The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[DisneyKevin]

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.

Disney doesn't promote things like booking a throw away room or buying something at one location and returning it at another.

That does not mean these things don't happen.

I'm sorry that none of then tips you've learned from the DIS Boards have worked for you.

 

[DisneyKevin]

Yes or no, it's in Disney's best interest to close this loophole.

This discussion has been going on for a very long time...10 years or more.

Why do you think they haven't?

 

[nugov2]

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.

I think I read the campgrounds have close to 800 sites(not sure if that is accurate)...so you are telling me that around 400 campsites at a time are throwaway sites? I call BS on that. I'd bet at any given time there are no more than 40 throwaway sites and that is still high. realistically I'd say it is under 10 either way at most it is probably less than 5% of the number of sites. If you are seeing the grounds half full it is something else besides throwaway rooms IMO. Obviously neither of us can prove it as we have no real data. Either way throwaway rooms are not that mainstream and most people won't pay for two places to stay. I bet if you polled most campers(not campers who post on DIS or other boards) very few would think that is why a site was empty.

Also how are they out money if someone is using it after my stay and I spent thousands more b/c of it. That makes no sense.

The complainers have just as much opportunity to book and I have seen many post that the availability of the campgrounds are still very good, so not sure that is accurate. I think people are complaining based on the hypothetical that they are not able to book when they haven't even tried yet.

ETA:

this from another thread the post is from the end of September:


Again, December is a very popular season at the campgrounds, and yet every weekday is currently available (and December is only 2 months away) INCLUDING Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. 89% seems awfully high for the campgrounds.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=52370731&highlight=campground+availability#post52370731

This poster could find availability for the most popular time of the year only 2 months out...seems it isn't the issue some think it is.

 

[SmithSmith]

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.

But I don't feel this is the same conversation that's been going on for years. I do not think this is the same as refillable mugs or throwaway rooms from the past because there are more benefits at stake now, My Magic+ has changed that.

Please stop telling me that I'm "confused" or that I "misread" or that I am "twisting your words", because I'm not guilty of any of those things and I find it very patronizing.

I could've sworn that Pete said Dreams Unlimited isn't allowing throwaway rooms.

You never answered my question. Do you think it's right if a person pays for one night but gets a week of benefits...

 

[SmithSmith]

I think I read the campgrounds have close to 800 sites(not sure if that is accurate)...so you are telling me that around 400 campsites at a time are throwaway sites? I call BS on that. I'd bet at any given time there are no more than 40 throwaway sites and that is still high. realistically I'd say it is under 10 either way at most it is probably less than 5% of the number of sites. If you are seeing the grounds half full it is something else besides throwaway rooms IMO. Obviously neither of us can prove it as we have no real data. Either way throwaway rooms are not that mainstream and most people won't pay for two places to stay. I bet if you polled most campers(not campers who post on DIS or other boards) very few would think that is why a site was empty.

Also how are they out money if someone is using it after my stay and I spent thousands more b/c of it. That makes no sense.

The complainers have just as much opportunity to book and I have seen many post that the availability of the campgrounds are still very good, so not sure that is accurate. I think people are complaining based on the hypothetical that they are not able to book when they haven't even tried yet.

I believe there's only 90 camp sites. The cheapest ones that people are booking as throwaway rooms (the ones where you would pitch a tent). They're pretty limited

 

[SmithSmith]

Disney doesn't promote things like booking a throw away room or buying something at one location and returning it at another.

That does not mean these things don't happen.

I'm sorry that none of then tips you've learned from the DIS Boards have worked for you.

I'm not denying that it happens!

I never said that none of the tips I learned here worked for me.

And you accuse me of twisting your words...

 

[nugov2]

I believe there's only 90 camp sites. The cheapest ones that people are booking as throwaway rooms (the ones where you would pitch a tent). They're pretty limited

was just about to edit my post to add this:

784 sites

http://www.wdwmagic.com/resorts/disneys-fort-wilderness-campground.htm

 

[DisneyKevin]

I don't know. I don't really put much stock into everything that's said here on the boards.

I apologized if I misinterpreted this statement. I thought you meant that the tips you learned here did not work.

, 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?

Again, no one has said this is the case. They have not fixed it yet. If it was important to Disney, they would have fixed it by now.

But I don't feel this is the same conversation that's been going on for years. I do not think this is the same as refillable mugs or throwaway rooms from the past because there are more benefits at stake now, My Magic+ has changed that.

This is your opinion. I believe it's the same conversation that has been happening for many years.

Please stop telling me that I'm "confused" or that I "misread" or that I am "twisting your words", because I'm not guilty of any of those things and I find it very patronizing.

I apologized that you feel patronized

You have stated more than once that I have suggested that Disney build more campsites. I have explained each time that that is not what I said.

 

[Napria]

Bottom line this is a hot issue and people are passionate on all sides. Even when there are facts about *any* issue there are those who will dispute the facts and believe the opposite with every fiber of their being.

I agree to disagree, but I will not participate in this discussion any more. I should have known better. But I have personal experience with being locked out and hearing from those who are at the campground that it's only 60% full. I know, I'm not there to verify, but I'll be there in April during Spring Break and see for myself just how occupied the Campground is during one of the busiest times.

Have fun debating this issue for another 10 years or till Disney closes the loophole.

 

[k5jm]

This discussion has been going on for a very long time...10 years or more.

Why do you think they haven't?

Because this "loophole" is not even the smallest of blips on Disney's radar.

Kevin, I am with you. As far as Disney goes, this is a non-issue and a moot point.

My suggestion folks, buy a crap-load of stock and bring it up at the annual stockholders meeting.

 

[nugov2]

Bottom line this is a hot issue and people are passionate on all sides. Even when there are facts about *any* issue there are those who will dispute the facts and believe the opposite with every fiber of their being.

I agree to disagree, but I will not participate in this discussion any more. I should have known better. But I have personal experience with being locked out and hearing from those who are at the campground that it's only 60% full. I know, I'm not there to verify, but I'll be there in April during Spring Break and see for myself just how occupied the Campground is during one of the busiest times.

Have fun debating this issue for another 10 years or till Disney closes the loophole.

I just have a hard time believing that over 300 campsites are empty when the site is booked full. There is just no way that is happening!

Because this "loophole" is not even the smallest of blips on Disney's radar.

Kevin, I am with you. As far as Disney goes, this is a non-issue and a moot point.

My suggestion folks, buy a crap-load of stock and bring it up at the annual stockholders meeting.

 

[DisneyKingpin]

This is such a bizarre debate.

The object of a for-profit business is to sell its product and make money. If somebody wants to buy a hotel room at Disney or elsewhere, that's good for the business. As long as nothing illegal is going on inside that room, then nobody should be calling anyone out.

Sometimes I buy a pizza and don't eat every slice. Sometimes I go to Disney and don't ride any rides. Who cares what I do with my money? Maybe you get more out of your pizzas and your trips to Disney than I do, so good for you. But you don't have a right to tell me what to do.

I really can't believe how many people fail to realize Disney is a business. It's not here to regulate moral doctrine. It exists to make money. And if it weren't making money, I can assure you all of its hotel rooms would be closed and nobody would be staying anywhere. So be glad people are booking rooms.

 

[SmithSmith]

But I don't feel this is the same conversation that's been going on for years. I do not think this is the same as refillable mugs or throwaway rooms from the past because there are more benefits at stake now, My Magic+ has changed that.

This is your opinion. I believe it's the same conversation that has been happening for many.

I know this is my opinion that's why I prefaced it with the words "I do not feel". I realize you have an opposing opinion. This is obvious and you do not have to point this out to me.

 

[SmithSmith]

I apologized that you feel patronized

Your choice of phrasing is also patronizing.

 

[SmithSmith]

You have stated more than once that I have suggested that Disney build more campsites. I have explained each time that that is not what I said.

I thought this was done. Why are we discussing it again?
I transcribed to you exactly what you said in the podcast and then you apologized to me because you forgot you had said those things.

 

[SmithSmith]

This is such a bizarre debate.

The object of a for-profit business is to sell its product and make money. If somebody wants to buy a hotel room at Disney or elsewhere, that's good for the business. As long as nothing illegal is going on inside that room, then nobody should be calling anyone out.

Sometimes I buy a pizza and don't eat every slice. Sometimes I go to Disney and don't ride any rides. Who cares what I do with my money? Maybe you get more out of your pizzas and your trips to Disney than I do, so good for you. But you don't have a right to tell me what to do.

I really can't believe how many people fail to realize Disney is a business. It's not here to regulate moral doctrine. It exists to make money. And if it weren't making money, I can assure you all of its hotel rooms would be closed and nobody would be staying anywhere. So be glad people are booking rooms.

You do realize people aren't against this because someone is booking a room for a night and getting a nights worth of perks, they're against it because they're booking one night and getting a weeks worth of perks? Disney is giving away parking, magicbands, and fast pass reservations for a fraction of the cost it charges other resort guests. This isn't good business sense for Disney.

 

[famy27]

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.

I did see on the first page that you'd called the throwaway room "cheating" and "evasion." I was arguing that point. If I call Disney and they tell me the practice is acceptable, then it isn't cheating.

In terms of "promoting," many things at Disney are allowed but not promoted. I'll use split stays as my example. I've never seen a commercial or any literature or posts from Disney suggesting that if you can't stay for seven nights at GF, you should stay for one or two nights at GF and the other five at POP, but I think we can all agree that it is an allowed and accepted practice. Disney doesn't go yelling, "Hey! Too cheap to stay at a Deluxe for a week? Why not split your stay and see how the other half lives for a night or two?" If you call, they probably won't promote this, but if you ask about it, CMs will tell you that it's fine to split a stay.

Throwaway rooms appear to be the same. All reports I've seen have indicated that Disney doesn't care if you sleep in a room you've paid for. If you called Disney and asked if you could bring your 36-inch-tall child on Soarin' or shove seven people in a room at POP, you'd be informed this was against policy. If it's not against policy, it doesn't matter if it's promoted or not. It's an acceptable practice. That's why the thread on throwaway rooms hasn't been shut down. If you started a thread asking how to sneak your tiny child onto a height restricted ride, it would be closed in a heartbeat. DIS doesn't allow posts that intentionally violate Disney policies.

I've also seen people asking about whether it's okay to use seven nights of benefits for a one-night stay. But that isn't what's happening. You get length of stay benefits. The parking and EMH are for check-in and check-out day. You get MBs for any length of stay. So it all comes down to FPs. FPs are bookable at 60 days for length of stay. Beyond that, they are a rolling 60, so it isn't the same advantage as someone who is staying onsite the entire time. The rolling 60 days is a benefit that lasts the length of your ticket and is triggered by any length of onsite stay, be it one or 18 nights. So, you aren't using a "week's worth of benefits." You are using the benefits that come with a one-night stay. Now, if you put your finger over the date on the parking pass to get extra days of parking, you'd be cheating the system and using benefits to which you aren't entitled. The only benefit you get beyond check-out date is the rolling 60 days to make FPs. Yes, it puts you ahead of the offsiters, but you are still behind everyone else staying onsite for more than one night. It's like a little "thank you" gift from Disney for choosing to stay onsite for part of your stay.

 

[DisneyKingpin]

This isn't good business sense for Disney.

You clearly know nothing about business. Every room sold is more money in the Disney coffers. It's not good for business. It's GREAT for business. The "perks" they are giving away are of little to no cost to Disney.

Let it go. You can book a room just like anyone else. Stop getting up into everyone's business and worry about your own vacation. And stop worrying about what Kevin does or doesn't say.

 

[SmithSmith]

I did see on the first page that you'd called the throwaway room "cheating" and "evasion." I was arguing that point. If I call Disney and they tell me the practice is acceptable, then it isn't cheating.

In terms of "promoting," many things at Disney are allowed but not promoted. I'll use split stays as my example. I've never seen a commercial or any literature or posts from Disney suggesting that if you can't stay for seven nights at GF, you should stay for one or two nights at GF and the other five at POP, but I think we can all agree that it is an allowed and accepted practice. Disney doesn't go yelling, "Hey! Too cheap to stay at a Deluxe for a week? Why not split your stay and see how the other half lives for a night or two?" If you call, they probably won't promote this, but if you ask about it, CMs will tell you that it's fine to split a stay.

I believe I said: the word "loophole" is synonymous with the words "cheating" and "evasion" for a reason. I do find it to be a "gross" practice, that is my opinion so therefore not debatable.
You basically said "if Disney allows it then it isn't cheating". Guess what? Most US states find adultery to be legal. Does that mean it's not cheating? Absolutely not! Why? Because it does harm to others.

I find it amusing that people keep bringing up practices that Disney allows, but doesn't promote, as if they had the same negative impact as a throwaway room. A "Split stay" doesn't hurt other resort guests. Purchasing goods at Mouse Gears and then returning at Fultons General Store doesn't hurt other resort guests. The old refillable mug debacle didn't hurt other resort guests. However, throwaway rooms DO HURT other resort guests. How is this not obvious?
.

 

[SmithSmith]

You clearly know nothing about business. Every room sold is more money in the Disney coffers. It's not good for business. It's GREAT for business. The "perks" they are giving away are of little to no cost to Disney.

Let it go. You can book a room just like anyone else. Stop getting up into everyone's business and worry about your own vacation. And stop worrying about what Kevin does or doesn't say.

"You clearly know nothing about business"? I doubt it. But you clearly know nothing of Ft Wilderness.

First, if you haven't done so then check out the FW threads, it's clear there's a pervasive problem with throwaway campsites. If this practice was happening at your choice resort then you would understand the problem.

Second, when someone books a throwaway campsite, Disney does lose out on a lot of revenue. Unlike other resorts, FW guests heavily rely on the extras, they often pick up supplies at the settlement, get daily golf carts rentals, canoe rentals, bike rentals, etc. It can really add up to stay at FW other than the nominal $50-120 campsite fee.

Third, I could argue FW is not just a resort, it's a community. If I were Disney, I wouldn't want them unhappy.

Fourth, there is the compounded problem of non-resort guests with throwaway rooms being able to book FP+ 60 days out and then getting FP+ for the duration of their stay. FP+ availability is wreaking havoc with resort guests right now. There's huge swaths of regular Disney vacationers unhappy with how this practice is affecting them. You really don't think Disney would do anything about that all because of measly campsite fee for one night?

I find where people side on this debate to be rather telling of their character. Let's just say I have a very low opinion of the opposing side and therefore do not care what they think of me.