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

[jco_direwolf]

Because they are getting the perks for their ENTIRE stay for booking ONE night at a site they will never use. Therefore, they get the 60 day booking window for their ENTIRE stay and 180+10 for their ENTIRE stay for booking ONE NIGHT. People are crowing about how they planned their FP's for 10 days beyond their throwaway, their ADR's for their 10 days and getting 7 magic bands for nothing that normally cost $12 per for a site for ONE NIGHT that they will never use.

I pay extra to stay on-site to get these same perks. I may get locked out of an FP or ADR that I REALLY HAVE TO HAVE by someone who shouldn't be booking at that time in the FIRST PLACE.

Yes, I am upset by this.....

If you book one night at FW you get check-in and check-out (the day and the next day) for FP+ and for 180+LENGTH OF STAY (or 10 days) you don't get 10 days or Length of stay for the non-disney part of your stay.

 

[itchin2go]

Because they are getting the perks for their ENTIRE stay for booking ONE night at a site they will never use. Therefore, they get the 60 day booking window for their ENTIRE stay and 180+10 for their ENTIRE stay for booking ONE NIGHT. People are crowing about how they planned their FP's for 10 days beyond their throwaway, their ADR's for their 10 days and getting 7 magic bands for nothing that normally cost $12 per for a site for ONE NIGHT that they will never use.

I pay extra to stay on-site to get these same perks. I may get locked out of an FP or ADR that I REALLY HAVE TO HAVE by someone who shouldn't be booking at that time in the FIRST PLACE.

Yes, I am upset by this.....

Actually, this is not correct.

With regards to ADRs, there is a new policy of 180+ length of stay, so really that perk (which wasn't a real big perk to begin with) has been limited based on length of stay. C'mon - no one stays onsite to get 180+10. If that were a real concern to anyone, they could book a stay they had no intention of keeping, book ADRs, and then cancel the stay. THAT "loophole" has been around forever.

I'm not sure if the 60 day FP thing is still holding true. I haven't seen anyone post here lately to confirm whether that is still true or not. Further, as far as I know, there are only 2 FPs that are difficult to book at 30 days. So this is a really limited gripe.

Are you really that mad that people are getting Magic Bands? Why? Most people who stay onsite and post here seem baffled that anyone would pay $$$ for a Magic Band. Do you view that as much of a perk? Really?

Parking is going to be limited to length of stay. I can't see that being something that would really bug someone.

I just don't get it.

 

[jco_direwolf]

Actually, this is not correct.

With regards to ADRs, there is a new policy of 180+ length of stay

That has always been the rule with ADRs since they introduced the 180+Length of stay (or 10 days which ever is less.) Yes it was only spottily enforced.

Anyway people where booking PopC for 10 days Room only to book CRT (required a full night room deposit) and then 179 days from check-in they would cancel the room and since the ADR is not linked to the room they would get the ADR. So Disney REALLY didn't care. They could have linked the conf# to the ADR and canceled the ADR when the room canceled if they cared.

 

[doconeill]

If you book one night at FW you get check-in and check-out (the day and the next day) for FP+ and for 180+LENGTH OF STAY (or 10 days) you don't get 10 days or Length of stay for the non-disney part of your stay.

The FP+ is not so straight forward. You get 60+length of stay from check-in date, buy you also get 60 days from any date after that, up until you actually check in, when it collapses back down to 30 days over time.

That is, if you book one night for Oct 1st, say, you can boot Oct 1st and October 2nd on August 2nd (60 days if my head math is correct). You can't book Oct 3rd yet, but on Aug 4th you can, EVEN IF your reservation ends on Oct 2nd. Then on Aug 5th you can do Oct 4th, etc...up until it is Oct 1st, where you can book Nov 30th, but you can't book past Nov 30th until you reach the 30 day point again. Not sure why it works this way, but that appears to be the case. So that one day of throwaway booking gets you 2 months of 60 day FP+ reservations.

Seems like an advantage, no?

Actually, this is not correct.

With regards to ADRs, there is a new policy of 180+ length of stay, so really that perk

Hadn't heard this yet, but not surprised. But the 180+10, when it actually meant something, was one of the original driving forces of the throwaway room (the other being EMH).

 

[cakebaker]

I just don't get it.

Here's the problem with these so called "throwaway rooms".

It's gaming the system and it affects people who want to book 1 night stays for a legitimate reason- not because they want to get the benefits of being onsite without really staying there.

Disney isn't stupid. They've seen this trend and they're putting a stop to it, to the detriment of guests who really are trying to book a room to stay in. For example: MY family.

We had booked a 4 night stay at AOA for late September/early October. A week ago we decided we'd like to add a night on the end of our trip. Odd thing was, when we punched in the date, there showed no availability for that one night, but if we extended it 2 days, then it was available.

We called guest services and I couldn't believe the hoops we had to jump thru. My daughter ended up speaking to the "supervisor's supervisor" who admitted the room was available, but that Disney is cracking down on single night reservations- It didn't matter that we had the previous 4 days booked, we were trying to book a single night. After an hour of arguing and threatening to cancel both the late fall vacation along with the one we're going on in a week, they finally called the hotel directly and got them to ok an extension on our reservation.

There was absolutely no reason for this to happen except that obviously enough people are booking single nights that it's caught their attention. An so, because some are gaming the system to get advantages only intended for on sight guests, it's causing problems for everyone and I resent that.

So yes, they're putting a stop to this but in doing so, it's costing us all.

 

[itchin2go]

The FP+ is not so straight forward. You get 60+length of stay from check-in date, buy you also get 60 days from any date after that, up until you actually check in, when it collapses back down to 30 days over time.

That is, if you book one night for Oct 1st, say, you can boot Oct 1st and October 2nd on August 2nd (60 days if my head math is correct). You can't book Oct 3rd yet, but on Aug 4th you can, EVEN IF your reservation ends on Oct 2nd. Then on Aug 5th you can do Oct 4th, etc...up until it is Oct 1st, where you can book Nov 30th, but you can't book past Nov 30th until you reach the 30 day point again. Not sure why it works this way, but that appears to be the case. So that one day of throwaway booking gets you 2 months of 60 day FP+ reservations.

Seems like an advantage, no?

Hadn't heard this yet, but not surprised. But the 180+10, when it actually meant something, was one of the original driving forces of the throwaway room (the other being EMH).

1. Technically, yes, there is a FP advantage. In practice though, I really believe that the overwhelming majority of FPs that are available at 60 days are also available at 30 days. To my knowledge, there are only 2 FPs that *might* be affected by this passage of time, and (based solely on anecdotal evidence), I think one of those is not nearly as affected as the other. So, yes, there's an advantage, but it's an incremental one.

2. I don't know how the throwaway room helps you with EMH very much. I guess you could take advantage of EMH for 2 days. To me, that's not much of an advantage, but I have never really liked EMH at Disney World. Now, early entry is very much going to be an advantage with my one night booking at Universal.

 

[itchin2go]

It's gaming the system and it affects people who want to book 1 night stays for a legitimate reason- not because they want to get the benefits of being onsite without really staying there.

Why is your reason more legitimate or important than anyone else's?

How is it gaming the system? If you book a room and pay for it, that's the contract. I promise to pay for a room and Disney promises to provide it to me on the date agreed. All that has ever been required on my end is to pay for the room. You get the benefits of being onsite by paying for onsite accommodations. There has never been a requirement to spend a certain amount of time in the room.

Also, I don't doubt that you're being truthful here, but people's mileage may vary. I priced out a one night stay at a value for Thanksgiving week recently (like last week), and there were things available.

 

[AndreaA]

Why is your reason more legitimate or important than anyone else's?

How is it gaming the system? If you book a room and pay for it, that's the contract. I promise to pay for a room and Disney promises to provide it to me on the date agreed. All that has ever been required on my end is to pay for the room. You get the benefits of being onsite by paying for onsite accommodations. There has never been a requirement to spend a certain amount of time in the room.

Also, I don't doubt that you're being truthful here, but people's mileage may vary. I priced out a one night stay at a value for Thanksgiving week recently (like last week), and there were things available.

I think the "gaming" comes in when people book for 1 night but then take advantage of the perks for 5, 6, 7 or however many days. If it was just to get MagicBands and FP+ for two days, well that is legitimately what you are paying for. The extra booking availability is certainly a well-known (and Disney-known) loophole, but a loophole none the less. The Disney suits didn't say "Let's make sure we give everyone some extra booking days for after they leave.", they assumed that people would book for the dates of their stay and then be leaving and going home.

 

[itchin2go]

I think the "gaming" comes in when people book for 1 night but then take advantage of the perks for 5, 6, 7 or however many days. If it was just to get MagicBands and FP+ for two days, well that is legitimately what you are paying for. The extra booking availability is certainly a well-known (and Disney-known) loophole, but a loophole none the less. The Disney suits didn't say "Let's make sure we give everyone some extra booking days for after they leave.", they assumed that people would book for the dates of their stay and then be leaving and going home.

Excellent point. I get it.

I'm wondering if Disney is walking a fine line in determining whether to really crack down on this.

1. It doesn't seem logical to turn down people willing to pay for rooms, whatever the reason.
2. If people are booking to gain an advantage (however slight) in booking ADRs, well, they're spending money on Disney dining.
3. If people are booking to gain an advantage on FP, well, they're planning on spending time (and hopefully $$) in Disney parks.

I'm guessing that this kind of customer is not as good of a customer as a full-on-siter, but it MAY be a pretty good customer, nonetheless.

 

[cakebaker]

Why is your reason more legitimate or important than anyone else's?

How is it gaming the system? If you book a room and pay for it, that's the contract. I promise to pay for a room and Disney promises to provide it to me on the date agreed. All that has ever been required on my end is to pay for the room. You get the benefits of being onsite by paying for onsite accommodations. There has never been a requirement to spend a certain amount of time in the room.

Also, I don't doubt that you're being truthful here, but people's mileage may vary. I priced out a one night stay at a value for Thanksgiving week recently (like last week), and there were things available.

Technically, you're right. If you pay for the room, you've done what's required of you. However, Disney never intended the system to be used that way. The new fastpass system has changed a lot of things, giving even more benefits to staying onsite. Of course, if you read these boards and others, you'll see a great many people were reserving, then cancelling. I suspect that's what drew Disney's attention most.... The increase in single night reservations/cancellations.

Had we just called Disney and asked them to modify and include those last 2 nights, then called back and cancelled the last night, we too would've had exactly what we wanted with no issues. When this was explained to the first person spoken to, they said sure, we could do that, but it was manipulating the system. The second person ( a supervisor) said it would be dishonest of us to do it. That resulted in us speaking with their supervisor.

A person who is only going to Disney for 1 day, therefore only needs a 1 night stay or people who need to extend their already booked vacation by a day are not people trying to get something that was intended for onsite guests- without being an onsite guest. That's what makes their needs more important and more legitimate, imo.

All I know is what we were told from someone much higher up than just a customer service rep. The days of being able to book a 1 night stay are soon going to be gone and it's because single night stays cost them money- it ties up rooms that could go to longer stays.

When it only happened now and then, I guess it didn't make their radar...but this has and now they'll fix it. I'm sure it is a ymmv at this point, but I suspect not for much longer.

 

[cakebaker]

I think the "gaming" comes in when people book for 1 night but then take advantage of the perks for 5, 6, 7 or however many days. If it was just to get MagicBands and FP+ for two days, well that is legitimately what you are paying for. The extra booking availability is certainly a well-known (and Disney-known) loophole, but a loophole none the less. The Disney suits didn't say "Let's make sure we give everyone some extra booking days for after they leave.", they assumed that people would book for the dates of their stay and then be leaving and going home.

Thanks, you explained it much better than I did!

 

[Luvchefmic]

As a local who can do a R/T in about an hour we occasionally will do a one night stay. I would be one of the ones that is being penalized if indeed a one night stay ended.

I have always hated this " book a throwaway " and hated it even more when true lovers of Ft Wilderness were shut out of certain dates because of it.

 

[itchin2go]

A person who is only going to Disney for 1 day, therefore only needs a 1 night stay or people who need to extend their already booked vacation by a day are not people trying to get something that was intended for onsite guests- without being an onsite guest. That's what makes their needs more important and more legitimate, imo.

See, but I think what defines "onsite guest" is that you paid to be an "onsite guest". I think it's irrelevant where you spend the night ... or the day. If you pay, you get the perks. That's why I fail to see why one "onsite guest" is more important than another.

I guarantee you that most hotels couldn't give a flip where you spend the night, as long as you pay your $$ (and as I said before, are lawful and not destructive).

Disney may be a bit different because there's the issue of whether onsite guests spend more $$$ at Disney than offsite guests.

 

[itchin2go]

As a local who can do a R/T in about an hour we occasionally will do a one night stay. I would be one of the ones that is being penalized if indeed a one night stay ended.

I have always hated this " book a throwaway " and hated it even more when true lovers of Ft Wilderness were shut out of certain dates because of it.

Requiring more than a one night stay would not be anything new.

Right now, I'm trying (in vain) to book a hotel in Nashville for one night to take my daughter to a concert. Pretty much nothing within the vicinity is available for that one night. Now, if I extend my search to 2 nights, all kinds of things come up.

I agree - that sucks. But it wouldn't be anything new. I'd be surprised if Disney didn't already do this for certain dates at certain resorts.

 

[AndreaA]

All I know is what we were told from someone much higher up than just a customer service rep. The days of being able to book a 1 night stay are soon going to be gone and it's because single night stays cost them money- it ties up rooms that could go to longer stays.

When it only happened now and then, I guess it didn't make their radar...but this has and now they'll fix it. I'm sure it is a ymmv at this point, but I suspect not for much longer.

Figures that Disney would change hotel reservation policies rather than actually FIX the IT problem. :roll eyes:

And I have a feeling that won't really keep people from booking "throwaways". They'll just book TWO cheap nights, or book two nights and then cancel one.

 

[cakebaker]

See, but I think what defines "onsite guest" is that you paid to be an "onsite guest". I think it's irrelevant where you spend the night ... or the day. If you pay, you get the perks. That's why I fail to see why one "onsite guest" is more important than another.

I guarantee you that most hotels couldn't give a flip where you spend the night, as long as you pay your $$ (and as I said before, are lawful and not destructive).

Disney may be a bit different because there's the issue of whether onsite guests spend more $$$ at Disney than offsite guests.

A person paying for a 1 night stay should be entitled to onsite perks for 1 day- that's not how it works now. As I said, fastpass+ had changed a lot of things.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a guest booking and paying for the room and sleeping somewhere else, although you are are onsite guest in name only. But, Disney does. If you aren't onsite, you aren't spending money with Disney. And because they care, they're going to put in a fix that causes problems for real onsite guests who do spend a lot of money in the resorts and the parks....and then I do care. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.....

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think they could close the loophole if they wanted to. I think they are quite happy collecting more money for these perks. I hear your point though, but I think the blame is on Disney, not individuals.

How it is "Breaking the rules?"

It's just a good value proposition. $70 /night for up to 10 Magic Bands, 10 FP+ for at least 2 days, and parking at the parks included for 2 day (based on a 1 night stay.)

Would you rather Disney just move to a the Universal model? Where they just charge you up front for FP+?

How is Disney making more money? Even with four people, that'd be $48 for the Magic Bands and $28 for parking.

 

[dbramer]

See, but I think what defines "onsite guest" is that you paid to be an "onsite guest". I think it's irrelevant where you spend the night ... or the day. If you pay, you get the perks. That's why I fail to see why one "onsite guest" is more important than another.

I guarantee you that most hotels couldn't give a flip where you spend the night, as long as you pay your $$ (and as I said before, are lawful and not destructive).

Disney may be a bit different because there's the issue of whether onsite guests spend more $$$ at Disney than offsite guests.

But its the problem of people booking a one night throwaway and then using the benefits for multiple days after that. Getting six, seven, eight days of FP's at 60 days when they should only be able to get one and then wait til 30 days for the rest, but they can still book them after their checkout date. That is the major problem. It impacts those of us who book on-site, stay on-site and spend on-site dollars. We are not only fighting other on-site guests at the 60 day mark, but we are also fighting people who SHOULD NOT be able to book for another 30 days.

 

[cakebaker]

Figures that Disney would change hotel reservation policies rather than actually FIX the IT problem. :roll eyes:

And I have a feeling that won't really keep people from booking "throwaways". They'll just book TWO cheap nights, or book two nights and then cancel one.

Isn't it what they always do?

I agree, and they just may go to a minimum, non refundable requirement. Tons of fun....

 

[Canuckbiggs]

How is Disney making more money? Even with four people, that'd be $48 for the Magic Bands and $28 for parking.

I booked a throwaway campsite for our group of 9 for 1 night.

With it I booked lots of ADRs that I likely would not have booked without the reservation. (CRT, Mikey's Backyard BBQ, 50s Prime Time, Fantasmic Dining Package (Mama's) Whispering Canyon, Beaches and Cream)

There is no chance we book all those without the throwaway room and I don't know if we would have spent any money on Magic Bands.

There is no question we will spend more $$ at Disney because of the reservation.