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

[magicbob]

...and cap off the night by talking my beautiful wife into a "ride" in the elevator after the kids are asleep.

Sadly for her, it will be only a 1 story ride!

Now I can't stop thinking about the "Tower of Terror."

 

[magicbob]

Being able to book all FP+ while staying offsite crosses the line even though Disney's system allows it. No wonder onsite people are having difficulty getting FP+ at 60 days ahead. How is this fair when Disney gives onsite the ability of 60 days and offsite 30 days. Disney considers FP+ being an onsite guest perk at 60 days, now anybody regardless are booking at 60 days.

Having an onsite resort reservation entitles you to make reservations at the 60-day mark for your ticket. If your ticket is for longer than your hotel stay, they need to allow you to reserve more than just one day (assuming a 1-night resort stay) or else that would be tantamount to making the FP reservations tied to the room and not the ticket. So, I think that allowing FP+ reservations for as many days as you have on your ticket, regardless of the length of your hotel stay is by design and not an oversight or loophole.

Back to the matter at hand... based on an exchange I just had in another thread, I'm amending my statement above. If the poster's information is accurate, you can no longer book FP+ at the 60-day mark for your entire ticket length if your onsite reservation is shorter than that.

Your ticket still entitles you to FP+ for those days, but the privilege of booking 60-days out is only for the duration of your onsite stay. So a 1-night reservation would allow you to book FPs for two of your park days (assuming they allow both check-in and check-out days), but the other eight days of your 10-day ticket would not be eligible for 60-day pre-booking because you won't be onsite when you use those ticket-days. They would be subject to the day-by-day "rolling 30" like any other offsite guest has to contend with.

This changes the equation somewhat in terms of how much value is derived from a 1-night reservation (whether it's actually a throwaway room or an onsite/offsite split stay). You would still get 2 days parking, EMH, ability to book 2 days of FP+ at the 60-day mark, use of the resort pool, magic bands for your party, etc. So it may still be worthwhile for some. But it appears that people doing this will not have any moral dilemmas in doing so because Disney is limiting them to getting only the perks they would have gotten for their 1-night stay. No more, no less.

It seems like the only other matter of housekeeping remaining is the kiosks giving SDFP+ when presented with an unlinked "extra" MB.

 

[doconeill]

Back to the matter at hand... based on an exchange I just had in another thread, I'm amending my statement above. If the poster's information is accurate, you can no longer book FP+ at the 60-day mark for your entire ticket length if your onsite reservation is shorter than that.

Your ticket still entitles you to FP+ for those days! but the privilege of booking 60-days out is only for the duration of your onsite stay. So a 1-night reservation would allow you to book FPs for two of your park days (assuming they allow both check-in and check-out days), but the other eight days of your 10-day ticket would not be eligible for 60-day pre-booking because you won't be onsite when you use those ticket-days. They would be subject to the day-by-day "rolling 30" like any other offsite guest has to contend with.

This changes the equation somewhat in terms of how much value is derived from a 1-night reservation (whether it's actually a throwaway room or an onsite/offsite split stay). You would still get 2 days parking, EMH, ability to book 2 days of FP+ at the 60-day mark, use of the resort pool, and magic bands for your party. So it may still be worthwhile for some. But it appears that people doing this will not have any moral dilemmas in doing so because Disney is limiting them to getting only the perks they would have gotten for their 1-night stay and not additional benefits gotten through what some have labelled "loopholes."

It seems lime the only other matter of housekeeping is the scanners giving SDFP+ when presented with a nun-associated "extra" MB.

Hmmm...someone in the past couple days posted that they tested and could still get FP+ at the 60-day mark post-reservation. Not sure which thread it was in...I'd like to hear more reports.

 

[magicbob]

Hmmm...someone in the past couple days posted that they tested and could still get FP+ at the 60-day mark post-reservation. Not sure which thread it was in...I'd like to hear more reports.

I can't confirm that it's 100% impossible to still book your entire ticket with a 1-night stay, but if the other poster was correct, it appears this "loophole" is being addressed.

But, given their IT track record, it would not surprise me at all if some people can still do this even after they have ostensibly closed the loophole. After all, if ANYone can find a work-around, it's US!

Also, I saw your reply on the other thread and I think perhaps the answer I got was not to the question I asked. It would appear that you cannot book every day of your ticket at the 60-day mark from check-in (which is what I and probably others were thinking), but the 1-night stay may, in fact, still open up a "rolling 60" from the date you are reserving FPs for, so that would still provide a significant additional benefit over the "rolling 30" you get with an exclusively offsite stay.

 

[nugov2]

I can't confirm that it's 100% impossible to still book your entire ticket with a 1-night stay, but if the other poster was correct, it appears this "loophole" is being addressed.

But, given their IT track record, it would not surprise me at all if some people can still do this even after they have ostensibly closed the loophole. After all, if ANYone can find a work-around, it's US!

It has been like this for months(though I can't remember how many). That has been the reason many like myself feel that this is not a loophole by WDW but their design. They let you book for day 1 and 2 for your onsite, but then having a rolling booking window. It is still better than off site 30 days, but not the same as totally on site. Some still feel that it is in fact a loophole and unethical even with the rolling benefits.

 

[doconeill]

I can't confirm that it's 100% impossible to still book your entire ticket with a 1-night stay, but if the other poster was correct, it appears this "loophole" is being addressed.

But, given their IT track record, it would not surprise me at all if some people can still do this even after they have ostensibly closed the loophole. After all, if ANYone can find a work-around, it's US!

Also, I saw your reply on the other thread and I think perhaps the answer I got was not to the question I asked. It would appear that you cannot book every day of your ticket at the 60-day mark from check-in (which is what I and probably others were thinking), but the 1-night stay may, in fact, still open up a "rolling 60" from the date you are reserving FPs for, so that would still provide a significant additional benefit over the "rolling 30" you get with an exclusively offsite stay.

Right. That's the way it has been for quite a while now...now I'm trying to figure out if it changed.

 

[doconeill]

It has been like this for months(though I can't remember how many). That has been the reason many like myself feel that this is not a loophole by WDW but their design. They let you book for day 1 and 2 for your onsite, but then having a rolling booking window. It is still better than off site 30 days, but not the same as totally on site. Some still feel that it is in fact a loophole and unethical even with the rolling benefits.

There is design, and then there is taking shortcuts in the programming of the design with unintended results. Witness the return of the "unlimited Fastpasses" loophole - seriously doubt that was by design It's 2000 all over again...

 

[magicbob]

Right. That's the way it has been for quite a while now...now I'm trying to figure out if it changed.

There are some aspects of FP+ that I like and some that I really dislike. But what I absolutely loathe and find to be utterly maddening about the new system has been the constant changes and uncertainty... worrying that I have to yet again toss out everything I researched "last week" and re-learn how it's working "this week." And that nagging feeling in my gut that everything I think I know has changed again without my realizing it and I've got to start over from scratch.

So, when I read something here that contradicts my current understanding (or lack thereof) of the system, you don't know how much credence to lend to it, because it might be true today, but not tomorrow. It might be true for some, but not all. I think it's going to be a while yet before we have a truly consistent track record of "here's how it works" that we can rely on for planning purposes.

 

[mom2rtk]

There are some aspects of FP+ that I like and some that I really dislike. But what I absolutely loathe and find to be utterly maddening about the new system has been the constant changes and uncertainty... worrying that I have to yet again toss out everything I researched "last week" and re-learn how it's working "this week." And that nagging feeling in my gut that everything I think I know has changed again without my realizing it and I've got to start over from scratch.

Just give up and take the "pick 3" behind curtain number 1. You know they want you to.........

 

[cakebaker]

There is design, and then there is taking shortcuts in the programming of the design with unintended results.

I think a lot of people go with this theory. I don't believe they intended people to be able to obtain a 60 day window without staying on site the entire time. There's no advantage to Disney in giving a hidden perk.

 

[diskids2]

This is all mind-boggling. I think I will go check on my fantasy football team.

 

[doconeill]

I think a lot of people go with this theory. I don't believe they intended people to be able to obtain a 60 day window without staying on site the entire time. There's no advantage to Disney in giving a hidden perk.

Hidden, no...but they don't really say how it should work if you are doing a split stay offsite. What they DO want is people planning in advance, such that they spend less time in the parks trying to decide what to do (a publicly stated goal), and so they can plan staffing accordingly (behind the scenes goal, and more of a benefit to Disney). So letting them do it further out because they at least had an on-site stay within a certain time frame does provide some benefit to Disney.

 

[mom2rtk]

This is all mind-boggling. I think I will go check on my fantasy football team.

And I'll just go to Disneyland.

 

[cakebaker]

Hidden, no...but they don't really say how it should work if you are doing a split stay offsite. What they DO want is people planning in advance, such that they spend less time in the parks trying to decide what to do (a publicly stated goal), and so they can plan staffing accordingly (behind the scenes goal, and more of a benefit to Disney). So letting them do it further out because they at least had an on-site stay within a certain time frame does provide some benefit to Disney.

Agreed, but if it provided enough benefits that Disney intended it to happen, they wouldn't hide it so that only a select few would know it. It takes a lot of time just figuring out these glitches- let alone feeling comfortable enough to actually use them.

If their intent was for a 1 night stay to enable a 60 rolling window- why wouldn't they just give off site people a rolling 60 day window?

I would argue that they do say how they want off site stays- they "say" 60 days is for the length of your stay. You stay 2 days, you get 2 days. In effect treating the split stay just like 2 separate vacations. I realize it doesn't work this way, but that's what Disney "says".

 

[doconeill]

Agreed, but if it provided enough benefits that Disney intended it to happen, they wouldn't hide it so that only a select few would know it. It takes a lot of time just figuring out these glitches- let alone feeling comfortable enough to actually use them.

If their intent was for a 1 night stay to enable a 60 rolling window- why wouldn't they just give off site people a rolling 60 day window?

They want some advertised perk for staying on-site as an incentive to pay them for a room and not someone else.

They aren't necessarily going to advertise that the perk extends outside your stay...why advertise for people to _not_ spend their entire stay at a WDW resort?

More people know about the 60-day post-reservation window than I think know about booking the throwaway room to _get_ the 60-day window.

 

[nugov2]

Hidden, no...but they don't really say how it should work if you are doing a split stay offsite. What they DO want is people planning in advance, such that they spend less time in the parks trying to decide what to do (a publicly stated goal), and so they can plan staffing accordingly (behind the scenes goal, and more of a benefit to Disney). So letting them do it further out because they at least had an on-site stay within a certain time frame does provide some benefit to Disney.

This is what I think is key and why I believe it is intended. I know not a lot of credit is given to the old a "CM told me" argument, but I did call and ask b/c I wanted to know how it worked with a split stay on and off site and the CM told me it works the way it is currently working. You book check in/out 60 days and then each day after you can book up to 10 days for length of ticket. So either this was one CM familiar with the loophole or in fact the intended purpose at this time. It is a benefit for people visiting b/c they get some perks and a benefit to WDW b/c they get more money than they would have without offering this option.. ie one night stay and more guaranteed park time which equals more revenue.

 

[nugov2]

They want some advertised perk for staying on-site as an incentive to pay them for a room and not someone else.

They aren't necessarily going to advertise that the perk extends outside your stay...why advertise for people to _not_ spend their entire stay at a WDW resort?

More people know about the 60-day post-reservation window than I think know about booking the throwaway room to _get_ the 60-day window.

Did they advertise the disconnected FP's under the old system? I know it was common knowledge because of blogs and message boards, but did they have it listed on their official website? I can't remember or was that a loophole a bunch of morally bankrupt individuals capitalized on

 

[cakebaker]

They want some advertised perk for staying on-site as an incentive to pay them for a room and not someone else.

They aren't necessarily going to advertise that the perk extends outside your stay...why advertise for people to _not_ spend their entire stay at a WDW resort?

More people know about the 60-day post-reservation window than I think know about booking the throwaway room to _get_ the 60-day window.

We can agree to disagree then on their intent for this particular glitch. My opinion comes at least in part, from some very long and intense conversations with Disney that doesn't involve just low level CM's and that I can't prove so no point in going thru the long story. It is that Disney intensely dislikes single night stays. They'd rather risk rooms sit empty than tie up their blocks of availability. They believe (and I think rightfully so)- that it causes problems with booking long stays and goes against their clearly stated goals.


Time will tell.

 

[doconeill]

We can agree to disagree then on their intent for this particular glitch. My opinion comes at least in part, from some very long and intense conversations with Disney that doesn't involve just low level CM's and that I can't prove so no point in going thru the long story. It is that Disney intensely dislikes single night stays. They'd rather risk rooms sit empty than tie up their blocks of availability. They believe (and I think rightfully so)- that it causes problems with booking long stays and goes against their clearly stated goals.


Time will tell.

I'm not so sure we disagree. I'm only talking about allowing the post-reservation 60-day stay. That does NOT mean they intended to have a large slew of people booking one night just to get the perk. They may have just underestimated the value vs. the willingness of people to do it.

They know a lot of visitors will stay at Disney, and then move off-site and visit other things - Disney isn't quite so nearsighted as to think that they are the only thing in Central Florida people visit, despite all their attempts to maximize the amount of time they do (after all, there is GATORLAND!). If they extend that perk, then it might entice more to return to the park later in their trips and thus gain a bit more income out of them, whereas otherwise they might _totally_ lose them. Simple perk for some more potential income.

 

[cakebaker]

I'm not so sure we disagree. I'm only talking about allowing the post-reservation 60-day stay. That does NOT mean they intended to have a large slew of people booking one night just to get the perk. They may have just underestimated the value vs. the willingness of people to do it.

They know a lot of visitors will stay at Disney, and then move off-site and visit other things - Disney isn't quite so nearsighted as to think that they are the only thing in Central Florida people visit, despite all their attempts to maximize the amount of time they do (after all, there is GATORLAND!). If they extend that perk, then it might entice more to return to the park later in their trips and thus gain a bit more income out of them, whereas otherwise they might _totally_ lose them. Simple perk for some more potential income.

I'm no programmer, but seems to me there must be a way to program the system to allow for split stays with a 60 day window, yet not allow the single night throwaway-

There's a vast difference between a guest who books 2 nights on site- 3 off-2 on and a person who books a single night and is never really there to spend their money, other than when they would be coming in off site anyway. Disney gets nothing in return for the 1 night stay they wouldn't get anyway other than $50 for a campsite. In return for that $50- they lose out on longer stay reservations. Not a win for them.

The quick fix- and the one I fear- is minimum night stays. Disney is famous for quick fixes.