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

[Violet Parr]

I'm not sure Disney is losing money from this practice. I don't think there are a lot of people that decide to go to Disney and don't find an empty campsite on the exact date they are looking so they decide to just forget the whole trip. I think they look at different dates or different places to stay.

No, I'm not saying that prospective campers skip out on traveling. I'm saying that if it is THAT easy to get onsite/FP+ privileges (paying $60 for a pretty fab package deal) then people WILL stop staying onsite, knowing they can get all the perks for a $60 fee and save tons of money and stay offsite. It defeats the purpose of having many onsite perks to make it so easy for someone to pay $60 and stay offsite and still get the perks.

VP

 

[mom2mickeyfan]

Here's what I posted a while ago about why our family did it. We stayed offsite for a week, but booked 1 night at a campsite for our first day in the parks.

For the purchase of the campsite (about $60) we received:

-2 days of free parking for check-in and check-out day ($34 value)
-5 magic bands for our family ($64.75 plus tax)
-60 day FP+ booking window for the full length of our trip, not just the campsite days
-option to purchase a BOG FP+ lunch
-option to use EMH (we followed easyWDW touring plans, so we actively avoided EMH, but to each his own)

We kept the camping reservation and did NOT cancel it at the last minute. People have mixed feelings about this (and very strong feelings too). But as far as I'm concerned, I received the full benefits of a campsite that I purchased with real money. This isn't cheating, it's not "sneaky", and it isn't a "loophole".

I totally agree. However, I think Disney would see it as a loophole to making more money, and will eventually close it somehow. I don't know how, but I cannot imagine they'll turn a blind eye to a practice that loses them money.

And I'm not arguing against the practice. Just saying I wouldn't risk it. (I'd just stay onsite.)

VP

How does Disney know they lost money by this guest doing this? How can you know 100% that campsite would have been rented for a longer time if that guest wouldn't have rented it for one night? Maybe it would have sat empty. If that is the case then Disney actually MADE money by them using it this way.

 

[mom2mickeyfan]

No, I'm not saying that prospective campers skip out on traveling. I'm saying that if it is THAT easy to get onsite/FP+ privileges (paying $60 for a pretty fab package deal) then people WILL stop staying onsite, knowing they can get all the perks for a $60 fee and save tons of money and stay offsite. It defeats the purpose of having many onsite perks to make it so easy for someone to pay $60 and stay offsite and still get the perks.

VP

People have been staying on-site for years when paper FPs were the same for everyone even with the higher cost. Why would Disney think things would change with FP+. If all the other perks were good enough before FP+, then why aren't they good enough now?

 

[momto3gr8boys]

OR, I have COMPLETELY lost my mind, which is a total possibility! VP

No you haven't. I have read about it more than once over the years, I just can't recall specifics.

As for them canceling double reservations, it has not happened to me, but a CM did confirm then do this occasionally when resorts become booked. I had booked 5 nights at the YC last year. I then decided to add a day and it was during a time when the phone lines were crazy busy. So I booked a second reservation for 6 nights and didn't get around to calling to cancel the other for a week or two. When I did call, the CM told me I was lucky my seconds reservation wasn't cancelled already as they do that often.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Violet Parr]

How does Disney know they lost money by this guest doing this? How can you know 100% that campsite would have been rented for a longer time if that guest wouldn't have rented it for one night? Maybe it would have sat empty. If that is the case then Disney actually MADE money by them using it this way.

No, you still aren't understanding me. I don't think Disney cares about keeping devoted campers. I don't blame them. Half the time I don't think campers go to the parks. They aren't losing money by losing their regular campground customers. (We do go to the parks when we camp, but we use the campgrounds every 3 years or so because we find it charming, not because we can't afford to stay onsite.)

What I am saying is, a family that wants onsite privileges looks at staying at Port Orleans. Then they find out they can just book a throwaway campsite foro $60, stay offsite, and still get all the onsite perks. Onsite perks are one of the reasons staying onsite is so expensive. Unreasonably expensive, but that's another thread. So now what incentive does anyone have to stay onsite? You can get all the perks by paying $60. That's a HUGE savings. That's why people are doing it. Disney doesn't want people staying onsite. In this regard, they lose money through the practice of throwaway rooms. It discourages people from spending the extra cash to stay onsite.

VP

 

[Violet Parr]

People have been staying on-site for years when paper FPs were the same for everyone even with the higher cost. Why would Disney think things would change with FP+. If all the other perks were good enough before FP+, then why aren't they good enough now?

Disney's bottom line is KEEPING people staying onsite. This practice is a deterrent. I'm NOT saying it is wrong. (I honestly might consider it myself if I ever considered staying offsite.) I'm just saying, I don't think they want people to get the pricey goods for cheap. I have three friends whose families are planning Disney trips in the next year. All of them are debating onsite vs. offsite. If they can book a throwaway campsite for $60 and get all the perks of staying onsite but the cheaper cost of staying offsite, they will. If they can't, knowing these families and their needs/finances, they will stay onsite.

VP

 

[Violet Parr]

Also, even as someone disappointed that we can't get a weekend campsite to extend a camping trip longer than 5 days in December, I am feeling pretty strongly that the throwaway campsite practice is NOT filling up campsites. There is plenty of availability for weekdays all through December. Weekends at choice campgrounds in nice weather tend to book up 6 months in advance, and not just at Disney. We should have booked ours sooner. We'll live.

VP

 

[cousineddie]

How does Disney know they lost money by this guest doing this? How can you know 100% that campsite would have been rented for a longer time if that guest wouldn't have rented it for one night? Maybe it would have sat empty. If that is the case then Disney actually MADE money by them using it this way.

They may not know that they lost money, but they also might have a way to track. How hard would it be for them to track online requests and see if someone wants a room/campsite but can't book because of no availability?

This issue may not directly affect me anymore since we've upgraded to at least a full hookup site, but it does potentially affect more than we may know. Depending on which way you look at it, it might be a negligible issue or a large issue. With there being thousands of value rooms available but less than 100 tent/popup sites the Fort seems to take the bigger hit statistically. It's hard enough sometimes to book a site, especially during peak times and it's aggravating to know that there are potentially empty sites because of this in the time period you're trying to book.

I do also find it ironic one of the "justifications" of this practice is, "if you wanted it, you should've been here earlier" especially when it comes from a thread hundred of pages long dedicated to a possible exploitation of policy so a family doesn't have to stand in line and save a few bucks.

 

[mom2mickeyfan]

Disney's bottom line is KEEPING people staying onsite. This practice is a deterrent. I'm NOT saying it is wrong. (I honestly might consider it myself if I ever considered staying offsite.) I'm just saying, I don't think they want people to get the pricey goods for cheap. I have three friends whose families are planning Disney trips in the next year. All of them are debating onsite vs. offsite. If they can book a throwaway campsite for $60 and get all the perks of staying onsite but the cheaper cost of staying offsite, they will. If they can't, knowing these families and their needs/finances, they will stay onsite.

VP

And I am saying that all the same perks that were in place when they had paper FPs that were the same for everyone are still in place. Disney didn't have a problem at that time getting people to stay on-site. FP+ doesn't change any of those other perks.

I think you over estimate the amount of people you think would even know you could do something like this. We always stay off-site and FP+ isn't going to change that. Disney made extra money off of our family because we had a throwaway room. I think this is the case for most of the people that have done this. They have already decided they are staying off site. Disney is making extra money off of them because they are booking these throwaway rooms.

 

[Violet Parr]

And I am saying that all the same perks that were in place when they had paper FPs that were the same for everyone are still in place. Disney didn't have a problem at that time getting people to stay on-site. FP+ doesn't change any of those other perks.

I think you over estimate the amount of people you think would even know you could do something like this. We always stay off-site and FP+ isn't going to change that. Disney made extra money off of our family because we had a throwaway room. I think this is the case for most of the people that have done this. They have already decided they are staying off site. Disney is making extra money off of them because they are booking these throwaway rooms.

Yes, but at that time, Fastpass privileges were the same for BOTH onsite and offsite guests. Now they are not. Onsite gets first dibs on rides. That is how this is different.

But you make a good point that the people doing this are people who have already decided to stay offsite. If the practice grows in popularity, that will not continue to be the case.

VP

 

[SnowBelleAlice]

I guess the point I was trying to make earlier about why I wouldn't risk it is that if a loophole costs Disney money, you'd better believe they will eventually close it.

VP

If that happens, bummer.
My visit is next month, I don't anticipate things going south by then, if it does happen by then I will cancel my camp site.
I am staying on site, I paid $60 for four extra MBs, for twelve bonus SDFP for my DD, and I, who were SUPER FP USERS!

 

[darrengs]

...It defeats the purpose of having many onsite perks to make it so easy for someone to pay $60 and stay offsite and still get the perks.

VP

You are not getting all the same perks as staying on site. You are only getting some perks, if a one night room/camp site is booked for MB and FP+ window:

-No package delivery to the resort.
-Only getting EMH for 2 days, check in and check out.
-Room charging for 2 days check in and check out.
-Parking for 2 days check in and check out.
-ME, really can't use as you are not staying at the resort.
-Use of Disney transportation is limited, as you will still need to drive to the park and pay to park the extra days, or use off site transportation.

 

[Violet Parr]

You are not getting all the same perks as staying on site. You are only getting some perks, if a one night room/camp site is booked for MB and FP+ window:

-No package delivery to the resort.
-Only getting EMH for 2 days, check in and check out.
-Room charging for 2 days check in and check out.
-Parking for 2 days check in and check out.
-ME, really can't use as you are not staying at the resort.
-Use of Disney transportation is limited, as you will still need to drive to the park and pay to park the extra days, or use off site transportation.

Ah, I forgot about those other perks! Good point. Well, I think one thing that can be agreed upon is that planning a WDW vacation takes a lot of effort and creative thinking these days!

VP

 

[Canuckbiggs]

If that happens, bummer.
My visit is next month, I don't anticipate things going south by then, if it does happen by then I will cancel my camp site.
I am staying on site, I paid $60 for four extra MBs, for twelve bonus SDFP for my DD, and I, who were SUPER FP USERS!

I'm not a super fastpass user so haven't investigated this strategy.

Additional MBs would only get you additional same day FPs unless you had more than one set of tickets to link to multiple sets of MBs?

Is that correct?

 

[Canuckbiggs]

You are not getting all the same perks as staying on site. You are only getting some perks, if a one night room/camp site is booked for MB and FP+ window:

-No package delivery to the resort.
-Only getting EMH for 2 days, check in and check out.
-Room charging for 2 days check in and check out.
-Parking for 2 days check in and check out.
-ME, really can't use as you are not staying at the resort.
-Use of Disney transportation is limited, as you will still need to drive to the park and pay to park the extra days, or use off site transportation.

Which, for someone who normally stays offsite mean very little. Off sighters will have a car so ME is meaningless.

This will be our 3rd trip and I haven't been able to bring myself to stay onsite. I refuse to spend 10 days in a small hotel room with 2 kids and I refuse to pay Disney rates for a full 2 bedroom condo/villa.

JMO

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm not a super fastpass user so haven't investigated this strategy.

Additional MBs would only get you additional same day FPs unless you had more than one set of tickets to link to multiple sets of MBs?

Is that correct?

That's correct.

 

[Canuckbiggs]

That's correct.

Thanks.

 

[Violet Parr]

That's correct.

That's what I thought. So unless SnowWhite above has two sets of tickets, this isn't going to work for her, right? (Not trying to say you're wrong, SnowWhite. Just trying to understand how this works.)

VP

 

[Violet Parr]

Which, for someone who normally stays offsite mean very little. Off sighters will have a car so ME is meaningless.

This will be our 3rd trip and I haven't been able to bring myself to stay onsite. I refuse to spend 10 days in a small hotel room with 2 kids and I refuse to pay Disney rates for a full 2 bedroom condo/villa.

JMO

I get that. We wouldn't stay onsite for a long trip in a small onsite room either. Regular rooms have worked for short stays (weekends, etc) and for long stays we've rented points (we've been lucky that we have a very good long-time DVC member we trust who gives us great rates) and for other long stays we camp. Well, until now that is. But seriously, normally I book our camping trips 1 year in advance, so the fact that weekends in December (a popular time for camping at WDW) are full shouldn't surprise me.

VP

 

[mom2rtk]

That's what I thought. So unless SnowWhite above has two sets of tickets, this isn't going to work for her, right? (Not trying to say you're wrong, SnowWhite. Just trying to understand how this works.)

VP

Did you read that other thread?

Apparently right now magic bands attached to a different MDE account, without tickets attached, can be used for same day Fps scheduled in the park at the kiosks.

That could change tomorrow though or I would have scheduled a trip already just to take advantage of it myself.