The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[SmithSmith]

You're so self-centered that you have no perception of reality. Your "community" will keep coming and will keep buying everything Disney. And so will you. Disney is your drug and FP+ and Throwaway Rooms will not be enough to make you quit your addiction. Disney knows this and is not even the slightest concerned about you. You're too self-centered to realize this.

Disney continues to make record profits. Stock price has quadrupled in the last few years. The numbers are not down at Fort Wilderness. As I stated before, you clearly know nothing about business. Your implying some kind of threat against Disney if your "community" is "unhappy?" Laughable. Have you even been to Disney recently? Have you looked around at the crowds? They know your "community" is not going anywhere. And if you ever had the guts to actually quit Disney, they wouldn't miss you. Fort Wildness will get along fine without you.

Wow! You read A LOT into what I posted. I'm a self-centered addict?!

I'm not, nor have I ever been a camper at Ft Wildeness. (However, that doesn't mean I don't plan to in the future). My post was to encourage you to investigate the FW threads on your own so you can read for yourself that throwaway rooms were indeed harming "the FW community".

Furthermore, I do not care for the tone you chose in your response to me, nor your wording, therefore I will not be replying to you in the future.

 

[Sydney2977]

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.

Exactly! That was pretty much my point when I originally posted. While I may find the practice not morally sound or not something I would do, others may have no problem with it so good for them. I don't feel they are getting away with some illegal action and should be punished. But as a business, Disney is not going to do anything to change it until it affects their bottom line! It seems like everyone is just arguing the morality of it here, and to me that's a moot point!

 

[Sydney2977]

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.

I also stated in my original post that I don't care that other people are getting the same perks I am booking one night vs. my one week stay. If I didn't think the perks Disney was offering for staying onsite were fair, I wouldn't have booked to begin with. It seems like everyone is just jealous...

Not to get all religious, but this reminds me of a story in the Bible, where a landowner hires workers throughout the day, like at 8am, then say noon, then say 4pm, and at the end of the day pays them all the same wages. When those hired first in the day object, he says something like "Did I not pay you what I originally said I was going to pay you? I didn't cheat you in any way. It is my money to do with as I wish, so if I want to pay these other workers the same I may." Get the gist of it?

 

[SmithSmith]

I also stated in my original post that I don't care that other people are getting the same perks I am booking one night vs. my one week stay. If I didn't think the perks Disney was offering for staying onsite were fair, I wouldn't have booked to begin with. It seems like everyone is just jealous...

Not to get all religious, but this reminds me of a story in the Bible, where a landowner hires workers throughout the day, like at 8am, then say noon, then say 4pm, and at the end of the day pays them all the same wages. When those hired first in the day object, he says something like "Did I not pay you what I originally said I was going to pay you? I didn't cheat you in any way. It is my money to do with as I wish, so if I want to pay these other workers the same I may." Get the gist of it?

Sorry, once you said "religious", you lost me. I'm atheist.

 

[SmithSmith]

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 really should've followed your lead and left when you did.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

Hi Everyone,

Please keep your discussions to the topic at hand. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion; if one does not agree with it, that is fine, but please do so in a respectful manner. Name-calling or any other form of direct attacks are against DIS Posting Guidelines.

 

[famy27]

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?
.

I still have no idea who it's cheating or how. Two people had equal access to a room, and one booked it first. If the other one wanted it, he could have booked it. Nobody stole anything or cheated anyone. And if a room not being available for one night hurts others because it breaks up a week, then a one night stay at GF and six nights at POP hurts someone exactly the same way as a one-night stay at POP would. (Spoiler alert: it doesn't)

If lack of access to the room or campsite for others is the issue, then it should be fine to book it for the benefits and then cancel. Then someone else could use it. However, the throwaway booker would then be getting something for which he didn't pay. So, is the problem lack of access for others or getting something for free?

The person who doesn't stay there but pays is still "using" the room. How they choose to use the hotel room is up to them. That's my opinion (so I guess it's not debatable)

And now I'm excited, as I can tell everyone I committed hotel room adultery! Well, actually I booked the room for someone else, so I'm not sure what that makes it.

 

[SmithSmith]

I still have no idea who it's cheating or how. Two people had equal access to a room, and one booked it first. If the other one wanted it, he could have booked it. Nobody stole anything or cheated anyone. And if a room not being available for one night hurts others because it breaks up a week, then a one night stay at GF and six nights at POP hurts someone exactly the same way as a one-night stay at POP would. (Spoiler alert: it doesn't)

If lack of access to the room or campsite for others is the issue, then it should be fine to book it for the benefits and then cancel. Then someone else could use it. However, the throwaway booker would then be getting something for which he didn't pay. So, is the problem lack of access for others or getting something for free?

The person who doesn't stay there but pays is still "using" the room. How they choose to use the hotel room is up to them. That's my opinion (so I guess it's not debatable)

And now I'm excited, as I can tell everyone I committed hotel room adultery! Well, actually I booked the room for someone else, so I'm not sure what that makes it.

One campsite typically would see one or two campers/family over a weeks time, now because of throwaway rooms it has the possibility of seeing 7 different camper/family over a weeks time. The first scenario allows up to 20 different people to be allotted fast passes, the second scenario allows up to 70 different people to be allotted fast passes. One campsite has the difference of 50 extra fast pass reservations that normally wouldn't be there. Now compound that number with the dozens of people reporting to book throwaway sites at FW and there's your problem. That is one reason why it's unfair to other resort guests. This was Pete's point.

 

[jcb]

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.

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?

One campsite typically would see one or two campers/family over a weeks time, now because of throwaway rooms it has the possibility of seeing 7 different camper/family over a weeks time. The first scenario allows up to 20 different people to be allotted fast passes, the second scenario allows up to 70 different people to be allotted fast passes. One campsite has the difference of 50 extra fast pass reservations that normally wouldn't be there. Now compound that number with the dozens of people reporting to book throwaway sites at FW and there's your problem. That is one reason why it's unfair to other resort guests. This was Pete's point.

These posts seem to be justifying a position that booking a throwaway site/room has a negative impact on prospective guests with the argument that it isn't good business for Disney. I may or may not agree with the impact on guests but don't think you are correct about whether the practice is good for Disney's business. Frankly, if Disney has given this any thought, it has probably figured out that throwaway bookings help its bottom line.

Disney has several metrics for its bottom line. For example, on page 5 of the transcript from the latest earnings conference call, Disney's CFO explained:

We continued to see positive trends in the business with the fourth quarter per capita spending in our domestic parks up 6% on higher ticket prices, food and beverage and merchandise spending. Attendance at our domestic parks was up 4%, with Walt Disney World setting a new fourth quarter record. Per room spending at our domestic hotels was up 5% and occupancy was up 5 percentage points to 83%.
So far this quarter, domestic resort reservations are pacing up 11% compared to prior year levels, while booked rates are up 3%. The 11% includes the benefit of the timing of promotional offers, but nevertheless we feel very good about the volume and pricing trends we’re seeing in the business.

So, Disney's metrics include (1) attendance, (2) per room spending, and (3) occupancy rates. Let's ignore the fact that that the current financial results don't reflect any negative impact from throwaway room bookings. Occupancy rates were up 5 percent and there are a lot of well-run hotels that only fantasize about having 83% occupancy rates.

But my real point is that, from a business standpoint, throwaway room bookings increase at least two of the three metrics Disney uses. Suppose "throwaway" guest(s) book one night at a cheap resort or FW (doesn't matter where) to purchase a 10 day ticket with the FP+ and ADR booking advantages (the ticket length really doesn't matter here, by the way). While it means the throwaway guest(s) will only be staying in the room/site one night, the throwaway guest(s) will be the parks for 10 days. At an 83 percent occupancy rate, the odds are very high that some other family is going to book the room/site the next night(s) (let's call this family the "gap" family). That puts an additional person/family in the parks, thus increasing attendance (remember the "throwaway" guests are also in the park at the same time). But even if there isn't a positive effect, this shows that there is no negative (or virtually no negative) impact on occupancy rates or park attendance. The practice probably also increases the "per room spending" metric but, at a minimum, it doesn't negatively impact it because, again, the "gap" family is statistically quite likely (83%) to be engaging in per room spending.

You also argue that the practice makes loyal guests unhappy. I have no reason or basis to disagree with this. But Disney is doing several things that make its most loyal guests unhappy. Frankly, Disney doesn't seem to care much about keeping loyal guests "happy." Right now, Disney's earnings, just from the Parks and Resorts segment, show it doesn't have to keep loyal guests happy.

 

[wdw4rfam]

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.

I agree with you on all of this. I personally can't see paying for early access to FP+ booking, but don't think anyone is cheating the system because it's legal in Disneys eyes.

 

[nugov2]

One campsite typically would see one or two campers/family over a weeks time, now because of throwaway rooms it has the possibility of seeing 7 different camper/family over a weeks time. The first scenario allows up to 20 different people to be allotted fast passes, the second scenario allows up to 70 different people to be allotted fast passes. One campsite has the difference of 50 extra fast pass reservations that normally wouldn't be there. Now compound that number with the dozens of people reporting to book throwaway sites at FW and there's your problem. That is one reason why it's unfair to other resort guests. This was Pete's point.

The chances the throwaway person is also paying for multiple extra tickets is highly unlikely. You can get 10 MB, but you cannot prebook FP on them unless there are tickets linked. I highly doubt anyone is doing that. The average family is probably 4 or 5 people. Either way the FP system was built for park attendance/ride capability not hotel occupancy numbers so just b/c more people are able to book early it doesn't change how many people can pull the FP+. It just changes the fact that this same family who was going can now book at 60 days vs 30. Does that mean Anna and Elsa is gone faster and the tiered rides are gone...yes, but Disney has said all along FP is for park guests not just hotel guest. Some are paying extra by using a throwaway to access this perk and are just as entitled to book FP as the person sleeping in the room even if other guests don't think they are. Disney makes and enforces their policies and this is the policy that at this time they have set. If not, they wouldn't have designed it to be a rolling system and instead ended the perks just like EMH and access to parking.

These posts seem to be justifying a position that booking a throwaway site/room has a negative impact on prospective guests with the argument that it isn't good business for Disney. I may or may not agree with the impact on guests but don't think you are correct about whether the practice is good for Disney's business. Frankly, if Disney has given this any thought, it has probably figured out that throwaway bookings help its bottom line.

Disney has several metrics for its bottom line. For example, on page 5 of the transcript from the latest earnings conference call, Disney's CFO explained:



So, Disney's metrics include (1) attendance, (2) per room spending, and (3) occupancy rates. Let's ignore the fact that that the current financial results don't reflect any negative impact from throwaway room bookings. Occupancy rates were up 5 percent and there are a lot of well-run hotels that only fantasize about having 83% occupancy rates.

But my real point is that, from a business standpoint, throwaway room bookings increase at least two of the three metrics Disney uses. Suppose "throwaway" guest(s) book one night at a cheap resort or FW (doesn't matter where) to purchase a 10 day ticket with the FP+ and ADR booking advantages (the ticket length really doesn't matter here, by the way). While it means the throwaway guest(s) will only be staying in the room/site one night, the throwaway guest(s) will be the parks for 10 days. At an 83 percent occupancy rate, the odds are very high that some other family is going to book the room/site the next night(s) (let's call this family the "gap" family). That puts an additional person/family in the parks, thus increasing attendance (remember the "throwaway" guests are also in the park at the same time). But even if there isn't a positive effect, this shows that there is no negative (or virtually no negative) impact on occupancy rates or park attendance. The practice probably also increases the "per room spending" metric but, at a minimum, it doesn't negatively impact it because, again, the "gap" family is statistically quite likely (83%) to be engaging in per room spending.

You also argue that the practice makes loyal guests unhappy. I have no reason or basis to disagree with this. But Disney is doing several things that make its most loyal guests unhappy. Frankly, Disney doesn't seem to care much about keeping loyal guests "happy." Right now, Disney's earnings, just from the Parks and Resorts segment, show it doesn't have to keep loyal guests happy.

I also think that there is a loyal offsite base and Disney is trying to make them happy too. I never cared about missing out on the other perks, but sorry I am paying just as much to get into a park and if Disney is going to make that opportunity greater to onsite and disallow me to access it even if I pay for it, I will no longer visit their parks. There are a lot of people in this camp as well...or we wouldn't see the throwaway rooms being booked. Free parking, EMH and ME do not impact my experience in the parks....early booking of FP does. Plus I have seen over and over how campers go there to just enjoy the atmosphere and don't always spend much time in the parks. If that is true/common then WDW places more financial value on the throwaway guest then the camper. Again, there is no way to know without specific figures who is more valuable, but just have seen that said frequently over my time on the boards.

 

[SmithSmith]

Jack, there's no data I can use that doesn't already have throwaway rooms factored in so my argument is quite short and simple:

1. Offsite guests would be in the parks even without access to a throwaway room.

2. The throwaway room removes bodies from FW and therefore no one is spending money there.

3. This seems to be a growing problem because My Magic+ made booking throwaway rooms even more advantageous. I understand Disney ignored/accepted this practice in the past but demand seems to be higher now and is causing problems for existing resort guests and therefore causing problems for Disney. I don't understand why a business would rather cater to the customer that is trying to devise ways to spend less money at their establishment. That is why I think Disney will fix this loophole.

 

[k5jm]

This is not the argument you are looking for...

...move along, move along

 

[SmithSmith]

Nugov,

1. I don't think we can assume what is typical of the person/family that books a throwaway campsite. However, if I were I would think that if a person is going to go through the hassle of doing this than they're probably of the mindset of wanting to get everything they can out of their booking. So why wouldn't they put 10 names on the reservation and get 10 magic bands? They retail for what $13 a piece, that's a $130 value for a $60 campsite. People do sell these things on eBay you know.

2. When I spoke of fast pass availability I was indeed speaking of it in relation to reserving the fast pass. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[DisneyKevin]

According to the folks on this thread, there is no issue getting fast passes for even the most popular attractions.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3348025

It's my understanding that magic bands are not unless there is a ticket attached.

Buying 10 magic bands would be pointless unless you purchased tickets as well.

 

[jcb]

Jack, there's no data I can use that doesn't already have throwaway rooms factored in so my argument is quite short and simple:

1. Offsite guests would be in the parks even without access to a throwaway room.

2. The throwaway room removes bodies from FW and therefore no one is spending money there.

3. This seems to be a growing problem because My Magic+ made booking throwaway rooms even more advantageous. I understand Disney ignored/accepted this practice in the past but demand seems to be higher now and is causing problems for existing resort guests and therefore causing problems for Disney. I don't understand why a business would rather cater to the customer that is trying to devise ways to spend less money at their establishment. That is why I think Disney will fix this loophole.

1. This is at worst revenue neutral. It is probably revenue positive for Disney because the guest has spent money on a room in addition to the park tickets (This assumes that Disney doesn't discount tickets as part of the park package but I think that is a very safe assumption).

2. I agree but I just don't think the throwaway guest at FW makes too much of a difference on the extras spent at FW. Not every guest at FW buys groceries, or rents canoes or golf carts. Those that do, don't do so every day. But conceding that might be revenue negative (1) it is probably not to the degree that WDW cares and (2) is at least partially offset by in park spending.

3. I think is really the happiness issue. In any event, it assumes the throwaway guest is spending less and that this will concern Disney enough that they will do something about it. My experience, albeit anecdotal, doesn't seem to show Disney cares if any one guest (or class of guests) spends less. I spend less than I used to spend. I stay at the Dolphin or offsite much more than I do in Disney owned resorts. If I stay in a Disney resort, I do not stay as long as I used to do. I typically bring my own food or go offsite to eat. I even calculated exactly how much an annual pass would cost v how much it would save. I don't book throwaway rooms (not from a morality standpoint but because it seems to me to be too much trouble for the advantages it might give).

 

[SmithSmith]

According to the folks on this thread, there is no issue getting fast passes for even the most popular attractions.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3348025

It's my understanding that magic bands are not unless there is a ticket attached.

Buying 10 magic bands would be pointless unless you purchased tickets as well.

I had issues getting fast passes 60 days out for my trip last month.

I never suggested buying 10 magic bands.

 

[nugov2]

Nugov,

1. I don't think we can assume what is typical of the person/family that books a throwaway campsite. However, if I were I would think that if a person is going to go through the hassle of doing this than they're probably of the mindset of wanting to get everything they can out of their booking. So why wouldn't they put 10 names on the reservation and get 10 magic bands? They retail for what $13 a piece, that's a $130 value for a $60 campsite. People do sell these things on eBay you know.

2. When I spoke of fast pass availability I was indeed speaking of it in relation to reserving the fast pass. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

True, but they have to buy tickets for those MBs to be able to prebook FP. Who is going to buy 5 day tickets for 4 or 5 hypothetical people? They could do a VIP tour cheaper than that. Even if they bought 5 kids tickets to link to the MB it is going to run about $1400. That is a lot of money to spend to get 15 FP extra a day. Those FP can only be booked in the park and not sure the pool of FP is so great it is worth the hassle of carrying in extra MB. Yes I know some are doing it but that is a very small number. I can't imagine trying to juggle 5 MB in addition to my real 5 and then waiting in line at the Kiosks to get FP for those extra MB I don't think anyone is coming out ahead there.

I also wanted to add that MY family would not be in the parks without the throwaway. The tiering at some of the parks makes me only want to go there knowing I will most likely get what I want. We would only be doing 2 days(MK only) vs 5 without the throwaway and I know many others who have added days b/c the ability to prebook with a throwaway. Again, no specific data to support this theory or discount it, but I know of several including myself so there are people going to the parks with the throwaway that wouldn't be there otherwise.

ETA that I Just realized you meant to resell on Ebay, not to try to get more FP. I still think that is highly unlikely. You would have to have a decent ebay account and really to deal with the hassle of shipping items and just the other BS that comes with ebay to make about $65 seems beyond pointless. Again, most families are 4 or 5 people. Even is you sell 8 of them you are only getting $104 if you get full value...that is highly unlikely and a waste of time back and forth to the post office, packing and again dealing with the headache for $100. Also, can MB even be linked to an account when they are bought off of Ebay? I thought it was no b/c I wanted to buy one of the talking ones from Ebay and that is what posters said. That my son couldn't use them in the park and it would be decoration only if I bought it.

 

[SmithSmith]

1. This is at worst revenue neutral. It is probably revenue positive for Disney because the guest has spent money on a room in addition to the park tickets (This assumes that Disney doesn't discount tickets as part of the park package but I think that is a very safe assumption).

2. I agree but I just don't think the throwaway guest at FW makes too much of a difference on the extras spent at FW. Not every guest at FW buys groceries, or rents canoes or golf carts. Those that do, don't do so every day. But conceding that might be revenue negative (1) it is probably not to the degree that WDW cares and (2) is at least partially offset by in park spending.

3. I think is really the happiness issue. In any event, it assumes the throwaway guest is spending less and that this will concern Disney enough that they will do something about it. My experience, albeit anecdotal, doesn't seem to show Disney cares if any one guest (or class of guests) spends less. I spend less than I used to spend. I stay at the Dolphin or offsite much more than I do in Disney owned resorts. If I stay in a Disney resort, I do not stay as long as I used to do. I typically bring my own food or go offsite to eat. I even calculated exactly how much an annual pass would cost v how much it would save. I don't book throwaway rooms (not from a morality standpoint but because it seems to me to be too much trouble for the advantages it might give).

Jack, thank you for an agreeable and informative exchange. I agree with you on most points, where we diverge is the happiness issue. Maybe one day when I have as much experience with Disney as you do then I might see examples of Disney putting $ over guest experience, but right now I do not. I just have a different perspective of the parks. People often complain Disney isn't putting money back into the parks or there's not enough attractions to absorb the crowds or any number of things you hear these days. I don't see it that way. Not enough attractions? That's why they're building Pandora, Disney Springs, and whatever is on the horizon for Hollywood Studios. Parks are crowded? That's why they implemented My Magic+.

I don't know. Maybe I have rose colored glasses on, but I have a very positive view of WDW these days.

 

[SmithSmith]

Nugov,

If ability to book FP wasn't included in the perks of booking a throwaway room, would you still book a throwaway room?