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

[OtherScott]

Would you be frustrated if people booked 1 night at a campsite to trigger the FP+ and then actually camped at the site? Or if they booked it for a week and never stayed, reasoning that even with adding the small nightly cost to their superior offsite accommodations they are still $1,000s ahead?

 

[skylizard]

I did not receive the paper parking pass. On the first day (animal kingdom), when going through the gate, I told them that 'today' is our check in day (it was) he used a handheld scanner on my MB and confirmed the resort reservation. On the next day, when the gate attendant saw my MB they waived me through. On subsequent days I held up $ to pay and still got waived through (twice this happened at two parks in the same day since we often went to EPCOT for dinner). I think when the parks are busy (and there is a long line at the parking gate) the attendants are trying to keep the line moving and they would prefer to hit the resort guest button for any reason rather then making change.

I imagine a lot of cm's are probably just lazy and find it easier (and much faster) to just let people thru as long as they see the MB. Especially if there's a long line of cars, it's much easier to just wave people through. I suspect Disney will realize this when parking revenue starts to drop. These "loopholes" aren't going to last forever.

 

[Turn the Page]

Would you be frustrated if people booked 1 night at a campsite to trigger the FP+ and then actually camped at the site? Or if they booked it for a week and never stayed, reasoning that even with adding the small nightly cost to their superior offsite accommodations they are still $1,000s ahead?

I would be annoyed if they booked the one night at the campsite in order to get the perks that come with staying onsite then moved off site and continued to get onsite perks for the rest of their vacation, yes.

 

[OtherScott]

Oh please. There are people on this thread reporting paying for a throwaway room for one night and getting free parking and advanced FP+ access for the rest of their stay.

Youre wrong about parking and youre right about FP+, as I said.

EDIT: I see where one person accessed free parking not through a loophole, but by a lazy attendant not asking for pass.

 

[Turn the Page]

Youre wrong about parking and youre right about FP+, as I said.

EDIT: I see where one person accessed free parking not through a loophole, but by a lazy attendant not asking for pass.

I certainly hope I am wrong about the loophole for free parking. If you want onsite perks you should stay onsite and yes, it is morally off to do things that mean you are effectively stealing perks that you aren't paying for. Which is what this practice is.

 

[jaykorf001]

Youre wrong about parking and youre right about FP+, as I said. EDIT: I see where one person accessed free parking not through a loophole, but by a lazy attendant not asking for pass.

FWIW, I've seen a few people say they've managed to get free parking for their entire stay by placing the parking pass on the dashboard or flashing the band. And I've only read about half the pages.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

 

[doconeill]

And further, if Disney discovers they are missing out on filling a large number of rooms for a week because the number of single night throwaways means there isn't availability for week long stays then yes, that will be a problem for them and they will want to fix it because it will start impacting their bottom line.

I think the idea that booking one night throwaways disrupts a whole week for a campsite is a fallacious argument.

First, it presumes that the majority of bookings are for a whole week, which is not in evidence (in fact, at the campsites I'd expect that to be very different than the regular resorts).

Second, it presumes that there is only one person booking such a throwaway, ruining a whole week at a particular campsite, on a given week. I'd say it's more likely that there is more than one such person, and that those persons would probably be distributed through the week, and thus could be accounted for by the same campsite, thus minimizing the effect on anyone else.

And if it affected the bottom line that much, and Disney saw how much people were willing to book a throwaway, Disney could in turn say, "You know what? If you want in to FP+/MagicBands so badly, just pay $50/$75/$100 up front, and we'll let you have early access..."

I really doubt this is going to last long regardless.

As for parking/perks, paying for one night essentially gets you two days of resort perks - parking, room charges, EMH, etc. The exception being Dining Plans (you get credits per night, not day) and FP+ (not _really_ a resort perk, where you can book FP+ up to length of linked ticket/max 7 days).

 

[doconeill]

I certainly hope I am wrong about the loophole for free parking. If you want onsite perks you should stay onsite and yes, it is morally off to do things that mean you are effectively stealing perks that you aren't paying for. Which is what this practice is.

FWIW, I've seen a few people say they've managed to get free parking for their entire stay by placing the parking pass on the dashboard or flashing the band. And I've only read about half the pages.

That is a function of lack of formal enforcement, not a perk of a throwaway room. If the parking attendants aren't looking at the dates on the pass or scanning the bands, it doesn't much matter if you've booked a throwaway or not.

 

[Turn the Page]

I think the idea that booking one night throwaways disrupts a whole week for a campsite is a fallacious argument.

First, it presumes that the majority of bookings are for a whole week, which is not in evidence (in fact, at the campsites I'd expect that to be very different than the regular resorts).

Second, it presumes that there is only one person booking such a throwaway, ruining a whole week at a particular campsite, on a given week. I'd say it's more likely that there is more than one such person, and that those persons would probably be distributed through the week, and thus could be accounted for by the same campsite, thus minimizing the effect on anyone else.

And if it affected the bottom line that much, and Disney saw how much people were willing to book a throwaway, Disney could in turn say, "You know what? If you want in to FP+/MagicBands so badly, just pay $50/$75/$100 up front, and we'll let you have early access..."

I really doubt this is going to last long regardless.

As for parking/perks, paying for one night essentially gets you two days of resort perks - parking, room charges, EMH, etc. The exception being Dining Plans (you get credits per night, not day) and FP+ (not _really_ a resort perk, where you can book FP+ up to length of linked ticket/max 7 days).

I would actually be interested in how long the average stay at the campsites is. I would actually think there are fewer people at the campground booking quick weekend getaways because camping, even in an rv, take a whole lot more work than checking into a resort and you have to make the trip longer to make it worth it.

ETA: If people want to book throwaway rooms for the perks I say let them....you get the perks on check in day through check out day. You want more perks you book more time at the resort.

 

[skylizard]

And if it affected the bottom line that much, and Disney saw how much people were willing to book a throwaway, Disney could in turn say, "You know what? If you want in to FP+/MagicBands so badly, just pay $50/$75/$100 up front, and we'll let you have early access..."

And you don't think that's possible? If Disney does see an increase in one night stays (and unoccupied rooms) I wouldn't be surprised if they did start selling the option of extra FP+/MBs. People who are booking throwaway rooms are essentially putting a price on those perks. $100 for one night so I can get a MB and early access to FP+? Sure! (Just look at Universal and their express pass system). Do we really want a price being put on those perks? I don't and I'm sure most others agree. But there are those out there willing to spend the extra money on it.

 

[jaykorf001]

That is a function of lack of formal enforcement, not a perk of a throwaway room. If the parking attendants aren't looking at the dates on the pass or scanning the bands, it doesn't much matter if you've booked a throwaway or not.

Technically true I suppose, but I'd say practically it's a perk some are associating with the throwaway rooms. A person that might try for free parking with a recently expired pass probably would not save a pass from a previous trip and try the same. That's just my opinion. I actually see both sides of the arguments on this issue. It'll be interesting to see what/if Disney addresses this.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

 

[OtherScott]

I certainly hope I am wrong about the loophole for free parking. If you want onsite perks you should stay onsite and yes, it is morally off to do things that mean you are effectively stealing perks that you aren't paying for. Which is what this practice is.

I think a lot of this arises from the mistaken belief that FP+ is an onsite perk, or an incentive to stay onsite. It's not, at least in my opinion. Was Disney trying to get onsite guests to choose one resort over another based on rollout schedule?

It is a feature that Disney has rolled out incrementally throughout the resorts, AP holders and will ultimately be available to everyone.

That Disney allows guests to continue to pre-book FP+ beyond days actually sleeping at their resorts is the objective standard I think should be used to determine whether it's proper or not. It's just coding - your MB wont get you into a park or into your room after your stay, will it?

I can assure you, this is not a problem for Disney and it's probably not much of one for it's guests.

 

[OtherScott]

FWIW, I've seen a few people say they've managed to get free parking for their entire stay by placing the parking pass on the dashboard or flashing the band. And I've only read about half the pages.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

That's just deceitful, and not what I'm talking about.

 

[doconeill]

That Disney allows guests to continue to pre-book FP+ beyond days actually sleeping at their resorts is the objective standard I think should be used to determine whether it's proper or not. It's just coding - your MB wont get you into a park or into your room after your stay, will it?

Bands will continue to work as your park ticket so long as you have entry entitlements linked to the ticket. They are meant to be re-usable and don't drop dead because you're no longer at a resort.

In that regard, they are working exactly as they should.

Disney is also no concerned with guests being able to book FP+ beyond their stay. AP holders who stayed at a resort have been up until recently able to continue to book 60 days out (now cut down to 30 days unless they also have another resort stay booked) after their resort stay - they are now "active" in the system. I think that applied to MYW tickets as well, at least for as long as they were still good.

AP holders also could continue using their bands to key in for parking and the resorts. They lose the ability to enter a room at checkout time, and charge to a room once the folio is closed. That's about all the function they lose.

 

[mmbl]

I don't think that is entirely accurate. I don't think you get EMH, DDP or parking for any days other than those onsite. And according to most who have an informed opinion, FP+ advance for non-resort is part of the overall staggered rollout. So, I guess, what they get is to keep on accessing FP+ after the dates of stay...

I believe you are correct. FP+ is opening to all park guests so that is a non-issue; and, if the parking lot attendants are too busy to check for a parking pass, they are the ones to 'blame.' Personally, I hope the FP+ is a FLOP. It makes it so much more difficult to be a little more impromptu~ which after going for 40+ years and annual passes, we were liking.

 

[OtherScott]

Bands will continue to work as your park ticket so long as you have entry entitlements linked to the ticket. They are meant to be re-usable and don't drop dead because you're no longer at a resort. In that regard, they are working exactly as they should. Disney is also no concerned with guests being able to book FP+ beyond their stay. AP holders who stayed at a resort have been up until recently able to continue to book 60 days out (now cut down to 30 days unless they also have another resort stay booked) after their resort stay - they are now "active" in the system. I think that applied to MYW tickets as well, at least for as long as they were still good. AP holders also could continue using their bands to key in for parking and the resorts. They lose the ability to enter a room at checkout time, and charge to a room once the folio is closed. That's about all the function they lose.

What I meant was that 2 days after I check out of my room my MB won't open the door, because it was programmed to work only during my stay - and if Disney only wants me pre-book FPs when I have a room, it could do so rather effortlessly. That they don't, coupled with the fact they don't proscribe such action, provides a view of what they find acceptable.

 

[OtherScott]

I believe you are correct. FP+ is opening to all park guests so that is a non-issue; and, if the parking lot attendants are too busy to check for a parking pass, they are the ones to 'blame.' Personally, I hope the FP+ is a FLOP. It makes it so much more difficult to be a little more impromptu~ which after going for 40+ years and annual passes, we were liking.

Disney's staggered rollout allowed for the idea that prebooking was an onsite perk to take hold.

 

[amylevan]

First, it presumes that the majority of bookings are for a whole week, which is not in evidence (in fact, at the campsites I'd expect that to be very different than the regular resorts).

Ok, I'll bite. What do you suspect that the majority of bookings at the campground are? And how do you think that differs from the resorts? I think there are very few, if any, 1 night stays at the campground due to difficult set up/take downs, but I don't really think there would be that many more at the resorts. It's a vacation destination. I would think most people are staying for more than 1 night whether they are staying in the campground or the resorts.

And for the record, whether we choose to haul our camper to the fort or fly and stay at a resort, our length of stay is the same. It's dictated by our allowable time off of work - usually about 8 nights.

 

[doconeill]

Ok, I'll bite. What do you suspect that the majority of bookings at the campground are? And how do you think that differs from the resorts? I think there are very few, if any, 1 night stays at the campground due to difficult set up/take downs, but I don't really think there would be that many more at the resorts. It's a vacation destination. I would think most people are staying for more than 1 night whether they are staying in the campground or the resorts.

And for the record, whether we choose to haul our camper to the fort or fly and stay at a resort, our length of stay is the same. It's dictated by our allowable time off of work - usually about 8 nights.

I didn't say people at the campsites, or the resorts for that matter, tend to be one-nighters. I suspect campsite users on average are probably less than a full week, at least compared to resort room guests - mainly because there is additional travel time involved. It's a guess on my part, surely.

What I'm getting at is that saying someone booking one night is going to disrupt someone who books a week is an invalid argument because it presumes that everyone books a week. There are always people who book different lengths. Disney knows that and they know how to fit them in.

Of course, there are differences, such as yourself - 8 nights actually illustrates things just as well - saying someone booking one night disrupting a whole week for someone would apply to you as well - because you are using a whole week plus an extra day.

It's why although you can say 100% occupancy is the ultimate goal of any hotel/resort, it's also an impossible goal. 100% occupancy means that everyone's bookings fit neatly into everyone elses like a jigsaw puzzle, but that isn't likely to happen. So you either have holes - which could be filled by one-nighters if there are any - or you need to have extra rooms to makes things flexible - which still equates to holes.

So, in fact - people booking one nighters could be helping Disney out by paying to fill the "holes" left by people staying longer but irregular amounts of time. More income for Disney is good, right?

 

[jaykorf001]

Ok, I'll bite. What do you suspect that the majority of bookings at the campground are? And how do you think that differs from the resorts? I think there are very few, if any, 1 night stays at the campground due to difficult set up/take downs, but I don't really think there would be that many more at the resorts. It's a vacation destination. I would think most people are staying for more than 1 night whether they are staying in the campground or the resorts. And for the record, whether we choose to haul our camper to the fort or fly and stay at a resort, our length of stay is the same. It's dictated by our allowable time off of work - usually about 8 nights.

Although I've never camped at Disney, I'm an experienced camper and I totally agree. There is a lot of effort for set up, even in an RV or 5th wheel. I can't imagine too many 1 night camping stays. I have seen many people mention booking one night at a value on arrival day prior to moving to the destination hotel. They do actually stay at the hotel. I'm assuming Disney can see these stays as people then generally transfer to a mod or deluxe.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards