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

[DVCMomBLT]

This "ethical" debate is laughable. What if you book a 2 bedroom instead of a studio for your family of 4? Maybe you just want a room for your luggage. What if you book a room for your last day just so you can have a place to shower, and don't even plan on staying overnight? The idea that you are "taking" something from someone else is ridiculous. If you reserve and pay for your room, you have done NOTHING wrong. Legally OR ethically.

 

[nugov2]

It's definitely not breaking any rules.

All I'm saying is the repercussions of doing this aren't going to be pretty. They never have been any time Disney "fixed" something that was being taken advantage of.

But then, those who stay off site don't care what benefits on site guests lose because of their actions. Just the way it is...

Maybe I'll go tie up those fp's. After all, I shouldn't care what effect my actions have on others.

Go right ahead...your prerogative FWIW, booking FP+ you have no intentions of using in any way is different than booking, paying for and using a room. Just because my definition of use is different than yours doesn't mean it is wrong. Your example is the same as me booking a bunch of rooms for one night then waiting until the last minute and canceling the rooms so I still get a refund. One is purposely trying to block people from getting something, the other is a true intention to pay for and use something even if it isn't under the terms that all find acceptable. If you truly think that there is a small possibility you may go on a trip and can book the FP I say do it. IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. And no I don't care if me being an effective planner means that someone else can't get a hard to get resie or FP. Just like I don't care if I book a vip party means that someone who didn't pay the money now can't see Maleficent while my family can. I can't worry about if booking things my family wants to do in the appropriate way impacts someone who waited longer to book their vacation. As long as WDW is up front when something is being booked that those are the terms I think all is fair.

If someone wants to eat at BOG every night of their vacation that is perfectly acceptable and does not make that family selfish. It is their vacation they paid good money for and were diligent and also a little lucky they got it every night, but why shouldn't they be able to do what they want to do on their vacation?? I just don't get the logic that people shouldn't do something because it may not be fair to some who can't get it. It is just sour grapes and honestly almost every person who complains is because they are one of the ones who can't get what they want so they blame others for it. Just like in the thread started today where someone wants tiers at MK so it is fair and people get an A&E FP. They only want something like that so they can get what they want. Isn't that just as selfish?

 

[nugov2]

One more thing I will add to the discussion on the throwaway concept. I would venture a guess that besides WDW liking the concept just b/c they are getting money for nothing, they also like the guests who do this. Here is why. Someone who will pay for a room and not use it just to get great ADR's and FP is probably not a frugal family. They will pay a premium to have a great vacation if they have to. We are off site not to save money, but to have nicer accommodations. We still plan to spend around $6000 over 9 days just at WDW eating, at the parks, on extra parties and experiences. If I couldn't get these ADR's or the right FP, I'd head over to Universal for more than just the two days we are planning to spend there during this trip(with another *gasp* throwaway room). We have been to WDW and I'd have no problem exploring other parks in the area if we felt like we couldn't get the FP/ADR's we want to make our trip what we want it to be. I'm not going to spend that kind of money to wait in long lines and eat CS meals. So by allowing the dreaded throwaway they are locking my family in for more days there b/c we will have no problems getting a schedule that we will like(even if it isn't everything we want) compared to what we would get without the throwaway.

 

[doconeill]

Ethics are subjective. Rules and laws are based on the ethics of the majority. And the majority changes over time. Remember when it was perfectly acceptable to spank your kids? Now it is "unethical".

I also think people are ready to jump on the "throwaway room" bandwagon as being their cause for not being able to book a room - when there is no real evidence that there is any great percentage of guests that are doing this anyways.

And digging this back up...

The idea that Disney is happy just to get the $75 for a room just isn't true.
For the campgrounds it's an even more ridiculous notion.

Perhaps if they're pulling in $500 a night for a deluxe, that might be true, but they built cheap resorts to get people to physically stay on site that couldn't otherwise afford it. If you are physically there, that's where you spend your money. They aren't making the big money on the room, they're making it on your food and entertainment and souvenir purchases.

And they are still getting that money. Maybe not at the resort itself, but the whole point is to go to the parks, where they are presumably spending money still.

If the argument is that they aren't spending any additional money at the resort, then we should probably ban all the people staying at value resorts as only a "place to sleep", since they are doing the same thing.

Also, it clogs their reservation system. A guest who wants to book a 10 night stay might not be able to get their length of stay because on at least 1 night, the rooms are all booked. That's all it takes to stop them from booking, so Disney just lost a ton of money in reservations, dining and purchasing power and got $75 in exchange.

No evidence that it does this any more than it did before. Disney has a lot of data has to how people typically book rooms. Plus, people book 1-night rooms all the time and USE them. See the above post where they bookended an off-site stay with one night each on-site. By that argument the same problem comes up.

The fact is that people book rooms of differing lengths all the time, and they all cause scheduling issues. No one does throwaway DVC reservations, yet I can have trouble getting a single room for every night of a stay sometimes.

In Computer Science, it's a form of what we call the "knapsack problem". You have so many things you want to put in it, but a limited size. You need to find an optimal fit. Disney's been working on that problem for a long time and are probably in fact the best at it.

That said, there have been reports that at certain times and resorts, they've started requiring a minimum two night stay.

It also takes away fp availability for those it was intended for- length of stay on site guests. This makes for ( and you only have to read these boards to see it) very unhappy on site guests.

FP+ is for all guests. Disney said that right up front, but people insisted that it would be for guests only. Yet that's not what happened.

The only difference is in the booking window. And KNOW ONE knows that the reason they couldn't get the A&E FP+ was because of all these evil, evil throwaway room people.

Lastly, when they do figure it out, they'll fix it and it's could well come in the form of requiring minimum stays. If you have to book 2 or 3 nights to get those perks, you're not near as likely to do it. That hurts those who have a legitimate reasons for booking a single night.

That is, again, if they consider it a problem. They don't seem to consider it a problem (CM's opinions aside) yet, since they've done near nothing about it. But if they do, I think you'll see that the 60-day perk will require a 2+ day reservation. Yes, those with "legit" 1-night stays will be affected, but there is no way to distinguish.

Either that, or the chronic "abusers" will be flagged and they will address them more directly.

IF we see Disney do something, then we'll know they consider it a problem.

What's funny is that this same exact concept was around LONG BEFORE FP+...throwaway rooms for a long time were booked for Extra Magic Hours, and that of course was why they were crowded. Longer throwaway reservations were booked (and then canceled) to get an advantage with dining reservations, and that of course was why you couldn't get CRT reservations... (he says facetiously...)

 

[cakebaker]

And they are still getting that money. Maybe not at the resort itself, but the whole point is to go to the parks, where they are presumably spending money still.

If the argument is that they aren't spending any additional money at the resort, then we should probably ban all the people staying at value resorts as only a "place to sleep", since they are doing the same thing.

No, they aren't. If you stay off site, you can eat outside the parks. You're tempted to do things you see while you're offsite. Value resorts were built to get people on site that couldn't afford the more expensive resorts. Why? Because if you're on site, you spend more money- you dedicate more of your vacation dollars within Disney. There may be exceptions to this, but in general that's how it works.

No evidence that it does this any more than it did before. Disney has a lot of data has to how people typically book rooms. Plus, people book 1-night rooms all the time and USE them. See the above post where they bookended an off-site stay with one night each on-site. By that argument the same problem comes up.

You know there's no evidence? You're privy to Disney's studies to know this? The practice of throwaway rooms caused by the new fp+ system is new enough that I doubt there's been time to accurately gauge it.

No hotel anywhere likes 1 night stays- it ties up their availability to longer stays. It's why a lot of hotels have minimum stay requirements. I look for Disney to go to this eventually.

FP+ is for all guests.

The extended time is for on site guests only and that in effect, makes the 30 day window useless for the popular rides. It's a huge perk for on site guests. I never thought they'd make it on site only- although it's not a bad idea to do it like Universal does- charge off site guests for the perk. That would at least stop them from clogging reservations without hurting legitimate on site guests.

Of course it makes it harder to get the hot fp's. The only question is, how much harder. I'm confident Disney never intended for people to book throwaway rooms to get the perks anymore than they intended for them to do it to get free food. They fixed that, and I'm sure they'll fix this.

IF we see Disney do something, then we'll know they consider it a problem.

On this, we agree. Where we disagree is if it will happen or not. Problem is, some on site guests are getting tired of getting penalized to prevent people from taking advantage. I'm one of them. I don't expect you to care, it's my problem not yours. So, I hope they fix it, you hope they don't.

Talk about amusing- It's funny how this forum is filled with people complaining what a failure the fp+ system is, how you can't get what you want at the 60 day mark, yet this thread is filled with people getting exactly what they want and only because they could book 60 days out.

 

[doconeill]

No, they aren't. If you stay off site, you can eat outside the parks. You're tempted to do things you see while you're offsite. Value resorts were built to get people on site that couldn't afford the more expensive resorts. Why? Because if you're on site, you spend more money- you dedicate more of your vacation dollars within Disney. There may be exceptions to this, but in general that's how it works.

Right, but what they are getting now is money for a room that they weren't getting from that person before. Otherwise their spend in the parks is the same. So they are still getting more income out of that person.

Whether that person is spending less than one who occupied that room for one night is debatable. I know a number that stay on site yet eat offsite still to save on meals costs.

You know there's no evidence? You're privy to Disney's studies to know this? The practice of throwaway rooms caused by the new fp+ system is new enough that I doubt there's been time to accurately gauge it.

I'm talking about from the guest's point of view. There is no public information to say that throwaway rooms are in fact causing a shortage of availability of FP+ at 60 days, or a shortage of rooms available to guests who would use them. We only have anecdotal evidence here from people who say they are or may book throwaway rooms, but we don't know if it is done to any effective degree that it is actually having a direct effect.

Disney does have that information.

My point is that you don't know if you couldn't get an A&E FP+ at 60 days from your check-in date because someone booked a throwaway room and got it before you, or someone who simply checks in the day before you used their 60+X window to their advantage over yours.

The extended time is for on site guests only and that in effect, makes the 30 day window useless for the popular rides. It's a huge perk for on site guests. I never thought they'd make it on site only- although it's not a bad idea to do it like Universal does- charge off site guests for the perk. That would at least stop them from clogging reservations without hurting legitimate on site guests.

Which is why I've mentioned many times that they could create "ghost" rooms in a sense for those that want to pay. Or do it more directly. Since booking the room is essentially paying for the privilege.

Of course it makes it harder to get the hot fp's. The only question is, how much harder. I'm confident Disney never intended for people to book throwaway rooms to get the perks anymore than they intended for them to do it to get free food. They fixed that, and I'm sure they'll fix this.

I don't expect you to care, it's my problem not yours. So, I hope they fix it, you hope they don't.

At NO POINT have I ever said that I hope they don't. I said they'll only fix it if THEY consider it a problem.

Talk about amusing- It's funny how this forum is filled with people complaining what a failure the fp+ system is, how you can't get what you want at the 60 day mark, yet this thread is filled with people getting exactly what they want and only because they could book 60 days out.

Not sure if you're referring to me exactly. All I can say is that we went at a pretty busy time, and we got FP+ for everything we wanted, and at LESS than 60 days (I wasn't able to do anything until at least 58 days). Including an A&E FP+. So no one doing throwaway rooms were affecting our ability to get FP+ at all.

 

[cakebaker]

Not sure if you're referring to me exactly. All I can say is that we went at a pretty busy time, and we got FP+ for everything we wanted, and at LESS than 60 days (I wasn't able to do anything until at least 58 days). Including an A&E FP+. So no one doing throwaway rooms were affecting our ability to get FP+ at all.

No, I wasn't referring to you on this.

We had the same experience. We usually book our vacation a year or more in advance. This year, we've booked two, both of them only a month apart and both right at the 60 day mark. We had little or no problems booking the fp's we wanted.

Yet the vast majority of people on these forums say they can't do what we need- at a very busy time of year. Unless it's someone who booked a throwaway- they seem to have near 100% success in booking at the 60 day mark. There's something wrong there and not sure which one is not true.

But there are plenty of people who do say they can't get them and anyone booking a throwaway is taking fp+ out of the pool. Time will tell if that's a significant number or not.

My opinion of the practice of booking a throwaway is irrelevant. My problem with it is simple. I think it's going to be enough of a problem, just like free food was, that Disney will decide to fix it and I, among many, will pay the price for it.

 

[mom2rtk]

No, I wasn't referring to you on this.

We had the same experience. We usually book our vacation a year or more in advance. This year, we've booked two, both of them only a month apart and both right at the 60 day mark. We had little or no problems booking the fp's we wanted.

Yet the vast majority of people on these forums say they can't do what we need- at a very busy time of year. Unless it's someone who booked a throwaway- they seem to have near 100% success in booking at the 60 day mark. There's something wrong there and not sure which one is not true.

But there are plenty of people who do say they can't get them and anyone booking a throwaway is taking fp+ out of the pool. Time will tell if that's a significant number or not.

My opinion of the practice of booking a throwaway is irrelevant. My problem with it is simple. I think it's going to be enough of a problem, just like free food was, that Disney will decide to fix it and I, among many, will pay the price for it.

So all the people who have posted about trouble getting the FPs they want in Sept, Oct and now November were all mistaken?

Not everyone has the same experience as you. Some are booking for larger parties. Some only have a couple days in that specific park they are looking at.

 

[doconeill]

So all the people who have posted about trouble getting the FPs they want in Sept, Oct and now November were all mistaken?

Not everyone has the same experience as you. Some are booking for larger parties. Some only have a couple days in that specific park they are looking at.

I don't think they are saying that at all. To the contrary, they pointed them out.

I'm puzzled by the claim that throwaways have 100% success however. They have the same odds to get FP+ as anyone else when the window opens. Now, they may be more fanatic about it - they are booking a room to get the window, and are probably online at midnight ET to get them first thing. But anyone can do that.

They also get a limited advantage - those with longer stays get a longer booking window advantage.

One thing to keep in mind is that you will very likely have less success getting what you want at the start of the resort stay than at the end, because of the +X booking advantage. I think it might be a better strategy to book later in your stay first to get the more popular attractions.

Lastly, I'd just point out that "a majority of posts" here about not getting the FP+ they want does not equate to a majority of guests. You are more likely to see complaints than successes in a public forum, and the DIS is a small percentage of overall guests.

 

[cakebaker]

So all the people who have posted about trouble getting the FPs they want in Sept, Oct and now November were all mistaken?

Not everyone has the same experience as you. Some are booking for larger parties. Some only have a couple days in that specific park they are looking at.

I can see where what I said is confusing, sorry about that.

No, I wasn't meaning to compare my experience to those who have had trouble. I am comparing the fact that so many who book throwaways say they get what they want at the 60 days- it's why they booked a throwaway, yet on site guests who book at 60 days, by a vast majority, say they can't what then need. I find it puzzling.

If indeed, at the 60 day window, you cannot get the popular fp's- then what's the advantage of booking a throwaway? The less popular are not hard to get at 30 days.

I absolutely admit that my experience may not be the majority experience.

 

[cakebaker]

One thing to keep in mind is that you will very likely have less success getting what you want at the start of the resort stay than at the end, because of the +X booking advantage. I think it might be a better strategy to book later in your stay first to get the more popular attractions.

Lastly, I'd just point out that "a majority of posts" here about not getting the FP+ they want does not equate to a majority of guests. You are more likely to see complaints than successes in a public forum, and the DIS is a small percentage of overall guests.

Yes, that was our strategy- we booked from our last day forward.

I absolutely agree that what the people posting on this forum think does not constitute anything close to what the majority of people visiting Disney think.

 

[asmit4]

I can't speak for others but for me- disney is getting a TON of $$$ from us and we did book a throwaway room. Most people who want a throwaway are doing so because they are planning a large disney vacation with lots of onsite meals and FPs. We have lots of meals booked, and plan to eat all meals except breakfast onsite. I'm on easywdw looking at all of their new products available (new blog) and figuring out what I want to buy.

Our problem is that I refuse to be 'forced' to stay in a 'shoebox' of a room in order to get the 'benefits' of staying onsite. I want BOTH. I want the space AND the benefits. WHY should we have to suffer sleeping in a small room just so we can book ADRs at 180+10? Is that disney's magic? To force people to stay in crappy small rooms just to get to ride 7DMT without an hour wait??

If Disney would just allow us to BUY the benefits- we'd do it. ....and if Disney forces to book 2 nights or even 3 nights....we will STILL do it. Given what we pay to go to disney an onsite value is a drop in the bucket for us- even at 3 nights.

 

[cakebaker]

Our problem is that I refuse to be 'forced' to stay in a 'shoebox' of a room in order to get the 'benefits' of staying onsite. I want BOTH. I want the space AND the benefits. WHY should we have to suffer sleeping in a small room just so we can book ADRs at 180+10? Is that disney's magic? To force people to stay in crappy small rooms just to get to ride 7DMT without an hour wait??

You obviously have not looked at anything but a value resort.

Why should you have to? Because that's the way Disney decided to do it. You don't have to like it, you don't have to go to Disney, but you don't get to decide how they run their business. Neither do I.

I'd put a stop to throwaways right now. But I don't run the company. If and when they decide to stop it, you won't have a choice. Right now, there's a loophole and you can use it all you like. I don't think it'll be there long.

 

[letsgoagainsoon]

I'm sorry in advance, but I don't understand this at all?? I haven't been to Disney in 2 years and I'm not completely familiar with the bands. But, what you are saying is people are booking rooms and not using them just to get the bands to use FP??

 

[cakebaker]

I'm sorry in advance, but I don't understand this at all?? I haven't been to Disney in 2 years and I'm not completely familiar with the bands. But, what you are saying is people are booking rooms and not using them just to get the bands to use FP??

Yes, that's what they're doing. I've read lots of posts where people did it just to get the bands-did the math and a campground reservation was less than getting bands for their group. I'm not exactly why you'd want to spend money on bands, but what do I know.

 

[nugov2]

You obviously have not looked at anything but a value resort.

Why should you have to? Because that's the way Disney decided to do it. You don't have to like it, you don't have to go to Disney, but you don't get to decide how they run their business. Neither do I.

I'd put a stop to throwaways right now. But I don't run the company. If and when they decide to stop it, you won't have a choice. Right now, there's a loophole and you can use it all you like. I don't think it'll be there long.

I've looked at all they offer. I have also stayed at some of what they offer. The cheapest room that would fit our needs would cost us $700 a night so for our trip $6300. In addition to all that we want we would be looking at 14,000+ for our 9 day vacation. Not worth it for WDW IMO. We are saving about $4000 on our accommodations by staying in a 6bdrm home. If I booked onsite for a week and didn't use it I'd only be spending an extra $1000. For me it would be worth it if the perks were of value to me. We would still be coming out way ahead and be staying in much better accommodations. I'll take 3,000 square feet of luxury and WDW theming any day of the week over even the largest suite WDW offers.

 

[snayak]

I'm sorry in advance, but I don't understand this at all?? I haven't been to Disney in 2 years and I'm not completely familiar with the bands. But, what you are saying is people are booking rooms and not using them just to get the bands to use FP??

People are booking the cheapest possible room (usually a camp site) for 1 night in order to get Magic Bands ($13/person), parking (2 days @ $15/day), and early access to FP+ & ADR reservations, while still staying off-property at a significant savings.

Our problem is that I refuse to be 'forced' to stay in a 'shoebox' of a room in order to get the 'benefits' of staying onsite. I want BOTH. I want the space AND the benefits. WHY should we have to suffer sleeping in a small room just so we can book ADRs at 180+10? Is that disney's magic? To force people to stay in crappy small rooms just to get to ride 7DMT without an hour wait??

We are staying in a 2 floor club level suite at Boardwalk Inn...to call the rooms a "shoebox" is very disingenuous. I'd wager it costs 50-75% more though. Gotta pay to play.

I appreciate the fact that you admitted you purposely exploit a loophole to gain the perks of staying on-property while also enjoying the benefit of lower costs of staying off-property.

People really feel there is no ethical issue with this?

 

[cakebaker]

People are booking the cheapest possible room (usually a camp site) for 1 night in order to get Magic Bands ($13/person), parking (2 days @ $15/day), and early access to FP+ & ADR reservations, while still staying off-property at a significant savings.



We are staying in a 2 floor club level suite at Boardwalk Inn...to call the rooms a "shoebox" is very disingenuous. I'd wager it costs 50-75% more though. Gotta pay to play.

I appreciate the fact that you admitted you purposely exploit a loophole to gain the perks of staying on-property while also enjoying the benefit of lower costs of staying off-property.

People really feel there is no ethical issue with this?

I agree, no one in the Disney area can do it like Disney. It costs, but their nicer resorts are vacations in and of themselves. We've stayed at the Boardwalk Villas- they're so nice. No off site I know of is going to let me watch the TOT outside my window as I fall asleep.

I loved the all caps I want BOTH!!...For some reason I got a mental picture of Veruca from Willy Wonka.

I'm pretty sure they know there's an ethical issue. I think they just don't care that there is. And remember, there's quite a few who don't keep the reservation- they don't talk about it much here anymore because they get fried when they do. But right now, there's no reason not to cancel the room- other than ethics of course.

I've looked at all they offer.

Of course there are circumstances where the price may be prohibitive or doesn't fit a particular need, but to say that Disney resorts are cramped shoeboxes is just ridiculous.

We don't travel with a huge group. I don't want to stay in a house. I want to feel like I'm on vacation. But for others, that's the way to go. That's great. I'm not debating the value of staying on site vs off. I'm saying that if you don't stay on site- and I mean stay on site, not book a fake reservation- then you aren't entitled to have the perks. Even if you find a loophole that lets you. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. 5 yr olds know that.

 

[DVCMomBLT]

People are booking the cheapest possible room (usually a camp site) for 1 night in order to get Magic Bands ($13/person), parking (2 days @ $15/day), and early access to FP+ & ADR reservations, while still staying off-property at a significant savings.



We are staying in a 2 floor club level suite at Boardwalk Inn...to call the rooms a "shoebox" is very disingenuous. I'd wager it costs 50-75% more though. Gotta pay to play.

I appreciate the fact that you admitted you purposely exploit a loophole to gain the perks of staying on-property while also enjoying the benefit of lower costs of staying off-property.

People really feel there is no ethical issue with this?

That doesn't make any sense. How did they enjoy the benefit of lower costs? They PAID to stay at Disney AND to stay offsite. Is your issue really that they didn't sleep there? What if they slept there for an hour? 2?

 

[letsgoagainsoon]

People are booking the cheapest possible room (usually a camp site) for 1 night in order to get Magic Bands ($13/person), parking (2 days @ $15/day), and early access to FP+ & ADR reservations, while still staying off-property at a significant savings. We are staying in a 2 floor club level suite at Boardwalk Inn...to call the rooms a "shoebox" is very disingenuous. I'd wager it costs 50-75% more though. Gotta pay to play. I appreciate the fact that you admitted you purposely exploit a loophole to gain the perks of staying on-property while also enjoying the benefit of lower costs of staying off-property. People really feel there is no ethical issue with this?

But do the magic bands only work for one day in the park if they are only booked for one day? Or are they booking multiple nights and not staying?

So confused lol