The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[gigi1313]

To me, it seems like there are a few different issues getting jumbled together here.

The unlinked MBs and the throwaway rooms can be connected, but they don't have to be. I know many people (myself included) have used a throwaway room, but not unlinked bands. Others have used unlinked bands without a throwaway. For example, we had APs and stayed onsite four times in a year. We had four sets of bands, so for everything after the first stay, we could have set up new MDE accounts and used the extra MBs for SDFPs. We didn't do that, but that would have been an onsite stay sleeping in the room and having unlinked bands. Conversely, when we booked a throwaway for my SIL last fall, it was solely to get access to FP+. We didn't have fake people listed on the reservation or multiple bands per person.

The issues I've seen people raise are:

1) It's wrong to buy something and not use it to its fullest.
This just seems silly to me. I buy things all the time and don't use them. Nobody has ever suggested this was a moral failing.

2) Someone else might want the room you booked.
I don't understand this either. If they wanted the room, they could have booked it themselves. If it was open and available for me to book it, then it was available for anyone else. It appears that campsites are available for most of the rest of the year, so it doesn't seem that this practice has caused hundreds to be turned away from campsites. The same goes for value resorts.

3) A one-night reservation splits up a week and prevents someone else from booking a week.
A split stay that is just one or two nights in a resort would do the same thing, and nobody seems to think this is a problem. I don't understand why it matters if someone sleeps in the room or not, or if it's a campsite vs. a deluxe. The week is still "broken up" either way. If it's okay in one situation, it should be acceptable in the other as well.

4) People are stealing a week or more of benefits by booking for one night.
As mentioned previously, this is not true. They receive length-of-stay benefits. Parking and EMH are for the days of the stay. FP+ bookings are 60 days for the length of the resort stay. After that, it is a rolling 60 days. It's better than 30 days, but not as good as what someone staying onsite for a week would get. If you tried to sneak into EMHs after your checkout date or get extra days of free parking, that would be different, as that is not something you are entitle to have with your booking. The 60-day rolling booking window for FPs for the length of ticket IS included as one of your onsite stay benefits.

5) People are booking a campsite to get multiple MBs to make SDFPs.
I think this is likely a very small minority of those booking the throwaway. I also don't consider this synonymous with a throwaway (see beginning of my post). It seems most people do it for the MBs and the 60-day FP booking. I don't think I'd order extra MBs for fake guests, but the practice doesn't hurt me at all, so I won't comment. The unlinked bands just get you extra SDFPs, and most of the really good FPs are long gone to prebookings by that point.

6) Disney is losing money, as offsiters would be there without the throwaway, but people are being turned away from FW (and possible value resorts?) because of throwaways.
Since there is still availability at FW, I don't think this stands up well either. And I am sure some offsiters would not visit WDW unless they could get their throwaway benefits.

I have followed this discussion for days and a few times I have been lost on this point... How can unlinked (aka have no ticket attached) MBs be used for SDFPs? That makes no sense to me as whether its 60, 30, or SD, don't the MBs need active ticket media to be eligible for FP+?

 

[famy27]

I have followed this discussion for days and a few times I have been lost on this point... How can unlinked (aka have no ticket attached) MBs be used for SDFPs? That makes no sense to me as whether its 60, 30, or SD, don't the MBs need active ticket media to be eligible for FP+?

Apparently not. I've never tried this, but if you have MBs with no tickets linked, you can scan them at the kiosk and get SDFPs. You can't prebook with the unlinked bands. To prebook, you must have tickets linked. So, if you have APs and stay onsite twice, you could bring the second set of MBs with you if you set them up on a separate MDE account without any tickets linked and use those for SDFPs. You can't link the bands to your existing MDE, as it would add the APs automatically. I've never done this, so I don't know exactly how it all works. There's a thread that has a bunch of detail, but I haven't read it all to know when it does and doesn't work.

 

[Dean1953]

So, in my case, I have 6 magic bands being sent to me for 6 separate people listed on my MDE. Only 3 of the 6 are going to the parks over the holidays. If I bought all 6 MB's, I can go to a kiosk and use all 6 of them (the 3 that are attached to tickets after the first 3 FP's are used but the other ones immediately after entering the park)?

 

[SmithSmith]

Famy,

I went back and listened to the podcast to verify the FP issue. According to Pete it is indeed for the length of ticket, and it was not a rolling 60. His ghost room that he booked under his nephews name was for the length of ticket because he said he was able to book the full five days worth of FP's on his 60 day mark.

And yes, we definitely disagree on what it means to "use".

I think our point of contention is that I'm arguing that it's unethical to exploit loopholes, and you are saying that Disney created this loophole intentionally so therefore it's not exploitation.

These are the problems I have with that:
1. There's no way to know if Disney did this intentionally or not. For example, I wonder why they haven't made FP available for park hopping. Is this intentional or have they just not gotten around to it yet. There's no way to know.

2. I contend that it's exploitation if it does harm. We don't know for sure how much or how little harm its doing. I know that I couldn't get reservations for SDMT and BOG for the first half of my trip at my 60 & 180 mark. Was that because people had access to those things when they shouldn't have? I don't know. There's no way to know. There's other reports of people not being able to extend their vacation or book last minute trips even though they see empty lots. They're blaming throwaway rooms. Is it? I don't know. There's no way to know.

So basically, there's too many unknowns for a fair discussion. They only thing to discuss is the morality of it and I believe we've exhausted that topic.

 

[SmithSmith]

My phrasing suggests that you do not understand that Disney does not see this as an issue. Buy a crap-load of Disney stock and take it up the issue at the annual stockholder meeting. This is a pie-in-the-sky discussion about a moral issue.

I'm well aware that this is a discussion about a moral issue. It's the same discussion that I've been having since the first page. I'm not, nor have I ever been, complaining about Disney allowing this to go on. So I do not know why you keep suggesting that I buy Disney shares just so that I can complain about it in the annual shareholder meeting.

 

[olwyngdh]

I would really like to know how people don't consider this stealing:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=52637245&postcount=2104

"...If I book a throwaway room, link it to a new MDE, customize my MBs, receive them (no tix attached), and cancel my throwaway at six days out, getting a full refund, will my MBs still be good for Same Day FPs?"

 

[nugov2]

Famy,

I went back and listened to the podcast to verify the FP issue. According to Pete it is indeed for the length of ticket, and it was not a rolling 60. His ghost room that he booked under his nephews name was for the length of ticket because he said he was able to book the full five days worth of FP's on his 60 day mark.

And yes, we definitely disagree on what it means to "use".

I think our point of contention is that I'm arguing that it's unethical to exploit loopholes, and you are saying that Disney created this loophole intentionally so therefore it's not exploitation.

These are the problems I have with that:
1. There's no way to know if Disney did this intentionally or not. For example, I wonder why they haven't made FP available for park hopping. Is this intentional or have they just not gotten around to it yet. There's no way to know.

2. I contend that it's exploitation if it does harm. We don't know for sure how much or how little harm its doing. I know that I couldn't get reservations for SDMT and BOG for the first half of my trip at my 60 & 180 mark. Was that because people had access to those things when they shouldn't have? I don't know. There's no way to know. There's other reports of people not being able to extend their vacation or book last minute trips even though they see empty lots. They're blaming throwaway rooms. Is it? I don't know. There's no way to know.

So basically, there's too many unknowns for a fair discussion. They only thing to discuss is the morality of it and I believe we've exhausted that topic.

Well, he is either wrong or the only person who has been allowed to do that for as long as I can remember. I won't even try to search it but for probably at least 6 months or so this hasn't been happening, so if it did happen way back when it is even more proof that Disney changed it to be a different perk, therefore intentional!

 

[nugov2]

I would really like to know how people don't consider this stealing:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=52637245&postcount=2104

"...If I book a throwaway room, link it to a new MDE, customize my MBs, receive them (no tix attached), and cancel my throwaway at six days out, getting a full refund, will my MBs still be good for Same Day FPs?"

That IMO is stealing and not what most of the people are doing. It is like comparing someone who gets a bag of chips for free using a legit coupon the way the manufacturer intended vs someone who uses a fake coupon and gets a free bag of chips, but saying both people stole the bag of chips. Two totally different things and not what the concept of a throwaway room is and one shouldn't be compared to the other.

 

[olwyngdh]

That IMO is stealing and not what most of the people are doing. It is like comparing someone who gets a bag of chips for free using a legit coupon the way the manufacturer intended vs someone who uses a fake coupon and gets a free bag of chips, but saying both people stole the bag of chips. Two totally different things and not what the concept of a throwaway room is and one shouldn't be compared to the other.

Things like this are what soured me on the whole concept. That was just the most recent post on it. There was a whole string of get the magic band cancel the room posts at one point. I rarely click on that thread since then, but decided to this morning so I could see the way it is being done that isn't stealing, and that post was the first I saw, along with the of course you can response.

 

[nugov2]

Things like this are what soured me on the whole concept. That was just the most recent post on it. There was a whole string of get the magic band cancel the room posts at one point. I rarely click on that thread since then, but decided to this morning so I could see the way it is being done that isn't stealing, and that post was the first I saw, along with the of course you can response.

But to compare the two groups makes no sense. That is like saying you are soured against all people using coupons b/c a small group of people use them against company policy.

 

[robinb]

I would really like to know how people don't consider this stealing:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=52637245&postcount=2104

"...If I book a throwaway room, link it to a new MDE, customize my MBs, receive them (no tix attached), and cancel my throwaway at six days out, getting a full refund, will my MBs still be good for Same Day FPs?"

Not everyone who thinks that a paid throwaway room is OK agrees with the practice of booking a room for MBs and ADRs and then cancelling it once the MBs ship.

 

[olwyngdh]

But to compare the two groups makes no sense. That is like saying you are soured against all people using coupons b/c a small group of people use them against company policy.

Going with the coupon analogy, it is more like the stores that will no longer accept coupons printed from online resources because too many people were altering them. This is why we can't have nice things, because unscrupulous people take advantage of the system and harm everyone else. A thief is a thief, making it easy for them isn't good business and their theft ends up costing all of us more in the long run.

 

[k5jm]

I'm well aware that this is a discussion about a moral issue. It's the same discussion that I've been having since the first page. I'm not, nor have I ever been, complaining about Disney allowing this to go on. So I do not know why you keep suggesting that I buy Disney shares just so that I can complain about it in the annual shareholder meeting.

Then you do not understand how publicly traded companies work. Where are Stanley Gold and R.E.D. when I need them.

 

[nugov2]

Going with the coupon analogy, it is more like the stores that will no longer accept coupons printed from online resources because too many people were altering them. This is why we can't have nice things, because unscrupulous people take advantage of the system and harm everyone else. A thief is a thief, making it easy for them isn't good business and their theft ends up costing all of us more in the long run.

But does that mean all companies should just do away with all perks then? Companies still offer coupons. I really think in general the population of people who book to cancel is less than 1% of people going to WDW. For all safeties put in place people find away around it. That is life, doesn't mean that we can't have nice things. I am of the school of thought that most people are good and don't exploit/steal just because they can. I do not think that it is unscrupulous to pay for a room and use it in a way that is different from someone else though. Everyone is entitled to their view, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone to what degree they have to use something to not be a thief. I can buy anything I want and as long as I am not in violation of policy/law I am free to do with it as I want. I think it has been proved many times that Disney does accept this practice(paid room) and has set perks to reflect it so that people will buy throwaway rooms.

 

[SmithSmith]

Well, he is either wrong or the only person who has been allowed to do that for as long as I can remember. I won't even try to search it but for probably at least 6 months or so this hasn't been happening, so if it did happen way back when it is even more proof that Disney changed it to be a different perk, therefore intentional!

There's also reports now that it is no longer 180+10 for ADRs on a ghost booking, it's 180+length of stay. So this could be construed that Disney is taking away perks. However, I see it as a sign that MM+ is not fully fleshed out and they're still tweaking the system. I do not think we'll know what is intentional and what is not until they've done a complete rollout.

 

[SmithSmith]

Then you do not understand how publicly traded companies work. Where are Stanley Gold and R.E.D. when I need them.

Whatever I may or may not know about publicly traded companies is irrelevant to this discussion. I am not, nor have I ever been arguing that Disney is to blame. I'm questioning the ethics of a person that would exploit a loophole. The Disney Company is also irrelevant to this discussion because I would be posing the same question even if it were a small business, a non-profit, an educational institution, etc. I do not know how much clearer I can be.

 

[famy27]

Whatever I may or may not know about publicly traded companies is irrelevant to this discussion. I am not, nor have I ever been arguing that Disney is to blame. I'm questioning the ethics of a person that would exploit a loophole. The Disney Company is also irrelevant to this discussion because I would be posing the same question even if it were a small business, a non-profit, an educational institution, etc. I do not know how much clearer I can be.

And again, I question why you are sure this a loophole. It is a benefit of booking an onsite stay as of today. If they take it away tomorrow, then it will no longer be a benefit. Booking a Room Only throwaway, getting the FPs and then cancelling would be exploiting a loophole. Dining is linked to length of stay, not length of ticket. Disney could do the same with FPs, but they don't.

I know you've mentioned that you think this practice hurts other. I've seen a few people on the throwaway thread express an interest in letting campers use their throwaway site. Would that make the practice acceptable to you?

What about someone who books at 61 days out to try to give campers the chance to book the space if they need it? Is a room at a value less offensive than a campsite, since there is more inventory?

 

[JenniBugInPink]

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

I hate the fact that the system allows for games to be played. I'm a rule follower by nature. It's just the way I'm made. I have the moral compass of a 4th grader - I follow rules because I'm afraid that if I don't, I'll get caught. I love rules, I really do, and I'm one of those people that gets really pissed at people who don't follow them. The problem with this situation is the absurd murkiness of it all.

There approximately 29,000 rooms on Disney property.

If a guest can not find a room or campsite, they can do the same thing described here.

I think the number of sad families being turned away because of this might be exaggerated.

I think there are many variations of this being done all the time.

We have booked a room that we had no intention of using just so that we had a place to leave our stuff and access to a shower.

We have a booked a night in a hotel that we had no intention of using to guarantee that when we arrived early the next day, our room would be ready and we wouldn't have to wait until 4pm check in.

Once a guest pays for a hotel room, it's theirs to use as they please. The fact that Disney attaches perks to that is an added bonus.

As for guests not being able to string a set of nights together because of this.....there are hundreds of threads about split stays. This seems to be popular.

Yes, it's off topic, but why has this (pink, bold part) never occurred to me before??? We should have done this on our trip this past Sept/Oct. It would have been such a help if we could have checked in about 7:00 am.

I willa dmit it - I booked what ya'll are calling a "throwaway room" due to the fact that Disney gave me bad information. I called to book 1 week room-only with a military discount. I was YELLED at over the phone that the military didn't get any special perks, that they were the same as everyone else and was HUNG UP ON. This almost caused me to cancell our trip. After a long discussion with my DH, we booked off site via expedia and ended up with a Good Neighbor hotel about 5 minutes away from property. When our plans changed and we were leaving a day early, the DH suggested that we book 1 night on property. I mentioned that we would get some special perks and he was all for it. When I called and told the lady what happened, they looked up the previous phone call and it HAD been recorded - they were very sorry that it happened. We were given a room only military discount for the 1 night we stayed on property. Was I able to get 2 days of free parking? Yes I did. Was I able to reserve my FF+ in advance? Yes I was. (granted, it was 1 day at a time at 60 days each, but I got them) Did I get Magic Bands? Yes I did.

Do I feel bad about it? No. No I don't.

Its not up to YOU to decide how someone who has paid money uses their room that THEY have paid for.

Thanks to your family for their service. I'm sorry you were treated badly.

Discussion is interesting, but the one question I haven't seen answered....can you sleep six in a throwaway room??

Of course you can, as long as none of them show up!

To me, it seems like there are a few different issues getting jumbled together here.

The unlinked MBs and the throwaway rooms can be connected, but they don't have to be. I know many people (myself included) have used a throwaway room, but not unlinked bands. Others have used unlinked bands without a throwaway. For example, we had APs and stayed onsite four times in a year. We had four sets of bands, so for everything after the first stay, we could have set up new MDE accounts and used the extra MBs for SDFPs. We didn't do that, but that would have been an onsite stay sleeping in the room and having unlinked bands. Conversely, when we booked a throwaway for my SIL last fall, it was solely to get access to FP+. We didn't have fake people listed on the reservation or multiple bands per person.

The issues I've seen people raise are:

1) It's wrong to buy something and not use it to its fullest.
This just seems silly to me. I buy things all the time and don't use them. Nobody has ever suggested this was a moral failing.

2) Someone else might want the room you booked.
I don't understand this either. If they wanted the room, they could have booked it themselves. If it was open and available for me to book it, then it was available for anyone else. It appears that campsites are available for most of the rest of the year, so it doesn't seem that this practice has caused hundreds to be turned away from campsites. The same goes for value resorts.

3) A one-night reservation splits up a week and prevents someone else from booking a week.
A split stay that is just one or two nights in a resort would do the same thing, and nobody seems to think this is a problem. I don't understand why it matters if someone sleeps in the room or not, or if it's a campsite vs. a deluxe. The week is still "broken up" either way. If it's okay in one situation, it should be acceptable in the other as well.

4) People are stealing a week or more of benefits by booking for one night.
As mentioned previously, this is not true. They receive length-of-stay benefits. Parking and EMH are for the days of the stay. FP+ bookings are 60 days for the length of the resort stay. After that, it is a rolling 60 days. It's better than 30 days, but not as good as what someone staying onsite for a week would get. If you tried to sneak into EMHs after your checkout date or get extra days of free parking, that would be different, as that is not something you are entitle to have with your booking. The 60-day rolling booking window for FPs for the length of ticket IS included as one of your onsite stay benefits.

5) People are booking a campsite to get multiple MBs to make SDFPs.
I think this is likely a very small minority of those booking the throwaway. I also don't consider this synonymous with a throwaway (see beginning of my post). It seems most people do it for the MBs and the 60-day FP booking. I don't think I'd order extra MBs for fake guests, but the practice doesn't hurt me at all, so I won't comment. The unlinked bands just get you extra SDFPs, and most of the really good FPs are long gone to prebookings by that point.

6) Disney is losing money, as offsiters would be there without the throwaway, but people are being turned away from FW (and possible value resorts?) because of throwaways.
Since there is still availability at FW, I don't think this stands up well either. And I am sure some offsiters would not visit WDW unless they could get their throwaway benefits.

The thing that gets me is #4, but since it breaks no rules, there's not really anything that can be done about it. If I were the one doing it, I'd probably be standing up for my right to do so. Disney should either close the loophole or the rest of us can't complain about it as far as I'm concerned. I can hear Bawb somewhere in the back of my mind sayin, "They can't hit ya'!". As long as it breaks no rules that Disney has put in place, and it doesn't, then it seems to me that there's really nothing left to whine about. Mostly, now I just miss Bawb again.

 

[SmithSmith]

And again, I question why you are sure this a loophole. It is a benefit of booking an onsite stay as of today. If they take it away tomorrow, then it will no longer be a benefit. Booking a Room Only throwaway, getting the FPs and then cancelling would be exploiting a loophole. Dining is linked to length of stay, not length of ticket. Disney could do the same with FPs, but they don't.

I know you've mentioned that you think this practice hurts other. I've seen a few people on the throwaway thread express an interest in letting campers use their throwaway site. Would that make the practice acceptable to you?

What about someone who books at 61 days out to try to give campers the chance to book the space if they need it? Is a room at a value less offensive than a campsite, since there is more inventory?

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.

 

[famy27]

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'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?