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

[cakebaker]

ADRs and FP+ should be open to all, onsite or off and no advantage to either.

Of course they should have advantages, it's what Disney advertises as a reason to stay on site. They have always tried to give incentives to stay on site and this is a great one. The reason being is they make more money off on site guests that off site. I'm sure there's an off site guest here and there that spends more, but the vast majority don't. Off site tend to stay off site to save money, not for nicer places to sleep. They eat off site, they bring food into the parks, they go other places much more than on site. Nothing wrong with any of that but none of that makes Disney money. They try and take that away and the uproar would make off site complaints pale in comparison.

On site guests pay a fortune to stay at Disney in more ways than just the cost of the room. They should be getting more than off site guests.

 

[Angel Ariel]

They should be getting more than off site guests.

They do get more than offsite guests, and did even before fp+.

 

[cakebaker]

I assume you are kidding. Does this mean that no one should ever stay at the campgrounds?

No, I'm not.

Throwaway room- pay for it or cancel it. Is one against the rules and one not. That's the point. They're both wrong in my book and no one can give a valid reason as to why that's not true.

Disney allows both to happen and since that's the excuse I hear most often for why it's ok to book and pay for a throwaway, it works for not paying for it too. They didn't use the room, they cancelled and others could use it so in the end, maybe it's better to book and cancel. At least you don't tie up the room or campsite.

 

[cakebaker]

They do get more than offsite guests, and did even before fp+.

And Disney wants to encourage more to stay on site and keep the ones that do from going off so they gave more- they've taken lots of benefits away- it's about time they added some.

And it's easy- if you like the benefits of staying on site, you should do that. There are benefits to staying off site that I don't get- why should you get benefits both ways? If Disney didn't make it significantly better to stay on site, they couldn't charge the rates they charge.

 

[Luvchefmic]

And Disney wants to encourage more to stay on site and keep the ones that do from going off so they gave more- they've taken lots of benefits away- it's about time they added some.

And it's easy- if you like the benefits of staying on site, you should do that. There are benefits to staying off site that I don't get- why should you get benefits both ways? If Disney didn't make it significantly better to stay on site, they couldn't charge the rates they charge.

I must have been asleep in my off-site bed in my off-site home, what has been taken away from onsite guests?

 

[Roxy13]

I feel to be fair, if person books a throw away they could be allowed to link their pass to onsite reservation for those in and out dates only at 60 days. If the balance of their pass days are not linked to onsite hotel, then they should only be allowed to book the remaining pass days for FP+ at 30 days. I stay onsite for the perks, I don't want to be in competition with non-onsite guests trying to get the same FP+ as I am. Unfair? maybe, you have to pay to play. You also have to pay to play at Universal. Stay onsite to get perks or pay extra. I don't understand Disney's thinking on this. If it wasn't a perk as some folks say then why are people doing it.

 

[cakebaker]

I must have been asleep in my off-site bed in my off-site home, what has been taken away from onsite guests?

They've reduced the length and frequency of EMH.
They cut bus service to the resorts from DTD- due to abuse from off site guests, but we still lost it.
They reduced the free dining options- due to abuse, but we still lost it

That's off the top of my head- there's undoubtedly more.

There have been complaints for a long time that the benefits of staying on site weren't enough. Maybe they listened. But more likely, they want more people to stay and knew they had to add something more significant.

 

[DVCMomBLT]

No, I'm not.

Throwaway room- pay for it or cancel it. Is one against the rules and one not. That's the point. They're both wrong in my book and no one can give a valid reason as to why that's not true.

Disney allows both to happen and since that's the excuse I hear most often for why it's ok to book and pay for a throwaway, it works for not paying for it too. They didn't use the room, they cancelled and others could use it so in the end, maybe it's better to book and cancel. At least you don't tie up the room or campsite.

This is simply crazy. What if I use the campground, is that OK? If so, how much do I have to use it to make it OK with you? Is it OK if I go to the park for a while?

 

[nugov2]

And Disney wants to encourage more to stay on site and keep the ones that do from going off so they gave more- they've taken lots of benefits away- it's about time they added some.

And it's easy- if you like the benefits of staying on site, you should do that. There are benefits to staying off site that I don't get- why should you get benefits both ways? If Disney didn't make it significantly better to stay on site, they couldn't charge the rates they charge.

Because I am paying for both that's why. I am paying for a house off site and a room on site..I get the perks of both If you would like to have both you also can pay for both. It is your choice not to because you don't want to or don't use your budget to. As, I have stated before I will pay for a room every night of my stay if I have to, if I feel the perks are worth it. Right now WDW does not require that based on what the CM stated when I booked so I am going to go by what they are telling me the policy is, not what you who doesn't even feel a person who is paying for both off site and on for the entire length of their stay should get it. Your argument is just sour grapes because you don't like that people can pay for both and have a much more enjoyable stay. There is no other reason to think a person must sleep in their room that they paid for to get the perks. I can do whatever I want with the room within Disney guidelines once I pay for it. It's ridiculous to think otherwise

If a CM wants to give my kids a mickey bar to spread some pixie dust while on vacation for free it doesn't make us evil for taking it just because you don't think it is fair your kids didn't get one. WDW makes the decisions about what is fair and right and so far the decision is that booking a one night stay gets you FP booking for length of ticket.

 

[cakebaker]

This is simply crazy. What if I use the campground, is that OK? If so, how much do I have to use it to make it OK with you? Is it OK if I go to the park for a while?

Sorry, but your responses have nothing to do with the question I asked.

 

[cakebaker]

Because I am paying for both that's why. I am paying for a house off site and a room on site..I get the perks of both

But you don't set the rules, Disney does. So you can't have both no matter how much you stomp your feet and claim you want it. What you're getting is not what a real on site guest gets.Right now you get some dumbed down loophole version of fp+ at 60 days- pretty worthless for the hot rides. Other than adrs (and seriously, those are not hard to get at 30 days for the most part) you get nothing during your stay except for the days you paid for. Oh and you get those pretty little bands. Honestly, other than the thrill of getting stuff you aren't entitled to, I'm not sure what the big drive for booking throwaways are.

As, I have stated before I will pay for a room every night of my stay if I have to, if I feel the perks are worth it.

And you should have to and I have no problem with off site guests getting on site perks when they pay for every day of their perks. It's just the ones they get for free that's wrong.

Right now WDW does not require that based on what the CM stated...

Ah, the old but a cm told me it, I liked the answer so it has to be true.

Yeah, a cm and 2 supervisors told me that they were having problems with 1 night stays because they jacked their reservations up. I had one CM tell me I should go ahead and book a new reservation, then cancel the old one when I was having trouble adding a night to our existing reservation, yet could rebook the entire trip with that night included. When I called to do that, I had another tell me I was trying to game the system. Btw- got the night added, but did it honestly.

CM's say all sorts of things. Rarely are they accurate.

Your argument is just sour grapes because you don't like that people can pay for both and have a much more enjoyable stay.

No, I can't imagine a more miserable stay that being off site. I don't like it because it wasn't intended to work this way and it allows off site people perks only on site guests were intended to have. I sure haven't seen any advertising to off siter's suggesting they do this- but I sure see the ads telling on site guests about it.

I have no problem with guests paying for every day they get perks, off site or on. I could care less, so hardly sour grapes.

WDW makes the decisions about what is fair and right and so far the decision is that booking a one night stay gets you FP booking for length of ticket.

Again, it's not really length of ticket- your glitched up loophole doesn't work that way.

But my question remains unanswered: What's the difference between paying for or canceling a throwaway? If the requirement for fair and right is that WDW lets you do it- then canceling is no different than paying for it.

 

[cakebaker]

I feel to be fair, if person books a throw away they could be allowed to link their pass to onsite reservation for those in and out dates only at 60 days. If the balance of their pass days are not linked to onsite hotel, then they should only be allowed to book the remaining pass days for FP+ at 30 days. I stay onsite for the perks, I don't want to be in competition with non-onsite guests trying to get the same FP+ as I am. Unfair? maybe, you have to pay to play. You also have to pay to play at Universal. Stay onsite to get perks or pay extra. I don't understand Disney's thinking on this. If it wasn't a perk as some folks say then why are people doing it.

Exactly right...

 

[DVCMomBLT]

But my question remains unanswered: What's the difference between paying for or canceling a throwaway? If the requirement for fair and right is that WDW lets you do it- then canceling is no different than paying for it.

Can you answer my question:

What is the difference between paying for a room and using it, paying for a room and not using it, and booking a room and cancelling it?

If you feel the latter 2 are wrong, then clearly the first one is too.

Therefore, no one should ever stay at the campgrounds.

 

[kalliyan1]

We have a package reservation that we made when free dining promo was out. Our package includes tickets, dining and room. We now want to check in 3 days earlier. We can't just add the days because those days were not part of the dates for free dining.
If I make a room only reservation(under same MDE account)for the 3 days we want to add, will I be able to make FP+ reservation 60 days from the room only reservation even though the tix in my account are part of the package?

 

[itchin2go]

Of course they should have advantages, it's what Disney advertises as a reason to stay on site. They have always tried to give incentives to stay on site and this is a great one. The reason being is they make more money off on site guests that off site. I'm sure there's an off site guest here and there that spends more, but the vast majority don't. Off site tend to stay off site to save money, not for nicer places to sleep. They eat off site, they bring food into the parks, they go other places much more than on site. Nothing wrong with any of that but none of that makes Disney money. They try and take that away and the uproar would make off site complaints pale in comparison.

The bolded statements above are false and insulting.

You cannot paint people with such a broad brush, with nothing other than uninformed opinion as your source.

We have stayed onsite and off. Our accommodations offsite are MUCH nicer than our onsite accommodations in SO many ways. How would you know why EVERYONE stays offsite?

I have never once brought food into the parks, whether I stay onsite or offsite. I eat in Disney restaurants. I buy Disney merch. I just happen to sleep offsite.

From the above, I gather you think off-siters are second-class cheapskates. Where do you get this idea from?

 

[nluvwithdisney]

But if you have paid for an onsite room you ARE an onsite guest. It comes with a bundle of perks, one of which includes a bed to sleep in. Is it a "loophole" if I take advantage of the 60 day FP+ window but do not take advantage of EMH? If I book an onsite room but meet a beautiful woman while waiting in line for Splash Mountain and end up spending every night in her room, have I acted unethically? Why should sleeping in the bed be the one and only "perk" that makes someone a liar or thief if they don't use it? I can see the argument that the advantages should not go longer than the length of the booked stay. And I certainly think Disney should cancel all associated FPs and ADRs when somebody cancels the throwaway room. But if you pay for a room, you are not stealing if you decline to sleep in that room.

I agree that if you have paid for the room. It is yours to utilize or not utilize as you see fit. Except the perks for renting that room should be for the length of stay with that room not beyond it.

Knock yourself out if you want to book a throwaway room for a week and still stay offsite. You are an onsite guest simply for that.

Problem is booking for a night and benefiting from a week of perks which is why I agree with a length of stay caveat.

If you cancel so do all your benefits of the early FP+.

 

[itchin2go]

But my question remains unanswered: What's the difference between paying for or canceling a throwaway? If the requirement for fair and right is that WDW lets you do it- then canceling is no different than paying for it.

My personal answer for this is that I'm governed BOTH by what Disney does and doesn't allow AND my own personal morality. I personally see nothing wrong with making a reservation and paying for it. I think it's irrelevant what you choose to do with the accommodations, short of being unlawful, destructive or disruptive to other guests.

Your morality may differ from mine. I'm ok with that.

 

[Luckybee]

No, I'm not.

Throwaway room- pay for it or cancel it. Is one against the rules and one not. That's the point. They're both wrong in my book and no one can give a valid reason as to why that's not true.

Disney allows both to happen and since that's the excuse I hear most often for why it's ok to book and pay for a throwaway, it works for not paying for it too. They didn't use the room, they cancelled and others could use it so in the end, maybe it's better to book and cancel. At least you don't tie up the room or campsite.

No one may be able to give YOU a valid reason but imho its because you wouldn't accept any reason because you don't like the practice.

The difference is obvious to anyone imho, the true throwaway is the booking of a room and providing the amount of $ Disney is asking in order to obtain the benefits associated with that room, while the other is bordering on fraud. The fact that the difference has to be explained to you tells me that nothing anyone says would change your mind. You've already been given a number of explanations as to why it isn't wrong but you keep harping on the same thing without actually looking at the facts. By saying there is no difference tells me that your either :

a) simply playing devil's advocate trying to get people going since I find it impossible to believe anyone could actually believe what you stated or

b) ....ummmmm.....I don't think there is a b)

 

[nugov2]

:


But you don't set the rules, Disney does. So you can't have both no matter how much you stomp your feet and claim you want it. What you're getting is not what a real on site guest gets.Right now you get some dumbed down loophole version of fp+ at 60 days- pretty worthless for the hot rides. Other than adrs (and seriously, those are not hard to get at 30 days for the most part) you get nothing during your stay except for the days you paid for. Oh and you get those pretty little bands. Honestly, other than the thrill of getting stuff you aren't entitled to, I'm not sure what the big drive for booking throwaways are.






And you should have to and I have no problem with off site guests getting on site perks when they pay for every day of their perks. It's just the ones they get for free that's wrong.





Ah, the old but a cm told me it, I liked the answer so it has to be true.

Yeah, a cm and 2 supervisors told me that they were having problems with 1 night stays because they jacked their reservations up. I had one CM tell me I should go ahead and book a new reservation, then cancel the old one when I was having trouble adding a night to our existing reservation, yet could rebook the entire trip with that night included. When I called to do that, I had another tell me I was trying to game the system. Btw- got the night added, but did it honestly.

CM's say all sorts of things. Rarely are they accurate.



No, I can't imagine a more miserable stay that being off site. I don't like it because it wasn't intended to work this way and it allows off site people perks only on site guests were intended to have. I sure haven't seen any advertising to off siter's suggesting they do this- but I sure see the ads telling on site guests about it.

I have no problem with guests paying for every day they get perks, off site or on. I could care less, so hardly sour grapes.





Again, it's not really length of ticket- your glitched up loophole doesn't work that way.

But my question remains unanswered: What's the difference between paying for or canceling a throwaway? If the requirement for fair and right is that WDW lets you do it- then canceling is no different than paying for it.

Ah, but I can and do have both because I paid for both. You obviously care very much b/c many who don't think this practice is right say so in a respectful way while your comments are so full of venom it is obvious that you care. Someone who didn't care and was in just in a friendly discussion wouldn't be throwing out the nastiness that you have. You can call it a glitch and a loophole all you want, but as you stated before Disney set the rules and this is the rule they set. Call and ask, I am not stating that a CM said it along with a supervisor to say it must be true. I am saying b/c I called b/c I was willing to book for as many days as I needed and this is what they explained to me. I know they are misinformed many times, but when the system is working exactly as the CM says then obviously it is meant to be. You can call it a dumbed down version, but it works for my family so it is why we are paying for it. We will get what we want and have a magical trip all with our pretty little bands


I totally disagree that canceling is no different than paying but whatever you can think what you choose. One is wrong b/c it is the same as going to a store and buying $50 worth of merchandise to get the $10 off your next purchase coupon and then returning the clothes and keeping the coupon. I do think if you want the perks you should pay for them not purchase and then return to get what you want. When I purchase for length of trip I get the full perks, when I purchase for one night I get the so called dumbed down perks(and proof that WDW has implemented a different system for booking this b/c otherwise if it was a loophole it would work the same as a length of stay booking) and when I don't purchase any nights I get none of the perks.

 

[Luckybee]

The bolded statements above are false and insulting.

You cannot paint people with such a broad brush, with nothing other than uninformed opinion as your source.

We have stayed onsite and off. Our accommodations offsite are MUCH nicer than our onsite accommodations in SO many ways. How would you know why EVERYONE stays offsite?

I have never once brought food into the parks, whether I stay onsite or offsite. I eat in Disney restaurants. I buy Disney merch. I just happen to sleep offsite.

From the above, I gather you think off-siters are second-class cheapskates. Where do you get this idea from?

Don't forget you're discussing with someone who alleges "So as I said before- it's no worse to book it and cancel than it is to book it and pay"

Do you really believe that anything he's saying is what he really thinks...........cmon . No one could truly believe what he has stated above . He's bored and we've all been played