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

[cakebaker]

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?

They paid for 1 night at the cheapest resort possible, and more than a few cancel their reservations, they just don't tell anyone that. The cost of the bands alone, depending on how many in their group, would be more.

So add $75 or $50 if it's the campgrounds, to the cost of an off site condo and it's still much less than staying at a comparable resort on site. You save a bundle if you book a fake reservation at a value or campgrounds, then book a nice condo off site.

It has nothing to do with where they sleep...

 

[asmit4]

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.

Please do tell me where I can get a 1200sq foot condo with a jacuzzi tub and 2 full bathrooms for 120/night on disney property.

And good luck to disney putting a stop to it- as I stated- how exactly would YOU put a stop to me booking THREE nights onsite and not sleeping in the beds???? Are you going to do a bed check???? People like you in glass houses crack me up!

Last year we booked 2 nights onsite and did not step ONE FOOT in the shoebox. I'd gladly book 3 nights. Good luck putting a stop to it!

 

[DVCMomBLT]

They paid for 1 night at the cheapest resort possible, and more than a few cancel their reservations, they just don't tell anyone that. The cost of the bands alone, depending on how many in their group, would be more.

So add $75 or $50 if it's the campgrounds, to the cost of an off site condo and it's still much less than staying at a comparable resort on site. You save a bundle if you book a fake reservation at a value or campgrounds, then book a nice condo off site.

It has nothing to do with where they sleep...

But your issue isn't really with "throwaway" room then. Your issue is that you can stay 1 night onsite and get a weeks worth of benefits. If they DID stay there 1 night, there is no throwaway room at all. So the only "loophole" here is that Disney should only offer onsite benefits (FP+, ADR, etc) for the number of nights you actually pay to stay onsite.

 

[cakebaker]

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

Bands are not tied to your reservation. They're linked to your ticket.

There are some who book for more than 1 night to get free parking longer- lol. I'm serious.

 

[snayak]

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?

So 2 or 3 posts before you somebody said it wasn't "worth it" for them to pay $700/night minimum (up to who knows for a similar sized space at Disney that they have offsite), and they were saving $4000 over the course of their vacation by staying off site. Maybe they only save $3000 if they booked an on-site room...so yes, they are having their cake (magic bands, parking, early FP+ & ADR reservations, etc) and eating it too (lower lodging rates).

I'd wager a room onsite is 50-75% higher than offsite, so even if you factor $100/night for a campsite room, over the course of 7 nights you still make out like a bandit. And we know hardly anybody books the throwaways for the entire durations of their stay (more like 1 night).

Would you book throwaway rooms if single night bookings were only allowed at the Grand Floridian Villas versus camp sites or value resorts? Why or why not?

Personally I don't care if people do it - however they should admit they are exploiting a loophole and gaming the system so that it benefits them, with no concern to how it affects other guests ability to stay on-site at a camp site or value resort (not Disney...they get their money either way. I bet they are thrilled with throwaway rooms, they don't even have to clean them!).

 

[asmit4]

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

They work for 2 days- both check in and check out days. We are staying in DVC for Thurs-Monday then checking out and staying at WBC so I was able to book MNSSHP FP for Monday for our group in advance- on Tuesday we are staying at WBC and enjoying the several pools they offer and slides and lazy river- no parks. Then we 'check in' to ASMu on Wednesday morning for 1 night. So I could book FPs for Wed/Thurs. for our group in advance. We check out of WBC on Friday to head home.

and to answer your question---NO I see absolutely no ethical issue with this whatsoever. As you said- you have to pay to play!....and I am....I'm paying Disney for rooms I don't need to get the benefits. PAYING to play- JUST like you said.

 

[DVCMomBLT]

So 2 or 3 posts before you somebody said it wasn't "worth it" for them to pay $700/night minimum (up to who knows for a similar sized space at Disney that they have offsite), and they were saving $4000 over the course of their vacation by staying off site. Maybe they only save $3000 if they booked an on-site room...so yes, they are having their cake (magic bands, parking, early FP+ & ADR reservations, etc) and eating it too (lower lodging rates).

I'd wager a room onsite is 50-75% higher than offsite, so even if you factor $100/night for a campsite room, over the course of 7 nights you still make out like a bandit. And we know hardly anybody books the throwaways for the entire durations of their stay (more like 1 night).

Would you book throwaway rooms if single night bookings were only allowed at the Grand Floridian Villas versus camp sites or value resorts? Why or why not?

I still don't get your argument. Staying at campgrounds gets you full onsite benefits. People are paying to stay at the campgrounds. They should get full onsite benefits even if they don't sleep there. I simply think your argument is misplaced. Really you are arguing that people that pay for campsites shouldn't get full onsite benefits.

 

[Missyrose]

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.


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.

If someone books a room for the night, what do you care what they do with it? They could sleep there one night, they could use it for a pizza party for their closest friends. Hell, they could use it to let their ponchos drip dry. They paid for that room and they get everything that comes with it.

Your problem is with Disney not the guests. If Disney had a problem with it, they'd change it. But the bottom line is Disney sees these rooms as found money. Someone pays for it, uses the room only lightly if at all and Disney keeps as much money as if someone had booked that room to sleep in.

 

[cakebaker]

Please do tell me where I can get a 1200sq foot condo with a jacuzzi tub and 2 full bathrooms for 120/night on disney property.

And good luck to disney putting a stop to it- as I stated- how exactly would YOU put a stop to me booking THREE nights onsite and not sleeping in the beds???? Are you going to do a bed check???? People like you in glass houses crack me up!

Last year we booked 2 nights onsite and did not step ONE FOOT in the shoebox. I'd gladly book 3 nights. Good luck putting a stop to it!

I didn't say you could get it for the same price. I said it's ridiculous to make a blanket statement that disney resorts are shoeboxes.

We each have our opinions on on site vs off. Personally, I think staying off site is horrid. I don't want to see that trashy stuff that lines the roads going in and out of Disney. If I had to stay at the nicest place they have off site, I'd stay home. I can't imagine not staying on site.

I don't think they can stop it entirely. There will always be those who will game the system. You want to pay for 3 nights hotel, go ahead. But I think you're the exception. I think requiring a minimum night stay will put a stop to enough of it that it makes those who still game the system irrelevant as far as affecting the real on site guest. It's still wrong, but at least it slows it down some.

 

[cakebaker]

If someone books a room for the night, what do you care what they do with it? They could sleep there one night, they could use it for a pizza party for their closest friends. Hell, they could use it to let their ponchos drip dry. They paid for that room and they get everything that comes with it.

Your problem is with Disney not the guests. If Disney had a problem with it, they'd change it. But the bottom line is Disney sees these rooms as found money. Someone pays for it, uses the room only lightly if at all and Disney keeps as much money as if someone had booked that room to sleep in.

I'm just not answering that silly response about caring where people sleep. It's been answered dozens of times. Not very original.

Found money???? Yeah, Disney can't wait to get their hands on that $50 for the campsite.

 

[asmit4]

I didn't say you could get it for the same price. I said it's ridiculous to make a blanket statement that disney resorts are shoeboxes.

We each have our opinions on on site vs off. Personally, I think staying off site is horrid. I don't want to see that trashy stuff that lines the roads going in and out of Disney. If I had to stay at the nicest place they have off site, I'd stay home. I can't imagine not staying on site.

I don't think they can stop it entirely. There will always be those who will game the system. You want to pay for 3 nights hotel, go ahead. But I think you're the exception. I think requiring a minimum night stay will put a stop to enough of it that it makes those who still game the system irrelevant as far as affecting the real on site guest. It's still wrong, but at least it slows it down some.

Clearly you need to do your research....Wyndham Bonnet Creek is UNDER the disney signs. It's 100% surrounded by disney owned property. Once we go under the disney signs- we NEVER leave. Check out the maps of where WBC is. It is right next to Caribbean Beach.

Disney has tried time and time again to BUY WBC...but they refuse to sell.

 

[Missyrose]

I didn't say you could get it for the same price. I said it's ridiculous to make a blanket statement that disney resorts are shoeboxes.

No blanket statements, got it.

Personally, I think staying off site is horrid. I don't want to see that trashy stuff that lines the roads going in and out of Disney. If I had to stay at the nicest place they have off site, I'd stay home. I can't imagine not staying on site.

 

[DVCMomBLT]

I'm just not answering that silly response about caring where people sleep. It's been answered dozens of times. Not very original.

Found money???? Yeah, Disney can't wait to get their hands on that $50 for the campsite.

I think your issue is that Disney does not charge enough for the campgrounds. Onsite benefits are a part of the cost of ALL rooms. From campgrounds to VGF grand villas. To me, there are only 2 real ways to "fix" this. One, take away onsite benefits from campgrounds. Two, charge more for campgrounds to reflect the "value" of the onsite benefits.

Personally, I think both of those are bad ideas.

 

[snayak]

I still don't get your argument. Staying at campgrounds gets you full onsite benefits. People are paying to stay at the campgrounds. They should get full onsite benefits even if they don't sleep there. I simply think your argument is misplaced. Really you are arguing that people that pay for campsites shouldn't get full onsite benefits.

No, my argument is that people pay the least possible amount (camp site) knowing full well that they are getting a better deal by paying for a night or 2 at a camp site and having their actual lodging be off-site.

They wants the perks of staying on-site, but the cost of staying off-site.

Lets do some example math, of which I made up the numbers, but they should be close.

Family of 6, wants 2 rooms & 2 baths for 7 nights

Onsite, need a suite or 2 rooms: $500/night = $3500
offsite (I searched HomeAway.com) = $1000 for the WEEK (and thats a higher cost one)
Campsite Booking for 1 night - $70, but you get 2 days parking & Magic bands for 6 = $108 in benefits AND FP+ and ADR early booking.

Net savings: $3500+$70 - $1000-$108 = $2462.

So they get all the perks of staying on site (normally costing $500/night), while really only spending $150/night (including the extra parking costs for 5 days)

And you don't see any issues with that? There is nothing Disney can do - if they remove on-site privileges to the camp sites then it hurts legitimate guests.

 

[DVCMomBLT]

No, my argument is that people pay the least possible amount (camp site) knowing full well that they are getting a better deal by paying for a night or 2 at a camp site and having their actual lodging be off-site.

They wants the perks of staying on-site, but the cost of staying off-site.

Lets do some example math, of which I made up all the numbers, but they should be close.

Family of 6, wants 2 rooms & 2 baths for 7 nights

Onsite, need a suite or 2 rooms: $500/night = $3500
offsite (I searched HomeAway.com) = $1000 for the WEEK (and thats a higher cost one)
Campsite Booking for 1 night - $70, but you get 2 days parking & Magic bands for 6 = $108 in benefits AND FP+ and ADR early booking.

Net savings: $3500+$70 - $1000-$108 = $2462.

So they get all the perks of staying on site (normally costing $500/night), while really only spending $150/night (including the extra parking costs for 5 days)

And you don't see any issues with that?

The only issue I have is the 1 night vs 1 week. If they booked 1 week campsite, I would have ZERO issues with it.

 

[Luckybee]

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.



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.



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.



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.

I'd agree that there is a higher likelihood that those onsite might do more dinners onsite if they dont have a car. Many ,many many repeat visitors to Disney have a vehicle. So while your newbie's may not venture off property the experienced Orlando visitor can, and often will. The contra is often true as well. From the 24th to the 28th we'll be at the Dolphin, for 12 days after that we're over at the Marriott World property at timeshares. During those 12 days we are doing dinner at Cal Grill, Via Napoli, Monsieur Paul's, CRT and V&A's . Other nights we're off property.
Strangely although Disney is losing money with us shopping less this trip than our usual because of FP timing (thats a discussion for another thread though) we've ended up dining on property far more than we have in the past, perhaps because we feel more connected to Disney this trip which I hate to admit is because of FP+. I think that was the psychology behind FP+ and it worked on us but it definitely would not have if we couldn't have obtained the FP's we wanted at the 30 day mark. I KNOW we couldnt have because I went into change some things then and there quite a few gone completely.

IMHO Disney isnt going to "fix" this because there isnt anything to "fix". The system is operating the way they have designed it to and they could have changed it if they so desired. To think otherwise is to think those who run Disney are fools, and while they may choose some rather foolish moves one thing they have been very good at of late is finding $'s from guests. I am quite confident Disney won't change this other than perhaps to make minimum stays. If they do we then have a choice to either stay on property (doubtful since I can get much better properties elsewhere for a better price), book a throwaway for longer, or not go. I can guarantee that they will not get our money if the FP system stays the same and we are relegated to the 30 day booking window.

And regarding your comment "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 dont wish to be the bearer of bad news but most hotels do not operate that way at all. It is common only in certain places at peak times of the year ie Xmas. Many 5* hotels consider 1 night stays to be their bread and butter. But on this I'm sure we'll agree...if Disney thought they could fill their hotels by only taking 2 night or more stays they would do it in a flash. Where our thoughts differ is that I dont see it happening anytime soon which would be equal to Disney turning away revenue ....not exactly their pattern of late

 

[asmit4]

No, my argument is that people pay the least possible amount (camp site) knowing full well that they are getting a better deal by paying for a night or 2 at a camp site and having their actual lodging be off-site.

They wants the perks of staying on-site, but the cost of staying off-site.

Lets do some example math, of which I made up the numbers, but they should be close.

Family of 6, wants 2 rooms & 2 baths for 7 nights

Onsite, need a suite or 2 rooms: $500/night = $3500
offsite (I searched HomeAway.com) = $1000 for the WEEK (and thats a higher cost one)
Campsite Booking for 1 night - $70, but you get 2 days parking & Magic bands for 6 = $108 in benefits AND FP+ and ADR early booking.

Net savings: $3500+$70 - $1000-$108 = $2462.

So they get all the perks of staying on site (normally costing $500/night), while really only spending $150/night (including the extra parking costs for 5 days)

And you don't see any issues with that?

So are you saying that only rich people or people who save for 3 or 4 years should be able to stay in a 2 bedroom condo onsite and get the benefits? That people who stay at values don't deserve the benefits?

You say 'they get all the perks of staying onsite while only spending 150/night'- about the cost of a value- or maybe a moderate in low season with a code.....SO with that said- do people who SLEEP in the beds at values deserve the onsite benefits or only those spending 300 a night or 500 a night- not 150 a night?

What if they made a 5 night minimum even for values and I still agreed to PAY the extra 550 bucks or so to get the onsite benefits and didn't sleep in the room- is that ENOUGH $$$ to spend to make you feel that I deserve the benefits?

 

[cakebaker]

I think your issue is that Disney does not charge enough for the campgrounds. Onsite benefits are a part of the cost of ALL rooms. From campgrounds to VGF grand villas. To me, there are only 2 real ways to "fix" this. One, take away onsite benefits from campgrounds. Two, charge more for campgrounds to reflect the "value" of the onsite benefits.

Personally, I think both of those are bad ideas.

No, I think a minimum night stay would cut it back enough so that it's at least not impacting on site guests.

But the idea of cutting benefits depending on where you stay on site is not a new idea to Disney. They've done it with the free dining--thanks to those who ran with that loophole for a while. So who knows what they'll do. That's the problem- if Disney perceives a problem, they don't always fix it in a way that people like.

 

[Luckybee]

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.

this^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Hej2222]

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?

I have been reading this thread since last year. People book throwaway rooms at other hotels, too - not just Disney resorts, for different reasons. I have booked in the past beach hotels for 8 nights instead of 7 nights just to shower and eat dinner before we left home. We did not sleep in the room for that last night. On another trip when we rented a house in Orlado for a week, we also drove in the middle of our stay to Clearwater Beach and stayed in the hotel on the beach for 1 night. We did not sleep in our rental house that night - was that unethical as we were not using the accomodations we paid for? Last year I booked a throwaway room at AOA for our MK day. We parked our car, checked-in and took a bus to MK. After the parade we came to the resort, had coffee in the room, showered, kids took a nap, DD had her breathing treatment - then we took a bus back to MK, watch fireworks, picked up our car from AOA parking lot and went back to the rental house. So how much use of the room that it is paid for makes it "ethical" or "legal"? It is paid for - it can be used for sleeping or maybe just for resting or not at all if the person who paid for that room decided not to use it. If the room is paid for and I want to cancel it after the cancellation deadline, Disney is not going to give me the deposit back...
Just my thoughts...