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

[Angel Ariel]

Bottom line is it isn't costing Disney money, like the other examples of abuse given. Disney is getting the money for the room regardless of whether someone uses the room. What is their incentive to shut down the practice? They get the same amt of money either way.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Bottom line is it isn't costing Disney money, like the other examples of abuse given. Disney is getting the money for the room regardless of whether someone uses the room. What is their incentive to shut down the practice? They get the same amt of money either way.

I'll go one step further, since you brought up what others have suggested " shutting down the practice"

Even if there was an incentive on Disney's part how the heck would they even attempt to investigate or enforce using the room ? Mickey police knocking on doors doing a bed check in the middle of the night ?
Can you imagine ?

I suppose checking to see how often room door was opened closed opened would be an option..they don't have anything better to do I'm sure

All this is so silly Disney isn't blinking an eye about any of this, it's all about selling to capacity, that's the bottom line As a business that makes the most sense

 

[morethananyonex]

You are USING the room though. To me, that is different. In my eyes, it's all about the motive. If you are actually utilizing the room for something, I could care less if you actually sleep there. My problem is with taking up a room/campsite for the sole purpose of gaining onsite perks and never stepping foot in it. You are a perfect example of the point I was making. If Disney were to clamp down on this practice, your family wouldn't be able to use the resorts for your purposes, and it would no longer be a convenient option for you.

But WHY is it different? That question has been asked so many times without getting answered. To the person who is getting shut out of the room/campsite/whatever, does it ease their pain to know that someone is sleeping in the room? They still aren't getting the room or campsite, so why does it change their feelings? Why would you care about the motive? That just seems silly.

If I decide to book a room at BC so I have access to Stormalong Bay but never set foot in the room is that okay in your mind? If I decide to book a theme park view room at a resort but never look out the window was it selfish of me not to book a different category? If I make an ADR at BOG but only order dessert and walk out without meeting the beast am I unethical? If I dine at Akershus and tell them not to send princesses to my table, am I committing a Disney sin? Why does the usage impact you at all? If you are shut out you are shut out no matter what the party who beat you is doing. If Disney allows it (and they do) that's just too bad for you. Better be quicker next time.

 

[Missyrose]

I wasn't comparing it on a "hierarchy of sins" level. I was using it as an example of Disney changing their policies to combat abuse of a system.

ACTUALLY, the GAC system was changed because Disney needed to have better control of how many people were in the FP+ queue at a time. To make the fancy new My Magic+ system work, Disney has to maximize the number of FP+ reservations it can dole out. To keep the FP+ queues from getting too backed up, the DAS return times allow CMs to spread out the return times according to the standby wait time.

So while it's convenient to claim GACs were changed to curb abuse, it isn't really all that true.

 

[FLchick415]

I, personally, wouldn't book a "throwaway" room...simply because I'd wanna save that $90 for something else. However, I'm not above certain "shady" practices...I went to NYC w/ friends once and we slept 6 in a room made for 4 on a reservation booked for 2 to cut costs. lol

 

[mom2rtk]

ACTUALLY, the GAC system was changed because Disney needed to have better control of how many people were in the FP+ queue at a time. To make the fancy new My Magic+ system work, Disney has to maximize the number of FP+ reservations it can dole out. To keep the FP+ queues from getting too backed up, the DAS return times allow CMs to spread out the return times according to the standby wait time.

So while it's convenient to claim GACs were changed to curb abuse, it isn't really all that true.

I agree with that assessment. FP slots are the currency by which Disney now operates. And the more they dole out for other reasons, the less they can leverage to control crowds and maximize profit.

 

[morethananyonex]

ACTUALLY, the GAC system was changed because Disney needed to have better control of how many people were in the FP+ queue at a time. To make the fancy new My Magic+ system work, Disney has to maximize the number of FP+ reservations it can dole out. To keep the FP+ queues from getting too backed up, the DAS return times allow CMs to spread out the return times according to the standby wait time.

So while it's convenient to claim GACs were changed to curb abuse, it isn't really all that true.

When people say GAC abuse, they're usually talking about the infamous disabled tour guides, which I have to believe was so rare in the grand scheme of things that it had little to do with the change. I think people just like to point at that, because it sounds better than the truth. Better to blame unethical people than to blame high levels of legitimate use.

 

[nugov2]

You are USING the room though. To me, that is different. In my eyes, it's all about the motive. If you are actually utilizing the room for something, I could care less if you actually sleep there. My problem is with taking up a room/campsite for the sole purpose of gaining onsite perks and never stepping foot in it. You are a perfect example of the point I was making. If Disney were to clamp down on this practice, your family wouldn't be able to use the resorts for your purposes, and it would no longer be a convenient option for you.



I wasn't comparing it on a "hierarchy of sins" level. I was using it as an example of Disney changing their policies to combat abuse of a system.


I won't contribute any more to this circular argument. It's obvious that some people think it's ok, and some don't. My whole point was it doesn't feel right to ME, and I wouldn't be comfortable with it.

Either way you have booked it for access to FP+ and are technically sleeping somewhere else, but you are saying it is OK to do this as long as you go to the bathroom, shower or nap in it. If you book the room, check in and never step foot in it...you have crossed a line and are now not ethical(or doesn't feel right). Seems like a lot of splitting hairs to me.

 

[Tramp68]

Either way you have booked it for access to FP+ and are technically sleeping somewhere else, but you are saying it is OK to do this as long as you go to the bathroom, shower or nap in it. If you book the room, check in and never step foot in it...you have crossed a line and are now not ethical(or doesn't feel right). Seems like a lot of splitting hairs to me.

There is no ethical distinction here. If you pay for a service it is entirely up to you how and when you utilize it. If I get a cold and don't feel like driving to Disney it isn't like Disney is going to refund my money so someone else can use it. Nor has Disney provided me with an alternative way to purchase the perk. If I choose to purchase a perk by renting a room then that is my preogative. I paid for it and can do whatever I want with it as long as it is legal and it IS legal to not use it.

Next, We should start going after grandma who goes to the park on a day when it is shut to capacity. She is sitting in the park and not enjoying any of the rides and she is preventing me from getting in!

 

[skylizard]

Bottom line is it isn't costing Disney money, like the other examples of abuse given. Disney is getting the money for the room regardless of whether someone uses the room. What is their incentive to shut down the practice? They get the same amt of money either way.

If someone wants to rent a throwaway room for the night or several days, I don't care. You're right, it's their money so they can do with it as they please. I just don't understand why someone would spend that money just for a few measly perks (assuming fp+ will become available to offsite too). So you pay $100+ for a room just to save $15 on parking and possibly get EMH? Just seems to be more of a hassle than it's worth.

What does bother me though is people renting a throwaway room for every other night just to abuse the system and get free perks. That is unfair and it does cost Disney money since you've blocked out a potential week stay. If Disney sees that a campsite is booked by the same person for every other night during a week, they have every right to do something to change that policy. In this case they would be losing potential revenue from someone staying a full week. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney changes the policy to require a minimum number of nights on the campsites because of others abusing the system. We've seen it done with other things that were abused (free refillable mugs anyone?). So the few that abuse the system will ruin it for those of us that don't.

 

[Angel Ariel]

If someone wants to rent a throwaway room for the night or several days, I don't care. You're right, it's their money so they can do with it as they please. I just don't understand why someone would spend that money just for a few measly perks (assuming fp+ will become available to offsite too). So you pay $100+ for a room just to save $15 on parking and possibly get EMH? Just seems to be more of a hassle than it's worth.

I expect the "throwaway room" practice will die out soon after offsite guests have access to FP+. It's not like there were threads here about throwaway rooms prior to FP+

What does bother me though is people renting a throwaway room for every other night just to abuse the system and get free perks. That is unfair and it does cost Disney money since you've blocked out a potential week stay. If Disney sees that a campsite is booked by the same person for every other night during a week, they have every right to do something to change that policy.

Have there been many reports of this every other night thing? I haven't read many here. In that case, yes, there'd be more potential for lost revenue..

as for the "free perk" comment - regardless of how you feel about the practice, they aren't free perks. That's the point I was trying to make. Whether a person steps into the room or not, they are *all* paying the same amount for those perks. An offsite guest trying to park at DTD and get to the parks to avoid the parking fee would be an example of someone trying to get a "free perk." - they are specifically trying to avoid a fee they would otherwise have to pay. Someone who books a room and decides not to sleep in it is paying the *exact same amount* for that room as someone who decides to sleep in it. Simply booking (as in paying for) a hotel room and not sleeping in it is not abusing anything.

 

[Tramp68]

If someone wants to rent a throwaway room for the night or several days, I don't care. You're right, it's their money so they can do with it as they please. I just don't understand why someone would spend that money just for a few measly perks (assuming fp+ will become available to offsite too). So you pay $100+ for a room just to save $15 on parking and possibly get EMH? Just seems to be more of a hassle than it's worth.

What does bother me though is people renting a throwaway room for every other night just to abuse the system and get free perks. That is unfair and it does cost Disney money since you've blocked out a potential week stay. If Disney sees that a campsite is booked by the same person for every other night during a week, they have every right to do something to change that policy. In this case they would be losing potential revenue from someone staying a full week. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney changes the policy to require a minimum number of nights on the campsites because of others abusing the system. We've seen it done with other things that were abused (free refillable mugs anyone?). So the few that abuse the system will ruin it for those of us that don't.

So, If I want to stay a night in Disney and then a night in Universal and then a night at Disney and then a night at Busch and then a night at Disney , I can't do that?

Disney does have a right to change their policy, but this would be difficult to enforce. The real solution is to offer the perk for a fee smaller than the cost of the room.

 

[HookedOnDiz]

I think it's a flawed argument to find fault with how people use a throwaway room or campsite. As long as the person is following all of Disney's rules I don't see anything wrong with it. I do get that the hardcore campers are put off by this practice, but forewarned is forearmed and if I was a dedicated camper I would make sure I locked in my reservation as soon as possible to get the dates I want. The same way I got up early to call Disney at the crack of dawn all those years to make sure I got breakfast reservations at the castle for my daughters.

Once the room is paid for its up to the customer to choose how they use the room or site. Is it any less fair than a solo traveler taking up a hotel room that could easily accommodate a family of four and preventing my family from renting that room? After all... The solo traveler won't even be using the extra bed in the room.

As for a solution, there isn't really a need for one. Once Disney opens up fp+ to offsite guests people will cease booking throwaway rooms. I imagine that it will open up to all offsite guests very soon with the spring break crowds on the horizon. Those kiosks are already a disaster and Disney knows it. I highly doubt they plan to let the spring break season go into full swing with the system as is.

 

[Tuffcookie]

I think it's a flawed argument to find fault with how people use a throwaway room or campsite. As long as the person is following all of Disney's rules I don't see anything wrong with it. I do get that the hardcore campers are put off by this practice, but forewarned is forearmed and if I was a dedicated camper I would make sure I locked in my reservation as soon as possible to get the dates I want. The same way I got up early to call Disney at the crack of dawn all those years to make sure I got breakfast reservations at the castle for my daughters.

Once the room is paid for its up to the customer to choose how they use the room or site. Is it any less fair than a solo traveler taking up a hotel room that could easily accommodate a family of four and preventing my family from renting that room? After all... The solo traveler won't even be using the extra bed in the room.

As for a solution, there isn't really a need for one. Once Disney opens up fp+ to offsite guests people will cease booking throwaway rooms. I imagine that it will open up to all offsite guests very soon with the spring break crowds on the horizon. Those kiosks are already a disaster and Disney knows it. I highly doubt they plan to let the spring break season go into full swing with the system as is.

Even if that happens, I will keep my campsite. It is worth knowing I already have all the FP+ attractions booked for the 6 people in my party.

TC

 

[skylizard]

So, If I want to stay a night in Disney and then a night in Universal and then a night at Disney and then a night at Busch and then a night at Disney , I can't do that?

Disney does have a right to change their policy, but this would be difficult to enforce. The real solution is to offer the perk for a fee smaller than the cost of the room.

When you do it at the campgrounds, it does become pretty obvious. People don't pitch their tent up for one night, down for another, up for the next, down... It's way too much of a pain to set up camp so very few people only stay for a night.

It's a lot more obvious when you do it at the campground. If Disney sees that and sees lost revenue there of $70 for that "every other night" they have every right to do something about it. Most campsites do have a minimum night stay requirement, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to see Disney do this in the future.
Though you are right, it'll probably go away once fp+ is rolled out to everyone.

 

[skylizard]

Have there been many reports of this every other night thing? I haven't read many here. In that case, yes, there'd be more potential for lost revenue..

Yes. I've read of at least two people doing it (not sure which board or thread it was).

 

[Angel Ariel]

Yes. I've read of at least two people doing it (not sure which board or thread it was).

Two is not what I would call many...for Disney to make a policy change, you'd have to be talking about much larger numbers of people doing this

 

[CanadaJulie]

I am the person who gave the update yesterday and it seemed to open up a can of worms...

I'm curious though. I have 2 questions to the people who feel it is morally wrong for me to have booked a campsite with no intentions of setting foot into it...

1- What if I *had* planned to sleep there but then it rained and so I opted to save myslef the hassle of putting up a wet tent and got a cheap hotel room (offsite) instead ? Would that be morally OK ?

2- What if I decided to get a room at a Deluxe Disney resort (instead of a campsite) with no intentions of going there and just use whatever perks (FP+ included) that comes with a Deluxe Concierge level room ? Would that be OK ?

 

[ladeedeb]

Heck, that happens all the time to guests who DON'T cancel anything.

Thanks for your wonderful humor. Needed it tonight.

 

[Alesia]

2- What if I decided to get a room at a Deluxe Disney resort (instead of a campsite) with no intentions of going there and just use whatever perks (FP+ included) that comes with a Deluxe Concierge level room ? Would that be OK ?

I really truly don't care one way or another, but I think the real issue that people have with those who book the campsites (as opposed to resort rooms) is the relative scarcity. There are less than 100 tent sites in all of WDW, as opposed to thousands upon thousands of hotel rooms.

Having said that, the campsites are first come, first served. Someone else's lack of advance planning isn't really your problem.