The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[LeahZ]

For those not familiar with the issue – a ‘throwaway room’ is a Disney resort room that is booked for one night just to get the perks associated with it.

Read more here:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/the-great-throwaway-room-debate.htm

 

[floralmouse]

Great blog post! I thought the figures were interesting for those who didn't mind the practice vs those who did and the reasons why those who didn't approve.

 

[Hopefully]

I agree with Pete. I am in the 44% who do not support the practice.
Especially at Fort Wilderness where folks looking to book an extended vacation and use that reservation are unable to do so. I think this is unfair.
And I do think there should be added perks for only folks staying on Disney property.

 

[marauder]

I honestly think both sides of the debate are a sign of the entitled society. One side thinks they should be entitled to use Disney perks even though they aren't staying on Disney property, the other side thinks they are more entitled to the perks.

It is up to Disney to define what is and isn't breaking the rules and to adjust the policies to fit what is best.

Do you take perks away from locals that may decide to treat themselves to a one night stay at the resort or treat visiting relatives to a one night stay at the resort? There are pluses and minuses to every decision they make and there will always be people upset by which ever decision they make.

 

[kapoof]

I just don't get it...it would break my heart not to stay at a wdw but book it and not use it? Plus it does take away from people who really do want to stay at a wdw.

 

[DemoBri1]

I support closing the loophole. As Pete suggests getting it on check-in day and checkout day is fine, but if you are not an onsite guest for that night then the perks should not be allowed.

I do hate to say it, but the mentality today is that if it's there take advantage of it, and it is just hurting those who are respecting the spirit of the perk.

 

[olwyngdh]

I honestly think both sides of the debate are a sign of the entitled society. One side thinks they should be entitled to use Disney perks even though they aren't staying on Disney property, the other side thinks they are more entitled to the perks.

This makes no sense. How can someone think they are "more entitled to the perks" when they are paying for the perks and the other people aren't? It is like complaining when you purchase a coach seat on an airplane that those in 1st class think they are more entitled to the perks of 1st class than you are. I have yet to see people staying on site complain that they don't get the perks of staying off site like private pools and multiple bedrooms.

 

[marauder]

This makes no sense. How can someone think they are "more entitled to the perks" when they are paying for the perks and the other people aren't? It is like complaining when you purchase a coach seat on an airplane that those in 1st class think they are more entitled to the perks of 1st class than you are. I have yet to see people staying on site complain that they don't get the perks of staying off site like private pools and multiple bedrooms.

No, people are complaining that they are entitled to perks that aren't theirs to begin with. A person on site gets all the perks, do they really have the right to complain about other people getting the perks legally using the system. People are feeling entitled to a line with less people in it, campsites always available and things like that. They aren't entitled to that. You have no more rights to the FastPass line, restaurant reservations, campsites reservations, etc. then anyone else that has a room reservation at the resort. The people have the same right to reserve a campsite as you do, they have the same time constraints on when to reserve the site as you do. I honestly think they should go after the people that reserve 5 different reservations for the same night at the same restaurant before they go after these people.

If even Disney is telling people to do this I don't see it disappearing any time soon. It is still money coming in to them.

And yes, people on this board all the time complain about how small the Disney rooms are compared to off-site, how expensive it is to have a room that just holds 4 adults or a family of 5 compared to off property. I personally think it is a crime that Disney puts full size beds in value resorts, most hotels in the same price range or type of hotel use queens.

Reminds me of a story about a person running a farm and hiring people at the beginning of the day, at noon and at 5 P.M and then paying all the people the same rate, the people from the beginning of the day complaining and the owner basically telling them how ungrateful they are, didn't you get what was promised to you at the beginning, it is up to the owner to decide who gets what pay.

 

[disneyfantotheend]

I would not pay for a room I was not staying in, but why would Disney close this loophole? They don't care if a non staying guest or a staying guest is paying as long as they are getting their money. It really is sad though that people are unable to get a campsite that they actually want to use because of this practice.

 

[MomTo3PrincessesInNJ]

Would it matter if the "throw away room" was at the Beach Club?

We considered getting a one night stay at the BC so we could use Stormalong Bay for 2 days in the middle of our 11 day trip. We didn't want to lose free dining @ CSR by checking out and then checking back in after the offer expired.

Are people only upset because of the relatively low cost of the campsites? Would they be equally outraged at my situation?

I never once thought I was doing something wrong. As long as I pay for it, whose business is it where I sleep?

 

[Airship Ariadne]

Would it matter if the "throw away room" was at the Beach Club?

We considered getting a one night stay at the BC so we could use Stormalong Bay for 2 days in the middle of our 11 day trip. We didn't want to lose free dining @ CSR by checking out and then checking back in after the offer expired.

Are people only upset because of the relatively low cost of the campsites? Would they be equally outraged at my situation?

I never once thought I was doing something wrong. As long as I pay for it, whose business is it where I sleep?

People use the campsites because they are cheap. If you pay for a resort room, you should get the resort room pool perk, and don't let anyone tell you that you are cheating...BC is expensive.

I don't like the practice, but I understand that if Disney is offering a perk for staying, then that perk applies.

My issue is that they are only booking one night, but getting the benefits as if they were paying resort prices the whole stay. YOU are wanting the benefits of the pool only for the time you are paying for the room..that's not wrong at all. But to feel entitled to resort guest perks 6 days after a one-night campsite stay is pushing the ethical line. Just because you can get away with it doesn't make it right.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

A campsite reservation also holds 10 people. People are booking one campsite for up to 10 people and booking FP+ for all 10 people for the length of their tickets off of that one reservation.

I think that's another reason people are outraged.

Personally I think it's silly. We thought about staying offsite for this trip but decided not to because we like the perks. Booking a throwaway room wasn't even an option for us.

 

[Sue M]

Personally I'm against the "throw away" room, because it is taking away a spot someone actually wants to use. And it is cheating, IMO. Especially when you're making making 10 days worth of reservations for multiple people on a 1 night reservation that no body uses.

But I've seen lots of people at WDW who have no problem cheating. One family actually jumped the railing to cut in front of us (and everyone else waiting)at Space Mtn.
I overheard another woman say to her husband that while he's taking the kids on a ride, she'd just work her way up the Queue at another attraction with the excuse she was joining her family. Then do the same to rejoin them at TSMM.
How many times have we all had people push themselves up lines with the excuse of rejoining family? It's rude. When they say "Keep your party together" that's what it means. Not some people get in line to hold spots while others go do whatever. In our family if someone has to go use the washroom, we all wait, then get on line.

 

[emldrl]

I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other as long as it's not against any rules, but if they wanted to fix it, couldn't they just make the FP+ be for length of stay? Seems to me if WDW was really worried about it, it would be fixed by now.

I was also wondering, is offsite really THAT much cheaper? Haven't really priced it out much, because we wanna stay onsite, just wondering why go to all this trouble. Is it really insanely cheaper?

 

[FelisLachesis]

I was also wondering, is offsite really THAT much cheaper? Haven't really priced it out much, because we wanna stay onsite, just wondering why go to all this trouble. Is it really insanely cheaper?

Yes, when I priced a room right after Christmas, I was finding "sleep and shower" quality rooms off-site for about 1/3 of the price of a moderate on-site. If you don't care about the quality of a room, and money is a bit tight (but you're determined to come to WDW anyway), you can save money, and get a lot of the benefits, by booking off-site and getting a one-day throwaway room.

That said, thinking about this for a while, I feel that you would need both a ticket and a room booked for 60 days out to get a FP+. If you don't have both at "TODAYSDATE+60", then the FP+ should be closed to you. And if you book some FP+, and then drop the room, then the FP+ should be dropped (give some time to find another room)

 

[emldrl]

Thanks for the answer. We like onsite, so haven't really checked out anything else. Also haven't been there since 2004, so a lot of this is new to me. I agree, if you cancel without rebooking another room, you should lose your FP's, but I doubt WDW will do that. Too much effort that doesn't affect profit. I think if you do pay for the room, you should get ALL perks for length of stay, including FP, pool, parking, etc. But again, doubt it will be fixed.

 

[DebbieB]

I would not pay for a room I was not staying in, but why would Disney close this loophole? They don't care if a non staying guest or a staying guest is paying as long as they are getting their money. It really is sad though that people are unable to get a campsite that they actually want to use because of this practice.

They can lose money. That offsite person is likely going to come anyway. The person who was going to camp at Fort Wilderness may not come at all when they can't get a reservation. They lose the money they would have spent in the parks or at the resort.

I don't know how they would close the loophole without putting a minimum number of nights and that would hurt the legitimate camper too.

 

[Sue M]

I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other as long as it's not against any rules, but if they wanted to fix it, couldn't they just make the FP+ be for length of stay? Seems to me if WDW was really worried about it, it would be fixed by now.

I was also wondering, is offsite really THAT much cheaper? Haven't really priced it out much, because we wanna stay onsite, just wondering why go to all this trouble. Is it really insanely cheaper?

It is. I require more then a sleep & shower room Motel 6, but there are some decent quality rooms nearby that are cheaper. We stayed one night at the Downtown Disney Doubletree ( we decided to arrive a day earlier than our WDW pkg) in a 1 bedroom suite for under $100 that included breakfast with a discount code from the Mousesavers.com web site.

 

[emldrl]

It is. I require more then a sleep & shower room Motel 6, but there are some decent quality rooms nearby that are cheaper. We stayed one night at the Downtown Disney Doubletree ( we decided to arrive a day earlier than our WDW pkg) in a 1 bedroom suite for under $100 that included breakfast with a discount code from the Mousesavers.com web site.

I see what you're saying. I was just wondering if renting a car, parking fees, resort fees, etc. would all make it equal out. For us, we're the type that will pay more for an easier vacation, and we're pretty poor! One reason we haven't been there in 10 years!

 

[Ceryssa]

I see what you're saying. I was just wondering if renting a car, parking fees, resort fees, etc. would all make it equal out. For us, we're the type that will pay more for an easier vacation, and we're pretty poor! One reason we haven't been there in 10 years!

I priced it out both ways. If we did everything the same, as in eating meals in the park rather than making sandwiches and bringing them with us, cooking breakfast or dinner in the room, etc, it would have saved us about $300-400 over staying in a moderate. In the grand scheme of a Disney vacation, that's just not enough to make it worth the hassle for me. The numbers changed when I added in free dining, meaning we'd have to make a lot more of our own meals to keep the cost the same. I will admit the extra space of some of the offsite places would be nice. But no ME, no transportation to the parks (we don't like driving on vacation), no FP+at 60 days or 180+10 ADR booking window makes it much less convenient. And the space really wasn't as much of an issue as I thought it would be since we spent most of our time in the parks or in the pool. While we might stay offsite at some point because we're doing a Universal/Disney split or just because we want to check out some different resorts, it won't be because we'll save a lot of money.