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

[Flametamr]

If I pay for a campsite for one night and I don't cancel it, who am I "scamming"? Isn't it my campsite? I bought it.

Since I started this I will try to respond. Scamming is probably a strong word. Maybe a better word is working the system and denying others the joy of Disney. You paid for and have every right to do whatever you want with your room or camp site. That being said my problem is with people that rent a camp site for only one weekend night with no intention of using it only to get on site benefits such at MB, EMH and FP+ 60 days out. By doing that some other family that desperately wants to go camping at Disney that week are turned down due to no vacancy. Then when you ride thru the sites are only 2/3 or less full. That's just sad in my opinion. The only real way to stop this is for Disney require a 3 day minimum or require you to somehow occupy the site rented with tents or a camper. But alas this is Disney and they make the rules not us. When they decide to close the loophole they will. Not until then.

 

[artemis4]

Since I started this I will try to respond. Scamming is probably a strong word. Maybe a better word is working the system and denying others the joy of Disney. You paid for and have every right to do whatever you want with your room or camp site. That being said my problem is with people that rent a camp site for only one weekend night with no intention of using it only to get on site benefits such at MB, EMH and FP+ 60 days out. By doing that some other family that desperately wants to go camping at Disney that week are turned down due to no vacancy. Then when you ride thru the sites are only 2/3 or less full. That's just sad in my opinion. The only real way to stop this is for Disney require a 3 day minimum or require you to somehow occupy the site rented with tents or a camper. But alas this is Disney and they make the rules not us. When they decide to close the loophole they will. Not until then.

1. Has Fort always been full prior to the practice of booking throwaway rooms? If no, then how can one know if the vacant sites one sees are due to people utilizing throwaway campsites? If there have been vacant sites historically, there will continue to be vacant sites that have nothing to do with people booking campsites they do not intend to use.

2. Some of us deliberately choose to book our throwaway on a night other than a Friday or Saturday. My research showed me that these two nights tend to be the busiest there, while there is ready availability of single nights during Sun-Thurs for the time of year I was booking, even week of availability (looking at '14 data, but I booked '15). Ergo, I booked a Sunday night for '15 in order to have as little impact on the vacations of others as possible.

On a different note, VP I have to say thank you for your calm discussion of this issue from the perspective of someone who enjoys using the campground. I realize that it is a hot topic for people who enjoy using Fort and hate to see their campground used in this way. I appreciate the fact that you recognize that many locals use the campground on weekends with no intention is giving Disney money at the parks or with ADRs and your fairness in recognizing that this practice makes it also contributes to the difficultly some vacationers having in booking 7 night trips.

 

[Violet Parr]

1. Has Fort always been full prior to the practice of booking throwaway rooms? If no, then how can one know if the vacant sites one sees are due to people utilizing throwaway campsites? If there have been vacant sites historically, there will continue to be vacant sites that have nothing to do with people booking campsites they do not intend to use.

2. Some of us deliberately choose to book our throwaway on a night other than a Friday or Saturday. My research showed me that these two nights tend to be the busiest there, while there is ready availability of single nights during Sun-Thurs for the time of year I was booking, even week of availability (looking at '14 data, but I booked '15). Ergo, I booked a Sunday night for '15 in order to have as little impact on the vacations of others as possible.

On a different note, VP I have to say thank you for your calm discussion of this issue from the perspective of someone who enjoys using the campground. I realize that it is a hot topic for people who enjoy using Fort and hate to see their campground used in this way. I appreciate the fact that you recognize that many locals use the campground on weekends with no intention is giving Disney money at the parks or with ADRs and your fairness in recognizing that this practice makes it also contributes to the difficultly some vacationers having in booking 7 night trips.

1. Yes, weekends at the Fort during popular times (i.e. not in the middle of summer) have always been hard to book unless you book them way far out. The same is true of all really popular campgrounds. There's a beach campground in the Florida Keys that you sometimes have to book 6 months in advance. So I don't think throwaway campsites are truly having that much of an impact, since I can get Christmas week for 2015 with absolutely no problem.

****Keep in mind that we are only talking about tent campsites here. Most people are not using preferred (pricier) sites at the Fort for throwaway rooms. And tent sites are pretty easy to get in the summer because, well, ew. Generally too hot to tent camp (unless you're the type to bring an a/c with your tent.) So in the summer, throwaway campsites are DEFINITELY not keeping people from staying at the Fort. December? Maybe. But all of December is open except weekends, and this is September. It could very easily be that December is CRAZY popular at the Fort because of all the snowbirds who go all out decorating. (Same with Halloween.) So from now on, I would not expect to book a tent site for October, December or March/April (when the weather is most pleasant for tent camping) unless you book it way far in advance. Kind of like ADRs, FP+, room reservations, etc.

2. Thank you. That is very considerate.

3. Thank you, again. I am just trying not to get myself worked up about it. Nothing is technically wrong with throwaway rooms or booking rooms for ghost guests. I've decided I am neutral about throwaway rooms. If we have only one Disney trip in a 2-3 year period, yeah, I would probably book a throwaway campsite, and I'm a big Fort tent camper.


If someone wants to book a ghost room so they can have 9-12 SDFP for 2 people, more power to them. It's their money. The practice is not a moral or ethical issue so much as it is an issue of taste. (Not talking about throwaway rooms for the 60 day window but throwaway rooms for excessive SDFP.) I liken it to all-you-can-eat buffets. Yes, technically you can eat all you want. You are allowed that. You paid for that. But if I see someone walking away from an all-you-can-eat buffet with 6 overfilled plates that include 4 whole pizzas plus blueberry muffins and apples and bananas to put in their bag for later, well, that's just embarrassing and tacky, but NOT against the rules. They paid for it, but it is gluttonous. I try to tell my kids that when things are free *or* limits are not clearly defined, you take what you need and leave the rest for others. If there is a bucket of free candy at the bank or mints at a restaurant, or Halloween candy set out at a house where the owners are out for the night, I tell my kids to take their share and no more. Sure, they can take more. It is there. There is no sign saying "one per person." But I don't want my kids to be tacky, ya know? Plus, having used FP+ many times, you really only need 3-5 per day. 9-12 is just silly. But again, tacky? Yes. Cheating? No.

JMO!

VP

VP

 

[SnowBelleAlice]

If someone wants to book a ghost room so they can have 9-12 SDFP for 2 people, more power to them. It's their money. The practice is not a moral or ethical issue so much as it is an issue of taste. (Not talking about throwaway rooms for the 60 day window but throwaway rooms for excessive SDFP.)

I liken it to all-you-can-eat buffets. Yes, technically you can eat all you want. You are allowed that. You paid for that. But if I see someone walking away from an all-you-can-eat buffet with 6 overfilled plates that include 4 whole pizzas plus blueberry muffins and apples and bananas to put in their bag for later, well, that's just embarrassing and tacky, but NOT against the rules. They paid for it, but it is gluttonous. I try to tell my kids that when things are free *or* limits are not clearly defined, you take what you need and leave the rest for others. If there is a bucket of free candy at the bank or mints at a restaurant, or Halloween candy set out at a house where the owners are out for the night, I tell my kids to take their share and no more. Sure, they can take more. It is there. There is no sign saying "one per person." But I don't want my kids to be tacky, ya know? Plus, having used FP+ many times, you really only need 3-5 per day. 9-12 is just silly. But again, tacky? Yes. Cheating? No.

JMO!

VP

VP

Color me tacky! Ha ha
http://youtu.be/zq7Eki5EZ8o
I consider off siters just as tacky, and I have no problem with them

 

[ArwenMarie]

The only real way to stop this is for Disney require a 3 day minimum or require you to somehow occupy the site rented with tents or a camper. But alas this is Disney and they make the rules not us. When they decide to close the loophole they will. Not until then.

I agree. It's up to Disney to slow this down a bit by increasing the minimum number of nights, which they can easily do.

I suspect that Disney doesn't mind selling campsites but having them empty. If they did, they would do something about it.

They get the $ but don't have to provide the services connected to a campsite. They would probably be fine with the whole place being empty if people were willing to pay.

Maybe they should open another campsite.

 

[4 The Love Of Disney]

Another option, instead of making a minimum 3 night stay, could be eliminating the FP and free Magic Band perks associated with a campsite stay. That way the people who truly wish to enjoy the camping experience at WDW can do so. Taking away the perks would reduce the amount of throwaway rooms being used - right

 

[cousineddie]

Another option, instead of making a minimum 3 night stay, could be eliminating the FP and free Magic Band perks associated with a campsite stay. That way the people who truly wish to enjoy the camping experience at WDW can do so. Taking away the perks would reduce the amount of throwaway rooms being used - right

So instead of closing the loophole, you'd propose taking away the onsite perks to one of the three oldest resorts on disney property?

 

[doconeill]

Another option, instead of making a minimum 3 night stay, could be eliminating the FP and free Magic Band perks associated with a campsite stay. That way the people who truly wish to enjoy the camping experience at WDW can do so. Taking away the perks would reduce the amount of throwaway rooms being used - right

Can't see that. A more likely scenario is that you don't get the perks with a single night stay...no bands, no 60-day FP+, no +X ADRs, maybe even no EMH.

Still don't think that will necessarily happen.

 

[Violet Parr]

Can't see that. A more likely scenario is that you don't get the perks with a single night stay...no bands, no 60-day FP+, no +X ADRs, maybe even no EMH.

Still don't think that will necessarily happen.

Y'all. This is absurd. I think way too many people are under the assumption that throwaway campsites are a much more common practice than it is.

There are 90 tent sites (no one is booking throwaway premium campsites for $150) available each night. There are 365 days per year. That means there are 32,850 possible tent site bookings per year. Even if there were 1000 people doing this per year (I'm seriously doubting that) then that means that 2.75 people per night are booking throwaway campsites. That's THREE PERCENT of available sites being booked as throwaways. In all of my years of camping at the Fort, I've only stayed in the most busy Fort Wilderness seasons, and I have NEVER seen every single tent site booked except for Halloween weekend/night.

It's a non-issue.

 

[doconeill]

Y'all. This is absurd. I think way too many people are under the assumption that throwaway campsites are a much more common practice than it is.

There are 90 tent sites (no one is booking throwaway premium campsites for $150) available each night. There are 365 days per year. That means there are 32,850 possible tent site bookings per year. Even if there were 1000 people doing this per year (I'm seriously doubting that) then that means that 2.75 people per night are booking throwaway campsites. That's THREE PERCENT of available sites being booked as throwaways. In all of my years of camping at the Fort, I've only stayed in the most busy Fort Wilderness seasons, and I have NEVER seen every single tent site booked except for Halloween weekend/night.

It's a non-issue.

It doesn't just happen with tent sites. But I'm also not saying it's an issue, I'm just saying that _IF_ it is a problem that Disney wants to correct, that's one way they can do it that is more likely than putting a bullet in the head of one particular resort.

 

[4 The Love Of Disney]

So instead of closing the loophole, you'd propose taking away the onsite perks to one of the three oldest resorts on disney property?

I am only proposing another option which hasn't been mentioned. If the complaints/concerns I have read throughout this thread is about people who want to primarily camp not being able to utilize the campsites then yes that is what I propose, as it would solve that problem.

If the concern is primarily about enjoying perks ( which is what you focused your question to me on ), then the campers money is just as good as the money of the person utilizing a 'throwaway room' and no change should be made to the current system.

If Disney considers it a loophole in their system they will close it. If Disney doesn't consider it a loophole they won't change it.

I equate this whole situation to a person going to a concert. That person buys a premium ticket in order to get a hard to get backstage pass to see their fav entertainer. If they want to use their money just to see the performer backstage and not sit in their 'paid for' seat during the concert, I believe that they should be allowed to do that if that is how they want to spend their money. That is their right. Nothing about it is illegal or against the rules. I also acknowledge people's right to criticize and complain about it.

 

[anniemae]

If someone books a throwaway room, do they get the perks for just the one day, well I guess it would be two days, the day you check in and the next day.

Or, do they get a week's worth of the perks? I thought I had read about people booking for week, then at 60 days booking all fp's, then canceling all but one night but not losing all the fp's.

Just trying to figure out how it works.

 

[doconeill]

If someone books a throwaway room, do they get the perks for just the one day, well I guess it would be two days, the day you check in and the next day.

Or, do they get a week's worth of the perks? I thought I had read about people booking for week, then at 60 days booking all fp's, then canceling all but one night but not losing all the fp's.

Just trying to figure out how it works.

As it stands right now, you get two days of perks for those things tied to your resort stay...EMH, parking, and the +X on FP+ and ADR reservations (ADRs used to be +10 no matter what...it's now +X, or the length of your stay).

One difference is that once you get the 60 day window for FP+, that window STAYS at 60 days, until the day you check out. So while you get a +X from your check-in date, you still get 60 days from the day in question for days after your resort stay.

Also as it stands right now, if you cancel your reservation you do NOT lose any FP+ or ADRs made. But in the case of FP+ you cannot make changes or additional FP+ until you are in the 30 day window.

 

[Flametamr]

Can't see that. A more likely scenario is that you don't get the perks with a single night stay...no bands, no 60-day FP+, no +X ADRs, maybe even no EMH.

Still don't think that will necessarily happen.

I like this idea a lot. Another would be a two night minimum if it involves a weekend night. I feel most locals staying on the weekends probably have APs and wouldn't go to the trouble of staying one night at the Fort or need the 60 day perks. I believe the practice is worse than some want to admit. If people are spending thousands on a Disney trip including an offsite home then a measly 100-150 for all the extra perks would be nothing. I know there are Travel agents recommending this throwaway practice to clients.

 

[Violet Parr]

I like this idea a lot. Another would be a two night minimum if it involves a weekend night. I feel most locals staying on the weekends probably have APs and wouldn't go to the trouble of staying one night at the Fort or need the 60 day perks. I believe the practice is worse than some want to admit. If people are spending thousands on a Disney trip including an offsite home then a measly 100-150 for all the extra perks would be nothing. I know there are Travel agents recommending this throwaway practice to clients.

This will discourage people from quickie Disney weekends. As a former FL resident, I can tell you that 60 perks for onsite bookings are still necessary from time to time, even if you have an AP.

But more to the point, the question that first needs to be answered is if throwaway books are so commonplace at all. I tend to think that a small percentage of advanced planners (DISers, easywdw, tplans type of people) are actually doing it, and advanced planners are really a small percentage of Disney visitors each year. I truly no longer believe that throwaway bookings are making any more of an impact than people who book multiple reservations before they've made a serious decision about where they want to stay (or if they are going to Disney at all.)

VP

 

[doconeill]

This will discourage people from quickie Disney weekends. As a former FL resident, I can tell you that 60 perks for onsite bookings are still necessary from time to time, even if you have an AP.

But more to the point, the question that first needs to be answered is if throwaway books are so commonplace at all. I tend to think that a small percentage of advanced planners (DISers, easywdw, tplans type of people) are actually doing it, and advanced planners are really a small percentage of Disney visitors each year. I truly no longer believe that throwaway bookings are making any more of an impact than people who book multiple reservations before they've made a serious decision about where they want to stay (or if they are going to Disney at all.)

VP

You previously made the argument that because there are so few campsites, throwaway rooms can't really have an impact since they are likely booked anyways. Something didn't add up for me, and I think I figured it out and the above was the key.

I'd make the opposite argument - because there are so few campsites, ANY throwaway booking will disrupt the ability to book a campsite significantly, as there is not sufficient inventory to shuffle reservations around to minimize the holes caused be a short booking.

So it doesn't really matter if this is commonplace or not. A single booking can disrupt as much as a week for a campsite, and as a percentage of the whole, that is significant.

It would be a lot less if it was at the value resorts, given the quantity of inventory.

 

[Violet Parr]

Well, this is all anecdotal, but I am seeing no change in availability for the next 12 months from the last 9 years of Fort visits. I can't say "I used to be able to get x but now it is impossible." There is TONS of availability at the Fort, except weekends during nice weather, which was the case LONG before throwaway rooms were a thing.

VP

 

[Violet Parr]

You previously made the argument that because there are so few campsites, throwaway rooms can't really have an impact since they are likely booked anyways.

That's not AT ALL what I said. I said that even if 1000 people do this per year, it's still only a miniscule percentage of available campsites. We're talking two percent. And 1000 per year is a stretch, IMO. I was saying that there is NO way of knowing if booked weekends (weekdays are a piece of cake to get, and so is Christmas Day) are due to throwaway bookings, and the odds are that they are not, because good weather weekends were ALWAYS booked at popular times at the Fort, over the last 9 years.

Now, I've enjoyed this as a lively but laid back discussion, but as my children know, nothing angers me more than words being put in my mouth.

GRRRR!

VP

 

[Violet Parr]

That's not AT ALL what I said. I said that even if 1000 people do this per year, it's still only a miniscule percentage of available campsites. We're talking two percent. And 1000 per year is a stretch, IMO. I was saying that there is NO way of knowing if booked weekends (weekdays are a piece of cake to get, and so is Christmas Day) are due to throwaway bookings, and the odds are that they are not, because good weather weekends were ALWAYS booked at popular times at the Fort, over the last 9 years.

Now, I've enjoyed this as a lively but laid back discussion, but as my children know, nothing angers me more than words being put in my mouth.

GRRRR!

VP

Oh goodness, I meant to end that with a smiley face. That's what I get for cooking and disboarding at the same time. Just meant that last comment playfully. You're not grounded, Doconeill, and you can still have ice cream after dinner.

Anyway, I guess when I first posted on this thread, I was worried that I couldn't get what I wanted because of throwaway rooms, but now I really, genuinely feel that while it happens, it's not enough of an issue to worry about. Early booking is always a good idea at any resort level.


VP

 

[doconeill]

That's not AT ALL what I said. I said that even if 1000 people do this per year, it's still only a miniscule percentage of available campsites. We're talking two percent. And 1000 per year is a stretch, IMO. I was saying that there is NO way of knowing if booked weekends (weekdays are a piece of cake to get, and so is Christmas Day) are due to throwaway bookings, and the odds are that they are not, because good weather weekends were ALWAYS booked at popular times at the Fort, over the last 9 years.

Sorry for misremembering...but I still think 2 percent _doing_ something is significant, because I believe it will have a greater than 2 percent _effect_. If everyone only ever books 1 night, then the effect is EXACTLY 2 percent. But if the average length of a tent stay is greater than one night, and utilization is close enough to 100% (exact percentage is unclear and a more complicated math problem, but it is lower for a resort/class that has a lower inventory), the overall effect of those 2 percent will actually be greater as it creates holes that they can't fill easily except by other short stays.