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

[snayak]

Do you have an ethical problem with this?

Book a 1 night campground stay and use it.
Go stay with your parents for the next 6 nights.

Is it OK if the person who stayed at the campground books ADR's for all 7 nights?

Personally, I don't think it is - but whatever, if you think it's cool then good for you.

Is it OK they get $50 worth of magic bands because its cheaper to book a throwaway room than buy them separately at $13/each?

They are NOT getting a week's worth of benefits for one night. Not sure where you are getting that from.

They get a magicband, and two days of parking and EMH access. They can book an extra day if ADRs at the 180 day window and an extra worth of FP+ at the 60 day window. The major difference is that they can continue to book FP+ 60 days out from any given day after the reservation until their check-in date.

How is that not a weeks worth of benefits (minus parking, which they would pay anyway)? In the FP+ thread people will sacrifice their own parents for an A&E FP+. The ability to book ADRs & FP+ is a huge benefit.

They are getting 2 days worth of parking, and a magic band for each member of their party - any more than 3 people and you come out ahead, and the FP+ and ADR perks. And the benefit of staying off-site (whether you want to view that as a cost saving, or more amenities for the price, either way).

So if you take 3 parties, with the exact same details (size, dates, touring plans, desired ADRs, etc) but one stays on site, one does throwaway room, and one stays completely off-property, who comes out ahead?

 

[cakebaker]

Is it OK they get $50 worth of magic bands because its cheaper to book a throwaway room than buy them separately at $13/each?

I read a thread not long ago where someone had 10 people all told in their different groups and were staying off site. They booked a campsite just to get the bands- 10 bands for $50 is a heckuva deal. And that's rack rate- pretty sure anyone that does this looks for discounts too.

And as I've said- there is an untold number who don't even keep the reservation at all. There's a whole long thread discussing what you do or don't lose if you cancel the throwaway.

Don't tell me this was Disney's intent...it wasn't. They just didn't do a great job of tightening the system.

 

[Luckybee]

They are NOT getting a week's worth of benefits for one night. Not sure where you are getting that from.

They get a magicband, and two days of parking and EMH access. They can book an extra day if ADRs at the 180 day window and an extra worth of FP+ at the 60 day window. The major difference is that they can continue to book FP+ 60 days out from any given day after the reservation until their check-in date.

As can anyone who books a split stay with an on property/off property segment (a high percentage of Disney guests btw) or AP holders. The morality police seem to be ok with someone booking one night at Disney then going elsewhere so long as they sleep in the room. Fortunately for the rest of us Disney doesnt agree with them. So if anyone actually cares what the morality police think as opposed to following the protocols that Disney has make sure you catch a nap in your throwaway....then apparently it becomes acceptable

 

[snayak]

If I am going to pay $700 a night for a room it better have some great perks and none are offered at WDW IMO. It is a glorified Marriott(not that there is anything wrong with that), but not worth that price tag. I won't pay a inflated cost for what I am getting just because it is WDW. I want to enjoy the accommodations and I won't staying onsite

No disagreement from me here. When I go to WDW, I always stay at the Swan using points (thank you business travel!). Since I usually went alone I was hardly ever in the hotel, but I absolutely understand the need for a sanctuary, especially with a large group. I'm going with my (new) DW this fall but still don't think we'll be in the room very much at all.

The philosophical argument we're having just deals with the perks of staying on-site. So many people are paying a kings ransom to stay on property (for less amenities per dollar in my opinion) where some people are advocating booking a cheap throwaway room to enjoy those benefits, while finding other accommodations more to their liking.

In my mind, that is absolutely a loophole being exploited, and I am against it. I'd imagine the number of throwaway rooms would decline if single nights were forced at a higher cost property (hypothetically), and in my mind if you book a room for the entire duration of your stay you are absolutely entitled to the benefits that go along with it, whether you sleep there or not.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter...just having an animated discussion, where I'm taking the counterpoint.

 

[nugov2]

No disagreement from me here. When I go to WDW, I always stay at the Swan using points (thank you business travel!). Since I usually went alone I was hardly ever in the hotel, but I absolutely understand the need for a sanctuary, especially with a large group. I'm going with my (new) DW this fall but still don't think we'll be in the room very much at all.

The philosophical argument we're having just deals with the perks of staying on-site. So many people are paying a kings ransom to stay on property (for less amenities per dollar in my opinion) where some people are advocating booking a cheap throwaway room to enjoy those benefits, while finding other accommodations more to their liking.

In my mind, that is absolutely a loophole being exploited, and I am against it. I'd imagine the number of throwaway rooms would decline if single nights were forced at a higher cost property (hypothetically), and in my mind if you book a room for the entire duration of your stay you are absolutely entitled to the benefits that go along with it, whether you sleep there or not.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter...just having an animated discussion, where I'm taking the counterpoint.

In your mind, but not in WDW's mind. It is not hard for them to change the booking to the same as EMH and parking. They don't because they think it is perfectly fine. It is silly to think WDW wouldn't change this ASAP if they had a problem. The real problem is that there are people who have their undies in a wad b/c they don't feel it is fair. Just like their are people who don't think it is fair they offer VIP tours and parties for an upcharge. WDW is just like every other place in the world...they speak in the language of $$$$. If you have it they will listen. Doesn't matter if it is a lot or a little b/c they certainly want everyone to spend their $$$ there, but they will gladly take more if others want to hand it over for more "perks". That is exactly what people are doing and with the MB tracking they can see that the throwaway room scum are in WDW much longer than their hotel room was booked for eating onsite, spending more money than they may have otherwise without getting the perks they got by booking the room. Here is the big thing....WDW doesn't have to work as hard to get the $$$ from their onsite guests, so having a draw for more money from offsite guests is huge for WDW. Lets say every offsite guest spends $1000 at WDW, but every offsite with a throwaway spends $1200 in addition to the room cost because they have more ADR's and a better overall attitude for the great FP's they could secure. Do you think the big wigs at WDW think that extra 20% bump up is worth it? Do you think they are not tracking and watching these trends? If it turns out to cost them more in MB than it is worth they will change it and only time will tell. For all anyone knows this was all in the plans with making FP booking tied to a one night stay only. I know for a fact we will spend a lot more money at WDW b/c we will have more of what we want.

 

[Luckybee]

No disagreement from me here. When I go to WDW, I always stay at the Swan using points (thank you business travel!). Since I usually went alone I was hardly ever in the hotel, but I absolutely understand the need for a sanctuary, especially with a large group. I'm going with my (new) DW this fall but still don't think we'll be in the room very much at all.

The philosophical argument we're having just deals with the perks of staying on-site. So many people are paying a kings ransom to stay on property (for less amenities per dollar in my opinion) where some people are advocating booking a cheap throwaway room to enjoy those benefits, while finding other accommodations more to their liking.

In my mind, that is absolutely a loophole being exploited, and I am against it. I'd imagine the number of throwaway rooms would decline if single nights were forced at a higher cost property (hypothetically), and in my mind if you book a room for the entire duration of your stay you are absolutely entitled to the benefits that go along with it, whether you sleep there or not.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter...just having an animated discussion, where I'm taking the counterpoint.

I agree that the number of throwaways would go down if your hypothetical is correct. Then those who wish to do so would once again have to play by Disney's rules. (we would undoubtedly book one because as I said before based on my experience with FP this time I would not go back to D without the 60 day window period)
Where we differ is that I see nothing in the booking of the room that one pays for as unethical in any way shape or form. I find it interesting that few who do dont respond to the posters who have given other examples of this very same scenario. For example the person who drives in for the day and wants a room to rest in, or the person going to the beach for the day, and takes a room to change and shower or in order to get cushy lounge chairs on the beach, an airport layover to relax or shower or just to store luggage while touring, how about while on a cruise booking a room on Paradise Island at the Comfort Inn(think thats the hotel) in order to use the waterpark at Atlantis(its a benefit there)....they actually sell room just for that purpose.

I reiterate though that I see a big difference between the true throwaway room and the idea that some have morphed it into which is booking with the idea of cancelling the room later. That is not within the rules that Disney has laid out and that imho would be a loophole. I could care less if someone else does it (since it is none of my business what others do) but I personally wouldnt be comfortable with that.

I'm usually pretty good at seeing both sides of an equation and tend to often favour the underdog...but in this scenario I just cant grasp how anyone can see the true throwaway as anything but acceptable. Would you (those who are finding some issue with this) feel better if Disney actually came out and said feel free to book a room for this purpose ? Because if so call and ask....point blank. I just did so again(because I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone) and even told the CM why I was asking. After the CM laughed I was told that they do not discourage this, and they was quite aware that there are "alot" of people doing this "although we think you'd enjoy yourself more if you actually stayed in the room "

 

[Luckybee]

In your mind, but not in WDW's mind. It is not hard for them to change the booking to the same as EMH and parking. They don't because they think it is perfectly fine. It is silly to think WDW wouldn't change this ASAP if they had a problem. The real problem is that there are people who have their undies in a wad b/c they don't feel it is fair. Just like their are people who don't think it is fair they offer VIP tours and parties for an upcharge. WDW is just like every other place in the world...they speak in the language of $$$$. If you have it they will listen. Doesn't matter if it is a lot or a little b/c they certainly want everyone to spend their $$$ there, but they will gladly take more if others want to hand it over for more "perks". That is exactly what people are doing and with the MB tracking they can see that the throwaway room scum are in WDW much longer than their hotel room was booked for eating onsite, spending more money than they may have otherwise without getting the perks they got by booking the room. Here is the big thing....WDW doesn't have to work as hard to get the $$$ from their onsite guests, so having a draw for more money from offsite guests is huge for WDW. Lets say every offsite guest spends $1000 at WDW, but every offsite with a throwaway spends $1200 in addition to the room cost because they have more ADR's and a better overall attitude for the great FP's they could secure. Do you think the big wigs at WDW think that extra 20% bump up is worth it? Do you think they are not tracking and watching these trends? If it turns out to cost them more in MB than it is worth they will change it and only time will tell. For all anyone knows this was all in the plans with making FP booking tied to a one night stay only. I know for a fact we will spend a lot more money at WDW b/c we will have more of what we want.

They would change it in a split second if they weren't benefiting from it

 

[jimandami]

Then you and I agree- if they do away with the ability to book fp beyond your reservation dates, I have no problems with it either. I shouldn't be able to go in and book with my AP when I have no reservations for 60 days out either. FP+ needs to be tied to reservations- at least for 60 day access and only for the dates of reservations. Honestly, I wouldn't stay at Disney just for the fp+ perk. I think that whole bit about having to fight to get them is so overblown, but a lot of people have bought into that hype. We stay at Disney for the total immersion we experience. I don't care how close a property is- DTD hotels are "close"- It's not Disney. No EMH, no Disney transportation, no Disney theme, no feel of Disney at all. Off site hotels do not feel like Disney. We tried the Swan/Dolphin and don't like it just for that reason.

I agree that most FP+ res don't need to be "fought over," but, if you want Anna and Elsa, you absolutely have to believe the hype and jump through hoops! We have a 7 night stay and I stayed up until midnight (for me, that is about 4 hours after bedtime!!) and had to go to day 7 to get 4 FP for Anna and Elsa! I know that's just stupid but it's reality. My DD5 isn't much more rides and literally the only things she asked for in our upcoming trip were to meet and Anna and Elsa and to get a "cookie from the temporary!"

 

[snayak]

In your mind, but not in WDW's mind. It is not hard for them to change the booking to the same as EMH and parking. They don't because they think it is perfectly fine. It is silly to think WDW wouldn't change this ASAP if they had a problem. The real problem is that there are people who have their undies in a wad b/c they don't feel it is fair.

You are absolutely correct, it is only in my mind. My posts are entirely my own opinion (also, I do not nor have I ever worked for The Walt Disney Company or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates) and I do feel that it is largely unfair to folks who don't know how to manipulate the system. I also feel its unethical to book throwaway rooms because you don't want to pay retail costs (mainly with regards to Magic Bands and/or lodging) or want to book ADRs & FP+s early for the entirety of your stay to make it more "magical".

Other than annoyance (mainly due to early park closings), I'm perfectly fine with hard ticket and upcharge events and am happy to spend more money if it means less people and a better experience. Heck, make entry $250 a day with no multiday discounts, I'm fine with that. Spending a few more dollars to not wait in line or access more attractions is fine with me.

Where we differ is that I see nothing in the booking of the room that one pays for as unethical in any way shape or form.

I think we differ in the fact that I am opposed to advertising a "secret" of booking a single night rooms specifically to receive 4+ magic bands and early access to book 5-7+ days of ADRs and FP+. It doesn't matter where you sleep - stay in your car, put a blanket on the ground in the parking lot, or hide in the Tangled bathrooms for all I care.

Booking a cheap on-site stay for one (1) night just to get early access and entitlements for 4-5-6-7-8 days you would otherwise not be afforded is not cool by me. This is simply gaming the system (so are split stays IMHO with regards to FP+ & ADRs) and maybe someday Disney will crack down, maybe (probably) not. If throwaway rooms are OK by you, then we can just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

If you want to book a room to be "safe" because you might need to nap or shower or store your luggage or watch your favorite TV show or blow dry your hair, that's totally cool - I get it. I booked a hotel room just so I could use the gym (on my wedding day). I checked in, went straight to the gym, exercised, and left. Best money I ever spent - though it cost about the same as my yearly gym membership.

 

[Missyrose]

I agree that most FP+ res don't need to be "fought over," but, if you want Anna and Elsa, you absolutely have to believe the hype and jump through hoops! We have a 7 night stay and I stayed up until midnight (for me, that is about 4 hours after bedtime!!) and had to go to day 7 to get 4 FP for Anna and Elsa! I know that's just stupid but it's reality. My DD5 isn't much more rides and literally the only things she asked for in our upcoming trip were to meet and Anna and Elsa and to get a "cookie from the temporary!"

And the sad thing is the throwaway room concept won't even help you with A&E, and it may not help you get Mine Train either.

 

[nugov2]

You are absolutely correct, it is only in my mind. My posts are entirely my own opinion (also, I do not nor have I ever worked for The Walt Disney Company or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates) and I do feel that it is largely unfair to folks who don't know how to manipulate the system. I also feel its unethical to book throwaway rooms because you don't want to pay retail costs (mainly with regards to Magic Bands and/or lodging) or want to book ADRs & FP+s early for the entirety of your stay to make it more "magical".

Other than annoyance (mainly due to early park closings), I'm perfectly fine with hard ticket and upcharge events and am happy to spend more money if it means less people and a better experience. Heck, make entry $250 a day with no multiday discounts, I'm fine with that. Spending a few more dollars to not wait in line or access more attractions is fine with me.



I think we differ in the fact that I am opposed to advertising a "secret" of booking a single night rooms specifically to receive 4+ magic bands and early access to book 5-7+ days of ADRs and FP+. It doesn't matter where you sleep - stay in your car, put a blanket on the ground in the parking lot, or hide in the Tangled bathrooms for all I care.

Booking a cheap on-site stay for one (1) night just to get early access and entitlements for 4-5-6-7-8 days you would otherwise not be afforded is not cool by me. This is simply gaming the system (so are split stays IMHO with regards to FP+ & ADRs) and maybe someday Disney will crack down, maybe (probably) not. If throwaway rooms are OK by you, then we can just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

If you want to book a room to be "safe" because you might need to nap or shower or store your luggage or watch your favorite TV show or blow dry your hair, that's totally cool - I get it. I booked a hotel room just so I could use the gym (on my wedding day). I checked in, went straight to the gym, exercised, and left. Best money I ever spent - though it cost about the same as my yearly gym membership.

Well than I am safe, because while I really enjoy getting the perks...I mostly booked the room to blow dry my hair. I love built in blow dryers and will do anything to have access to them.

In all seriousness though...you booked a hotel room you had no intention of using, just to get the perk of using their gym. How is that not the same thing? That gym is a perk for onsite hotel guest only and I believe to officially qualify as an official hotel guest you not only have to pay for the room but sleep there for a minimum number of hours to legally qualify as a guest. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

 

[doconeill]

Well than I am safe, because while I really enjoy getting the perks...I mostly booked the room to blow dry my hair. I love built in blow dryers and will do anything to have access to them.

In all seriousness though...you booked a hotel room you had no intention of using, just to get the perk of using their gym. How is that not the same thing? That gym is a perk for onsite hotel guest only and I believe to officially qualify as an official hotel guest you not only have to pay for the room but sleep there for a minimum number of hours to legally qualify as a guest. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

I guess it depends on what the _hotel_ believes qualifies you as a guest, not what you believe does.

 

[nugov2]

I guess it depends on what the _hotel_ believes qualifies you as a guest, not what you believe does.

Weird...that is what I have been arguing all along.

 

[snayak]

Well than I am safe, because while I really enjoy getting the perks...I mostly booked the room to blow dry my hair. I love built in blow dryers and will do anything to have access to them.

In all seriousness though...you booked a hotel room you had no intention of using, just to get the perk of using their gym. How is that not the same thing? That gym is a perk for onsite hotel guest only and I believe to officially qualify as an official hotel guest you not only have to pay for the room but sleep there for a minimum number of hours to legally qualify as a guest. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

I used the gym for the day I was a guest, not for a week+ that I wasn't, that's the difference.

I'm 100%, perfectly and entirely OK with somebody booking a camp site for the entirety of their stay and using all of their entitlements for that duration, whether they sleep there or not. Booking the space for a single night specifically to exploit access to FP+, MB, and ADRs for more than a single night is not cool, that's all I'm saying.

 

[horse11]

I read a thread not long ago where someone had 10 people all told in their different groups and were staying off site. They booked a campsite just to get the bands- 10 bands for $50 is a heckuva deal. And that's rack rate- pretty sure anyone that does this looks for discounts too.

And as I've said- there is an untold number who don't even keep the reservation at all. There's a whole long thread discussing what you do or don't lose if you cancel the throwaway.

Don't tell me this was Disney's intent...it wasn't. They just didn't do a great job of tightening the system.

Ok I am just coming into this and have to ask; is there not a limit to how many can book one camp site? 10 people to one camp site sounds like a lot. If there is no limit there should be. Second of all I am a bit confused. The people that book a throwaway room and cancel they still get to keep their magic bands and FP+ as long as they have tickets? If so the only way I could see disney stopping that would be they would have to make them cancel the whole package which would deactivate their MB, give them their money back and give them the option to buy park tickets which would reset their band to start getting FP+ at the 30 day window. Disney may not care as long as they are getting the money

 

[cakebaker]

Other than annoyance (mainly due to early park closings), I'm perfectly fine with hard ticket and upcharge events and am happy to spend more money if it means less people and a better experience. Heck, make entry $250 a day with no multiday discounts, I'm fine with that. Spending a few more dollars to not wait in line or access more attractions is fine with me.

Me too!

Truth be told, I'd be very happy to see all the discounts go away. Our first trip discounts didn't exist outside of maybe AAA. You booked a room at rack rate and you went.

Disney has publicly said they're trying to move towards less discounts and I'm perfectly happy with that.

 

[cakebaker]

Ok I am just coming into this and have to ask; is there not a limit to how many can book one camp site? 10 people to one camp site sounds like a lot. If there is no limit there should be. Second of all I am a bit confused. The people that book a throwaway room and cancel they still get to keep their magic bands and FP+ as long as they have tickets? If so the only way I could see disney stopping that would be they would have to make them cancel the whole package which would deactivate their MB, give them their money back and give them the option to buy park tickets which would reset their band to start getting FP+ at the 30 day window. Disney may not care as long as they are getting the money

Campgrounds are limited to 10 people.

Yes, they still get to keep them. At least for now. The system seems to be filled with loopholes.

Although in this case, the person was just looking to get the bands mainly. They patiently waited until the status on the bands showed shipped in MDE, then they cancelled.

I don't quite understand your explanation on stopping it. If they choose to "fix" it, my guess is they'd just stop shipping them out and make people start picking them up at the resort or in the parks.

 

[nugov2]

I used the gym for the day I was a guest, not for a week+ that I wasn't, that's the difference.

I'm 100%, perfectly and entirely OK with somebody booking a camp site for the entirely of their stay and using all of their entitlements for that duration, whether they sleep there or not. Booking the space for a single night specifically to exploit access to FP+, MB, and ADRs for more than a single night is not cool, that's all I'm saying.

How do you know that WDW doesn't want to give access to FP for length of ticket to people who book only one night to entice them to spend more in the parks. Unless you know for sure that isn't their plan you cannot really say it is exploiting anything. They block guests from EMH and parking...why wouldn't they block guests from FP booking if that is what they wanted. I still think that this is something bringing them more $$$ and exactly what they intended to happen. I for one would pay for the room for every night I needed it if that is what WDW required, but why pay for more than I need? That is just silly. Like the previous poster stated it only matters what the_hotel_believes!

 

[doconeill]

Personally, I don't think it is - but whatever, if you think it's cool then good for you.

Is it OK they get $50 worth of magic bands because its cheaper to book a throwaway room than buy them separately at $13/each?

Not much different than Disney sending them $50 worth of MagicBands for a group actually staying in the room for just one night. Disney apparently doesn't consider the _actual_ cost of the MBs (which is certainly less than $13) significant enough to worry about it yet and place reservation length restrictions on it. At least not yet.

So if you take 3 parties, with the exact same details (size, dates, touring plans, desired ADRs, etc) but one stays on site, one does throwaway room, and one stays completely off-property, who comes out ahead?

OK. Let's say that all three are checking in on December 1st, for 7 days.

First, the off-site guests, since that is straight forward: They can book FP+ for December 1st on November 1st, the 2nd on the 2nd, etc. at the 30 day window from a given day. They need to do more work to do it.

For their ADRs, it's the same thing, but 180 days out from each date.

I don't think there is any question that they are at a disadvantage over anyone with an on-site reservation.

Now, the difference between a one night reservation (throwaway is irrelevant) and seven nights. We'll keep it to FP+. ADRs are similar and other perks have already been mentioned.

Both can make FP+ reservations for December 1st on October 2nd (60 days). Both can also make FP+ reservations for December 2nd on the same day, since their reservations cover both.

However, for December 3rd, the one-day guest has to wait until October 4th to make those FP+, while the 7-day guest also got to make those reservations on the 2nd. And from there, the advantage of the 7-day guest gets better. The 7-day guest gets to make FP+ reservations for December 7th on October 2nd still, while the one-day guest has to wait until October 8th. So at that point, the 7-day guest has had a SIX DAY ADVANTAGE over the one-day guest.

So, while booking a 1-day reservation does give you an advantage over those who don't, those staying on site for more than one day have the advantage. Blaming throwaway rooms for not being able to get a FP+ for the end of your stay is misplaced. Blame those with longer reservations who get there before you.

 

[doconeill]

Disney has publicly said they're trying to move towards less discounts and I'm perfectly happy with that.

Iger said it several years ago. Doesn't seem to have changed much though...