you still stay offsite if you couldn't gain anything from booking a throwaway room? Yes or no, it's in Disney's best interest to close this loophole.

Lets say I book a throwaway on Friday and leave Saturday...well you wanted that Friday that I have so you decide to scrap your trip even though Saturday thru Friday the following week was open...disney loses your reservation and money......BUT the Smith family needs a campsite Saturday to Saturday so they take your place and take the throwaway campsite the day it opens up from the one night throwaway reservation I booked. Disney is out no money b/c the site is still completely booked. You have no idea the needs/wants of other vacationers and just b/c someone books one night it may now make the availability perfect for another family b/c now you didn't get to book it and take it away from the Smith family. Plus now my family is spending 3 additional days at WDW vs Uni or somewhere else so just in meals/activities and now we have decided park hoppers WDW is gaining thousands from my family they wouldn't have gotten without the throwaway. I like the fact that I can book at 60 days and it made our family decide with that much advanced booking we will get our FP we want at the tiered parks. Otherwise we were doing MK for two days(day 1 and 9 of our vacation) and visiting other places in Orlando. Unless you know who is checking in and out on those days...how many sites now don't get booked b/c of throwaway and what a throwaway family spends with it vs without it(all stats we have no real idea of) there is no way to say it is better or worse for Disney.

 

[nugov2]

Since you seem interested in having more than anecdotal evidence or "hearsay" as you put it, why don't you spend 5 minutes and call Disney yourself. I've done just that. More than once. On this issue. I satisfied myself by the responses I obtained.
Don't call them and say "hey this is terrible, when are you going to stop it". If you do that the CM is more likely to want to commiserate with you. Simply call them and ask whether one can book a room and not use it in order to take advantage of FP+ 60 day bookings. After they tell you that you can, and perhaps as one agent did with me, tell me the best way to take adnatage of this for purposes of my trip, then feel free to give them your opinion.
I'm beginning to think this will all be eventually moot, not because I believe that Disney will change it because they dont want these bookings but rather because I now believe with all these fp tests they keep doing, the apple pay system etc. that they will eventually go to some sort of pay for add'l/early booking fp's. Imho the writing is on the wall on that one !

Oh, I hope that happens before our trip!!!

 

[SmithSmith]

LOL, I even responded to it didn't remember and apparently the idea of this happening was hysterical to me

I am not a good at searching apparently, but regardless...I still don't believe the posters. If it happened frequently it would be more than just a couple of posts. There would be threads strictly dedicated to it. Look how a simple change in Disney's schedule leads to thread after thread about how plans are ruined. Can you imagine the firestorm of threads if this was a policy WDW enforced? Especially with the apparently high number of people who participate in this strategy according to many of the posters on the board. Plus, I don't think WDW wouldn't tell you that if the room is paid for it is yours if you asked a reservation specialist(either way they have to refund you so they are out money so what is the purpose of keeping this policy secret), this is something they would want people to be aware of b/c the public backlash they would get if people starting losing ADR's and other reservations b/c they decided to stay at Aunt Suzie's house and decided not to sleep at pop, but still paid for the room. If on the remote chance this is WDW secret policy that they choose to enforce once or twice a year, as I stated earlier it is not going to happen for a one or two day throwaway room. Also maybe I missed one but that is still only 2 reports on those two threads, but my son was up at 4:30 so I am a little sleepy today

That's funny! I didn't notice you were a part of that thread either.

There was a second person on the first thread that confirmed Disney would declare the room abandoned.

I don't know. I don't really put much stock into everything that's said here on the boards. I used to, but then I went to WDW for the first time in 15 years and soon realized that a lot of the tips and tricks that I learned here don't work. For example: I often read that it's a good idea to buy something as soon as you see it because it may be gone by the time you go back to it. That way if you decide against it you can always return it at your hotel. That wasn't true when I went last month. Every time I was in mouse gears or port of entry I would ask the CM if it was possible to return the item at POR. They didn't know. I bought anyway because of the vast amount of posters here that claim otherwise. Fast forward to the end of the trip, tried to return things at Fultons at POR.... HUGE HASSLE. I had to go through 4 differnt CM's to do it!

But this is the first time I'm even bringing this up, and honestly I had no intention of even doing so, because I figured I was in the minority. Because... how can that many people be wrong?

Honestly, I don't care whether Disney allows this to happen. I just don't like it when people assume that Disney will ALWAYS allow this to happen, and that their past behavior is an indicator of their future behavior. They've fixed other loopholes, why wouldn't they fix this one?

 

[DisneyKevin]

Not quite, from the beginning of our conversation you have been using your anecdotal evidence as an indicator of Disney's stance on this matter. Yet, pages later, when I offer up opposing anecdotal evidence of Disney's stance on the matter, you dismiss it... because it's anecdotal evidence.

What I don't understand is why you're playing devils advocate for a practice that your own company is opposed to. Do you really find it fair that booking one night at a campsite should net you a weeks worth of benefits?

My anecdotal evidence is not an indicator.

My indicator is that Disney has not stopped this. This conversation has been going on since people used to book Cinderellas Royal Table and sell the reservation. This is not a new conversation.

Again, I think you are confused.

My company sells travel. I follow the rules of both mine and the Disney company when selling travel to their destinations. So far, this is not against Disney's rules and I don't ask any of my clients if they intend to sleep in their rooms.

On the other hand, I am part of a podcast (not what I get paid for, by the way) and if you've listened for any length of time, you will know that we all have our own opinions.

I have no issue playing devil's advocate. It's just another side of the conversation.

 

[SmithSmith]

I stated that I called WDW in October 2013 and was advised by the CM that booking a room and not using it was fine and would cause no issues.

Nugov called WDW today and asked what would happen if a room was not used and was told the room wouldn't be considered abandoned.

In the thread you referenced, someone was checking out of a DVC unit early and told Disney to re-rent it as it was empty but was told that it couldn't be re-rented since it belonged to the poster for that week.

The Swolphin thread did have a concrete example of someone having a stay at a value voided after a few days, but that was the only concrete example.

"I've heard about Disney declaring rooms abandoned" is about the same as a game of telephone. I'd ask for the 5 Ws and 1 H. There is no detail. It's just a vague statement.

The debate here was never about whether Disney allowed it to happen, but if Disney promoted it or not. So none of the examples you cited have any relevance.

Again I don't deny that there may be some rogue Disney reservationists suggesting this practice, I'm aware that could happen no matter how illogical it seems to me. But I've yet to see any examples of The Disney Co actually promoting this practice. Promoting it, and telling a customer "yes" after they ask is not the same to me.

 

[Napria]

Lets say I book a throwaway on Friday and leave Saturday...well you wanted that Friday that I have so you decide to scrap your trip even though Saturday thru Friday the following week was open...disney loses your reservation and money......BUT the Smith family needs a campsite Saturday to Saturday so they take your place and take the throwaway campsite the day it opens up from the one night throwaway reservation I booked. Disney is out no money b/c the site is still completely booked. You have no idea the needs/wants of other vacationers and just b/c someone books one night it may now make the availability perfect for another family b/c now you didn't get to book it and take it away from the Smith family. Plus now my family is spending 3 additional days at WDW vs Uni or somewhere else so just in meals/activities and now we have decided park hoppers WDW is gaining thousands from my family they wouldn't have gotten without the throwaway. I like the fact that I can book at 60 days and it made our family decide with that much advanced booking we will get our FP we want at the tiered parks. Otherwise we were doing MK for two days(day 1 and 9 of our vacation) and visiting other places in Orlando. Unless you know who is checking in and out on those days...how many sites now don't get booked b/c of throwaway and what a throwaway family spends with it vs without it(all stats we have no real idea of) there is no way to say it is better or worse for Disney.

The fact of the matter is, yes, Disney is out money because the campground, although fully booked, is only 50% or 60% occupied.

Campers who want to camp are complaining they cannot get a campsite.

Poor perception that the Campground is not full.

Negative perception and bad feelings from those that want to camp and cannot.

 

[SmithSmith]

Since you seem interested in having more than anecdotal evidence or "hearsay" as you put it, why don't you spend 5 minutes and call Disney yourself. I've done just that. More than once. On this issue. I satisfied myself by the responses I obtained.
Don't call them and say "hey this is terrible, when are you going to stop it". If you do that the CM is more likely to want to commiserate with you. Simply call them and ask whether one can book a room and not use it in order to take advantage of FP+ 60 day bookings. After they tell you that you can, and perhaps as one agent did with me, tell me the best way to take adnatage of this for purposes of my trip, then feel free to give them your opinion.
I'm beginning to think this will all be eventually moot, not because I believe that Disney will change it because they dont want these bookings but rather because I now believe with all these fp tests they keep doing, the apple pay system etc. that they will eventually go to some sort of pay for add'l/early booking fp's. Imho the writing is on the wall on that one !

Again, this is not what I'm arguing. I have never argued this, I don't know why people keep thinking that I am.