The Great 'Throwaway Room' Debate

[WebmasterLeah]

For those not familiar with the issue – a ‘throwaway room’ is a Disney resort room that is booked for one night just to get the perks associated with it.

Read more here:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/the-great-throwaway-room-debate.htm

 

[disneyholic family]

i am in shock.
I just posted this response on Pete's great blog:

OMG - i am the most naive person on the planet. I never would have thought of doing this. Am I little goodie two shoes that i consider this wrong?

.

 

[SmithSmith]

i am in shock.
I just posted this response on Pete's great blog:

OMG - i am the most naive person on the planet. I never would have thought of doing this. Am I little goodie two shoes that i consider this wrong?

.

I completely agree with you! The word "loophole" is synonymous with "cheat" and "evasion" for a reason. The people that practice this may think they're "putting one over" on Disney but they're not, it's their fellow resort guest that suffers.

 

[kbelle8995]

I don't think that this is terribly fair. Especially when it regards the LIMITED number of Campsites at Fort Wilderness.

Disney will do something only if it starts to cost them or it makes them look bad.

They will close it eventually. They did with Refillable mugs and the policy for the Disabled. Disney could offer this perk for a certain price if you are not wanting to stay onsite. If you are willing to pay for a throwaway room you are willing to pay for the perk.

I never understood it why not just stay in the throwaway room or campsite

 

[tjevans]

I never understood it why not just stay in the throwaway room or campsite

Because you can stay somewhere much roomier for less money. The people who rent the throwaway just see it as paying a little extra to get the perks.

My opinion:

(1) I never would have thought to do this;

(2) I don't blame people for doing this;

(3) Disney isn't going to do anything about this unless it hurts their bottom line. Since people are paying for the room/campsite and it helps the occupancy rate, Disney isn't going to do anything about it;

(4) I don't see this as cheating. It's no different than in a sport where a rule is silent on an issue. Take advantage of it if you can;

(5) Despite opinion (4), I wouldn't do it because it seems like too much work to get the perks (although if I had the option to just pay Disney to get those perks and stay offsite, I probably would).

 

[SoarinSC]

My beef with this isn't about getting an "undeserved" perk on FP+...it's room availability. It's going on at Fort Wilderness now, but what if this grows and grows into a major thing? Am I gonna be shut out of my Little Mermaid room because a bunch of people have booked it up on Throwaways? That's my worry.

 

[disneyholic family]

it seems to be a relatively simple fix - have the perks associated with the length of stay in a disney resort, rather than the length of the ticket...

or have a minimum stay requirement associated with the perks..

 

[olwyngdh]

I completely agree with you! The word "loophole" is synonymous with "cheat" and "evasion" for a reason. The people that practice this may think they're "putting one over" on Disney but they're not, it's their fellow resort guest that suffers.

I think it is stealing, or at least theft by deception-- especually those who are reserving a campsite and then getting 10 bands with made up names so they cn take them into thepark and get extra fastpasses.

 

[tjevans]

I think it is stealing, or at least theft by deception-- especually those who are reserving a campsite and then getting 10 bands with made up names so they cn take them into thepark and get extra fastpasses.

Granted, I haven't always kept up on FP+, but don't there have to be tickets associated with those magic bands? If so, how would they get additional fast passes?

 

[Pooh2]

I have stayed at many campgrounds over the years that require a 2 or 3 night minimum stay, especially on weekends and/or holiday periods.

Most people who are actually using the sites would be staying at least 2-3 nights anyway so it likely would not cause much of a problem for campers to require a minimum stay .

 

[olwyngdh]

Granted, I haven't always kept up on FP+, but don't there have to be tickets associated with those magic bands? If so, how would they get additional fast passes?

I don't know exactly. I was so disgusted by the thread I quit reading it.

 

[kbelle8995]

I don't know exactly. I was so disgusted by the thread I quit reading it.

Yep that was me too. I still don't get it. In the end you're just throwing more money at your vacation. I still think it's wrong but then again I won't do it. If I have a room on Disney property I will stay on Disney property.

 

[PainInIL]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. You are still paying for the tickets. If Magic Bands were tied to length of stay, can you imagine what a nightmare it would be for people that do split stays at multiple resorts on property? Good luck keeping everything in sync. All Disney cares about is % occupancy, if no one uses the room, better for them since they don't have to spend the money to clean it.

 

[mdvlprof]

.... Disney could offer this perk for a certain price if you are not wanting to stay onsite. If you are willing to pay for a throwaway room you are willing to pay for the perk.
....

Exactly. One should be able to just pay extra for EMH and FP+ if you're not staying on property. Instead of getting a 'throwaway room'.

 

[FelisLachesis]

Yep that was me too. I still don't get it. In the end you're just throwing more money at your vacation. I still think it's wrong but then again I won't do it. If I have a room on Disney property I will stay on Disney property.

I'll take my own scenario from the vacation I have coming up at the end of December (so stupid crazy peak pricing, yay!)

I originally booked a hotel off site for 4 nights/5 days, and it would have costed me a little less than $400 total. Then I thought about it, and thought that I'm going to do this once with the kids, so I want to do it right. As such, I changed it to POR, and my hotel bill went up to about $1300 for the same time period.

Now, if I wanted to exploit the loophole, I could get a space at the campsite (which are still available as of 10 minutes ago), pay $115 for one night, keep the old off site room, and I'd be paying a bit more than $500, and get most of the same perks as my stay on POR would have given me. I'd still have to pay for parking for the last three days, but still having FP+ open up at 60 days would be huge, especially during the holiday season. All in all, it would be about $750 I would have saved, comparing apples to apples.

 

[SmithSmith]

I don't know exactly. I was so disgusted by the thread I quit reading it.

Disgusted is an apt description of how I feel about this. There's something about the mentality of someone who games the system just to get something for nothing that I find gross. It's just pure greed.

 

[kbelle8995]

I'll take my own scenario from the vacation I have coming up at the end of December (so stupid crazy peak pricing, yay!)

I originally booked a hotel off site for 4 nights/5 days, and it would have costed me a little less than $400 total. Then I thought about it, and thought that I'm going to do this once with the kids, so I want to do it right. As such, I changed it to POR, and my hotel bill went up to about $1300 for the same time period.

Now, if I wanted to exploit the loophole, I could get a space at the campsite (which are still available as of 10 minutes ago), pay $115 for one night, keep the old off site room, and I'd be paying a bit more than $500, and get most of the same perks as my stay on POR would have given me. I'd still have to pay for parking for the last three days, but still having FP+ open up at 60 days would be huge, especially during the holiday season. All in all, it would be about $750 I would have saved, comparing apples to apples.

Would you pay for the perk than? Say they offered a FP+ parking deal would you take that instead of the throwaway room?

 

[SmithSmith]

I'll take my own scenario from the vacation I have coming up at the end of December (so stupid crazy peak pricing, yay!)

I originally booked a hotel off site for 4 nights/5 days, and it would have costed me a little less than $400 total. Then I thought about it, and thought that I'm going to do this once with the kids, so I want to do it right. As such, I changed it to POR, and my hotel bill went up to about $1300 for the same time period.

Now, if I wanted to exploit the loophole, I could get a space at the campsite (which are still available as of 10 minutes ago), pay $115 for one night, keep the old off site room, and I'd be paying a bit more than $500, and get most of the same perks as my stay on POR would have given me. I'd still have to pay for parking for the last three days, but still having FP+ open up at 60 days would be huge, especially during the holiday season. All in all, it would be about $750 I would have saved, comparing apples to apples.

But why should someone get the same perks when they're only paying $115 total, as someone who's paying hundreds or thousands more. Do these people not have ethical standards they hold themselves to? It's just greedy people trying to get something for nothing. Disney needs to close this loophole fast.

 

[FelisLachesis]

Let me just clarify, before people start aiming pitchforks my way: I am staying at POR, I'm not changing that reservation. Even with this article telling everyone how the game is played, I'm not changing things.

Would you pay for the perk than? Say they offered a FP+ parking deal would you take that instead of the throwaway room?

If they did, then I'd definitely think about it. However, being I'm going after Christmas, I'd be worried that the lots would close on me. As long as it saved a fair bit of money, who wouldn't consider it?

But why should someone get the same perks when they're only paying $115 total, as someone who's paying hundreds or thousands more. Do these people not have ethical standards they hold themselves to? It's just greedy people trying to get something for nothing. Disney needs to close this loophole fast.

That's the point of the main article.

 

[SmithSmith]

Let me just clarify, before people start aiming pitchforks my way: I am staying at POR, I'm not changing that reservation. Even with this article telling everyone how the game is played, I'm not changing things.



If they did, then I'd definitely think about it. However, being I'm going after Christmas, I'd be worried that the lots would close on me. As long as it saved a fair bit of money, who wouldn't consider it?



That's the point of the main article.

I understand you're staying at POR, I wasn't aiming my comments at you. (Have a great trip, btw, we just stayed there last month and loved it.) I also understand that was the whole point of the article, I just want someone to justify why they find it acceptable to book a throwaway room other than the lousy excuse of "because I can".

Also, I'm curious of the off-site hotel you had previously booked. Would you care to share the name of it?