Throwaway room (read post #2041 or #2710 before posting)

[morethananyonex]

Hmm, so it must be okay then. (Sarcasm)

I tried booking a campsite last Christmas and couldn't because the resort WAS at 100% occupancy. Makes me wonder how many people were doing this and could've been the reason I couldn't stay.

That's your fault for not booking it earlier. It's not a large resort and it's one of the busiest times of the year. I highly doubt there was a huge number of people booking campsites and not sleeping in them.

Even if there were tons of people booking throwaway campsites, again, so what? They still are paying the same amount of money for it.

 

[2Tiggies]

This is why Disney needs to jack up their system and get offisite guests their ability to pre book. The kiosks are not the answer. Those are fine for a backup, but not as a system on it's own to serve such a large proportion of guests.

This would not be an issue if they had got their system working before implementing it

 

[morethananyonex]

I think it is a bit different here because this is discussing paying for one night to get benefits for length of stay whereas someone genuinely wanting to stay there is going to pay length of stay prices.

Disney gives FP+ for the length of stay regardless of how many nights someone pays for. Anyone could do it. The person who chooses to pay for a campsite each night of their stay is not paying for FP+ for each day or length of stay, they're paying for the campsite.

If I really had my heart set on a room at the Beach Club and tried to book and it was sold out, I can't get angry that a family booked a room just to use Stormalong Bay during the day. It's not my business how they're using the space, they booked it before me. Tough luck.

 

[Missyrose]

Hmm, so it must be okay then. (Sarcasm)

I tried booking a campsite last Christmas and couldn't because the resort WAS at 100% occupancy. Makes me wonder how many people were doing this and could've been the reason I couldn't stay.

There are plenty of reasons the resorts fill to capacity at Christmas that have nothing to do with throwaway rooms. Many people book for that week more than a year out, when were you searching for the campsite?

 

[CanadaJulie]

I'm most disappointed that Disney created a situation where offsite guests felt like they had to book a throwaway room, especially because it's very clear that offsite guests will eventually all have prebooking ability. Point the finger where it should be, I don't blame people for wanting to get the most out of their vacation.

Yep. That EXACTLY !!

To the person who claims I am abusing the system and bumping you out of a campsite: it is a 100% fair system. We both had the same opportunity to book that campsite. It's first come first serve. Once I've paid for it, I can use it how I see fit (within Disney rules of course). Disney has temporarily created a system that penalized off-siters. Once they extend the pre-booking to all guest this situation will go away. Unfortunately, my vacation was booked for the time period where the pre-booking was not available and thus required a work around. No abuse of the system here.

Look at it this way: If I buy the last cupcake off the tray then only lick the icing off it before throwing it away would you be upset because "maybe someone wanted to eat the cupcake too".

 

[nugov2]

But you did take away a site from someone like me who stays at the campground.

I've read about people booking campgrounds for the parking and frankly, I'm disappointed that you're bragging about abusing the system.

Give me a break...like has been posting many times are you abusing the system b/c you rent a popular movie and never watch it? You pay and as long as you are within the guidelines you can do whatever you want with the spot.

What if you went down for a wedding and ended up not staying in the room? Should you be subject to some kind of penalty?

 

[cousineddie]

Wow.

So it's Disney's fault that they have set up something that's a perk for staying on property. Due to this, people justify "throwaway rooms" because there's a "loophole" and Disney get's more money and less work.

Yes, I probably shouldn't have waited until May to try and reserve a campsite in December. Yes, I know that Christmas is a very popular time to be there and I may not have gotten a campsite anyway.

It is not like going to Chef Mickey's for the character experience and not eating the food. In that example you're at least there enjoying the characters. If you want to use a restaurant example how about this:

I want to eat at Be Our Guest Restaurant, but I don't know if I'll be up to it after a full day of Park Hopping, Riding Rides and having a glorious day. And frankly, I don't know where I'll be that afternoon. I may be way over in Animal Kingdom or in EPCOT. I guess I'll make a dinner reservation at Yak and Yetis and maybe Chef's de France at the same time. So what if they now charge me a cancellation fee per person if I don't show up, I've got the money to pay for it and it's worth the convenience. If you didn't make your reservation in time it's your fault that there's no seats left even though I might not even plan on using it anyway, it's just a throwaway for my convenience.

I just can't make that justification. Maybe it's me, maybe it's really okay, but I don't see it.

 

[flutterby3744]

Sorry, but this practice is shady. I don't care how you spin it, it's not ethical in my book. If you want the perks of staying onsite, then stay onsite. It's practices like this that make companies clamp down on regulations and make it more difficult for everyone.

There are plenty of examples in "real life" of these situations. None of them are above board, but people get away with it because they justify it with silly arguments like they let it happen, they owe me, they can afford it etc.

 

[morethananyonex]

Wow.

So it's Disney's fault that they have set up something that's a perk for staying on property. Due to this, people justify "throwaway rooms" because there's a "loophole" and Disney get's more money and less work.

Yes, I probably shouldn't have waited until May to try and reserve a campsite in December. Yes, I know that Christmas is a very popular time to be there and I may not have gotten a campsite anyway.

It is not like going to Chef Mickey's for the character experience and not eating the food. In that example you're at least there enjoying the characters. If you want to use a restaurant example how about this:

I want to eat at Be Our Guest Restaurant, but I don't know if I'll be up to it after a full day of Park Hopping, Riding Rides and having a glorious day. And frankly, I don't know where I'll be that afternoon. I may be way over in Animal Kingdom or in EPCOT. I guess I'll make a dinner reservation at Yak and Yetis and maybe Chef's de France at the same time. So what if they now charge me a cancellation fee per person if I don't show up, I've got the money to pay for it and it's worth the convenience. If you didn't make your reservation in time it's your fault that there's no seats left even though I might not even plan on using it anyway, it's just a throwaway for my convenience.

I just can't make that justification. Maybe it's me, maybe it's really okay, but I don't see it.

First of all, people keep stating prebooking is an onsite "perk". No, it's not. Onsite are the first group of people that got it during the FP+ rollout, but it's coming to everyone. They've already started this. That's why it's particularly frustrating for offsite guests, the ones travelling between December/January and now are the ones who got the short end of the stick. They are the group that had to deal with the kiosks and only the kiosks.

If you know it's your fault for waiting, and you know Christmas is a busy time, why would you aim your frustration at the PP (and people like her)? Again, your own fault.

It's exactly like going to Chef Mickey's and not eating. The PP booked a campsite and used part of what comes with it (just like using part of a dining experience) but didn't sleep there (just like not utilizing the full dining experience). You're just bitter that you were shut out of the campsite, which probably has very little to do with people booking campsites and not staying there anyways.

If someone wants to pay $10 a head for missed ADRs every day, that's their business. If I was too slow and missed my opportunity to reserve the ADR that's my fault, not theirs. We all had the same opportunity.

 

[2Tiggies]

Wow.

So it's Disney's fault that they have set up something that's a perk for staying on property. Due to this, people justify "throwaway rooms" because there's a "loophole" and Disney get's more money and less work.

I don't think it was intended to be an onsite perk, but onsite guests got to test it first so anyone who is fortunate or unfortunate enough to have booked a trip during this period is reaping either benefits or disadvantages. I think Disney have created this problem for themselves. I'm not knocking where you are coming from. I don't think it's 'right' but if I were staying offsite I can't promise that this wouldn't be beneath me. I think Disney let the side down by not communicating. People generally panic less when they have a clear picture of where they stand and the timeframe they can expect to work with and also, what the final product is likely to be. They have not informed guests of anything and left everything to speculation. Much as I am on the side of those who believe this is wrong, I really can't judge anyone who is doing it because of the way that this whole change has been handled by Disney.

 

[ampc3]

So glad it worked out for you Julie! I am still waiting to see if fp+ opens up for offsite by May..
Otherwise throw us in the boat of the unethical , all about me, group. I have no issues paying for a campsite (it truly is no one's business what someone does or doesn't do with the room). Disney changed the game, Hate the game not the player.

We have been priced out of staying on site with our family, I am paying the same prices to eat , the same prices to walk in the door. But I may or may not get to ride one of my kids favorite headliner rides if I just leave it to chance on the day of. The money that we have invested in this trip.. I want some guarantees. Otherwise we would be taking the kids to Six Flags for the day.

 

[JimmyV]

Yep. That EXACTLY !!

To the person who claims I am abusing the system and bumping you out of a campsite: it is a 100% fair system. We both had the same opportunity to book that campsite. It's first come first serve. Once I've paid for it, I can use it how I see fit (within Disney rules of course). Disney has temporarily created a system that penalized off-siters. Once they extend the pre-booking to all guest this situation will go away. Unfortunately, my vacation was booked for the time period where the pre-booking was not available and thus required a work around. No abuse of the system here.

Absolutely, 100%, center cut, on the mark perfect.

Wow.

So it's Disney's fault that they have set up something that's a perk for staying on property. Due to this, people justify "throwaway rooms" because there's a "loophole" and Disney get's more money and less work.

FP has never been, and is not now a "perk" for on site guests. EMHs are. Disney is rolling out FP+ slowly so as to test the system and not overburden it. There was a time when FP+ testing was limited o certain on site resorts while guests at other on site resorts were not invited to participate in the test. Would you argue that FP+ was a "perk" of those tested resorts? Here is a listing of when the resorts became eligible for test participation:

RESORTS TO BE ADDED, BY ARRIVAL DATE

September 30
Disney’s Animal Kingdom Lodge – Kidani Village
Disney’s All-Star Movies Resort
Bay Lake Tower at Disney’s Contemporary Resort
Disney’s Grand Floridian Resort and Spa
Disney’s Port Orleans Resort – French Quarter

October 7
Disney’s All-Star Sports Resort
Disney’s BoardWalk Inn
Disney’s BoardWalk Villas
Disney’s Caribbean Beach Resort

October 14
Disney’s All-Star Music Resort
Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort
Disney’s Old Key West Resort
Disney’s Wilderness Lodge
Villas at Disney’s Wilderness Lodge

October 21
Disney’s Fort Wilderness Resort and Campground
Disney’s Saratoga Springs Resort and Spa

October 23
The Villas at Disney’s Grand Floridian Resort and Spa

So was FP+ a "perk" of AKL in September with guests of Coronado Springs being treated as lesser guests, or was AKL simply an earlier roll-out of the test? Off site guests are getting the full benefits, just at a different roll out schedule. As soon as people understand this whole "perk" fallacy,the easier it will be for them to understand that guests are doing nothing wrong by positioning themselves in a way so as to be able to participate in the test. In ten years, after FP+ has been in place for all guests for a decade, this whole "on site vs. off site" debate for the two month window it existed is going to be forgotten, and discussing it as a "perk" will seem very silly.

Sorry, but this practice is shady. I don't care how you spin it, it's not ethical in my book. If you want the perks of staying onsite, then stay onsite.

There is nothing unethical about Disney setting an asking price for a product it sells, and a customer agreeing to paying that price and then actually paying it. Do you really believe that the physical presence of the purchaser is relevant? Can a person buy a rare automobile, stash it in a warehouse and never drive it? Would the purchase only be ethical if the person drove the car? Would you feel better if the people who book campground spaces pulled out sleeping bags and slept on the ground for a night? Or pulled in with their cars and slept in the back seats? That somehow transforms unethical to ethical? You want to know a dirty little secret? Disney would probably prefer to rent out all of its campsites and have no one actually show up. They would get all the profit with none of the overhead of upkeep.

 

[morethananyonex]

Absolutely, 100%, center cut, on the mark perfect.

FP has never been, and is not now a "perk" for on site guests. EMHs are. Disney is rolling out FP+ slowly so as to test the system and not overburden it. There was a time when FP+ testing was limited o certain on site resorts while guests at other on site resorts were not invited to participate in the test. Would you argue that FP+ was a "perk" of those tested resorts? Here is a listing of when the resorts became eligible for test participation:

RESORTS TO BE ADDED, BY ARRIVAL DATE

September 30
Disney’s Animal Kingdom Lodge – Kidani Village
Disney’s All-Star Movies Resort
Bay Lake Tower at Disney’s Contemporary Resort
Disney’s Grand Floridian Resort and Spa
Disney’s Port Orleans Resort – French Quarter

October 7
Disney’s All-Star Sports Resort
Disney’s BoardWalk Inn
Disney’s BoardWalk Villas
Disney’s Caribbean Beach Resort

October 14
Disney’s All-Star Music Resort
Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort
Disney’s Old Key West Resort
Disney’s Wilderness Lodge
Villas at Disney’s Wilderness Lodge

October 21
Disney’s Fort Wilderness Resort and Campground
Disney’s Saratoga Springs Resort and Spa

October 23
The Villas at Disney’s Grand Floridian Resort and Spa

So was FP+ a "perk" of AKL in September with guests of Coronado Springs being treated as lesser guests, or was AKL simply an earlier roll-out of the test? Off site guests are getting the full benefits, just at a different roll out schedule. As soon as people understand this whole "perk" fallacy,the easier it will be for them to understand that guests are doing nothing wrong by positioning themselves in a way so as to be able to participate in the test. In ten years, after FP+ has been in place for all guests for a decade, this whole "on site vs. off site" debate for the two month window it existed is going to be forgotten, and discussing it as a "perk" will seem very silly.




There is nothing unethical about Disney setting an asking price for a product it sells, and a customer agreeing to paying that price and then actually paying it. Do you really believe that the physical presence of the purchaser is relevant? Can a person buy a rare automobile, stash it in a warehouse and never drive it? Would the purchase only be ethical if the person drove the car? Would you feel better if the people who book campground spaces pulled out sleeping bags and slept on the ground for a night? Or pulled in with their cars and slept in the back seats? That somehow transforms unethical to ethical? You want to know a dirty little secret? Disney would probably prefer to rent out all of its campsites and have no one actually show up. They would get all the profit with none of the overhead of upkeep.

And excellent point about the early rollout to the resorts.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Disney has made it abundantly clear that fp+ is not an onsite perk. They are already testing prebooking for offsite guests. None of their marketing materials - including the vacation planning DVD and the new TV specials on Destination America this week - refer to fp+ as an onsite perk. In fact, they specifically define fp+ as prebooking, and specifically say that fp+ is for all guests with valid theme park admission.

It would be great if we could all get on Disney's page in this regard.

 

[flutterby3744]

There is nothing unethical about Disney setting an asking price for a product it sells, and a customer agreeing to paying that price and then actually paying it. Do you really believe that the physical presence of the purchaser is relevant? Can a person buy a rare automobile, stash it in a warehouse and never drive it? Would the purchase only be ethical if the person drove the car? Would you feel better if the people who book campground spaces pulled out sleeping bags and slept on the ground for a night? Or pulled in with their cars and slept in the back seats? That somehow transforms unethical to ethical? You want to know a dirty little secret? Disney would probably prefer to rent out all of its campsites and have no one actually show up. They would get all the profit with none of the overhead of upkeep.

Buying a collector car and not driving it is apples and oranges here. I understand that the practice of a throwaway room isn't "illegal". Doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's right. One of the "perks" of staying onsite is EMH. The whole point is so that onsite guests get more time in the parks with less crowds. It's not right that people that are gaming the system can take advantage of that.

I'm not saying that people that do this are bad people or whatever. I just think it's shady, and I wouldn't feel right doing it. Eventually, these scenarios always end up costing everyone in the long run. For example, if Disney knows people are using the cheaper campsites for this, they will raise the campsite price. This hurts the people that legitimately stay there. Or people that use Disney transportation that aren't really staying onsite. This clogs up the buses etc for the legit guests.

 

[2Tiggies]

The one difference between the initial introduction of FP+ for the various resorts over a period of time, is that FP- still existed as a backup at the time. So initially the impact was different. At that time offiste guests and those not part of the testing had the option of the old system, with onsite testers having the advantage of both.

All that said, i still agree it was never intended as an onsite perk, but I think we can agree that what we have now is a little different to how things were when they began the limited testing.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Disney buses can be used by all theme park guests. If they couldn't, they would require room key to board, as hotels like shades of green do.

 

[JimmyV]

I'm not saying that people that do this are bad people or whatever.

Not bad. Just shady and unethical.

It's only apples and oranges if you say it is. Both involve occupying a commodity to the exclusion of others, without actually using it.

 

[flutterby3744]

Disney buses can be used by all theme park guests. If they couldn't, they would require room key to board, as hotels like shades of green do.

But what if someone is taking advantage of a loophole. Like parking at DTD or a resort to avoid paying a parking fee? This clogs up the system, and would eventually cause disney to charge for parking everywhere.

 

[patty57]

I don't think it was intended to be an onsite perk, but onsite guests got to test it first so anyone who is fortunate or unfortunate enough to have booked a trip during this period is reaping either benefits or disadvantages. I think Disney have created this problem for themselves. I'm not knocking where you are coming from. I don't think it's 'right' but if I were staying offsite I can't promise that this wouldn't be beneath me. I think Disney let the side down by not communicating. People generally panic less when they have a clear picture of where they stand and the timeframe they can expect to work with and also, what the final product is likely to be. They have not informed guests of anything and left everything to speculation. Much as I am on the side of those who believe this is wrong, I really can't judge anyone who is doing it because of the way that this whole change has been handled by Disney.

So much truth in this paragraph. If people had a clue of what to expect, and when to expect it, things would be different. The only thing I don't agree with here is that I'm not morally opposed to anyone booking a throwaway room.