What is going on with the FP+ crackdown?

[BuckeyeBama]

After they pay for and stay 1 night on site? Really? If they use the room I simply don't see it as a loophole. Not using the room, yes. Using the room, no.
Slight but significant difference to me. Clearly not to others.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with either, and maybe loophole is the wrong term. Maybe they are just inventive ways to buy what Disney isn't selling directly.

 

[robinb]

It hasn't when we've gone in within the 15 min period (we do a lot). I have found green Mickey every time as long as we scan in 5 min before all the way till 15 min after. If you try 6 min before or 16 min after, blue. All other we have gotten green. A hard ticket does the exact same thing as a MB. They work 100% interchangeably as far as FP are concerned. And park admission for that matter.

Whoops! Maybe I was there at 16 minutes .

 

[grnflash]

How is it a legal loophole? Do you really think Disney wants people paying $60 for one night at their resort and staying elsewhere for $200 a night yet keeping all the benefits as if they stayed the week at DW resort?

Disney is losing that entire week's resort room reservation payment. Plus people eating offsite for dinner after the park, and breakfast elsewhere before going to the parks from their offsite hotel.

There's no way DW set it up for that. And once they figure out a way to close that loophole they will.

I think it's legal since Disney controls all the conditions. The condition of issue is allowing length of tix FP access. Disney could change it to length of stay (# of nights + 1.) I'd even agree with that change. But until they do, it's a legal loophole. Cause again, Disney alone controls the conditions, access, etc.

 

[AngiTN]

I don't think there is a difference, personally. They're both frivolous solutions; overpaying to solve a first-world problem. The problem is that the campsites are cheap enough for some to see it as a cost/savings ratio in their favor. Disney probably sees it as they got their money so who cares if it's used. It stinks for people who actually want to camp.

Yes, I think the problem between the 2 is the campsites are cheap enough that it's a common thing for people to do. 2 tickets for a day's admission, not as cheap and fewer are going to do it.

How is it a legal loophole? Do you really think Disney wants people paying $60 for one night at their resort and staying elsewhere for $200 a night yet keeping all the benefits as if they stayed the week at DW resort?

Disney is losing that entire week's resort room reservation payment. Plus people eating offsite for dinner after the park, and breakfast elsewhere before going to the parks from their offsite hotel.

There's no way DW set it up for that. And once they figure out a way to close that loophole they will.

Here's why I don't think DW will ever bother do close the loophole, no one makes money off of it. They closed this current one when people made money by selling "tours" using it. They did the same with the old GAC abuse. When someone found a way to monetize it, they dealt with the abuse. Not before. Until, or unless, someone finds a way to monetize this, they'll leave it alone.
The only other way they address it is from complaints from people who want to camp and can't and can prove that a large number of camp sites are booked and unused. If Disney got enough complaints then they may address it. For the camp sites.

 

[jbb4me]

Disney is losing that entire week's resort room reservation payment. Plus people eating offsite for dinner after the park, and breakfast elsewhere before going to the parks from their offsite hotel.

Um, how do you figure? To Disney, a hotel room is a hotel room is a hotel room. If someone books 1 night, someone else will be out there looking for 6 nights and then boom - Disney feels no pain. And if this is primarily being done at FW Campsites, those typical guests bring their own food the vast majority of time, so no lost revenue from meals. Disney will never close this "loophole" because Disney isn't feeling any pain. Period. I don't necessarily agree with this throwaway room strategy, but folks are fooling themselves if they think Disney cares 1 dime about this.

 

[robinb]

LOL. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you stay on site for only the one night, and then stay the rest of your stay offsite still reaping the benefits of the one night stay, it's a loophole, cheat, etc.

No, it's not a loophole. It's a split stay.

 

[AnnaKat]

IF they close the rolling 60 day loophole, limiting 1-night reservations to ONLY 60-day out FPs for check-in & check-out days,

THEN guests might not decide that NO longer getting 7 days of 60-day out FPs(rolling loophole closed),

and yet ONLY getting the free parking & free MBs isn't
worth the cost of a throwaway room.

As Disney is likely aware of the loophole,
and already programs ADRs to length of onsite stay
for 180 + 10 days out
(with rolling days for the rest of length of onsite stay ONLY),

then
they should be able to program FPs @ 60 days out to be limited to length of onsite stay only.

 

[jade1]

Ok. Doesn't make it any more right, in my mind. But, it's also not up to me to stop.
I think the only question is why do folks get their panties in a wad over using a 2nd ticket to get FP but get them in a wad over throw away rooms. Some would even do one but not dream of doing the other
I happen to see them as the same, either both ok or neither ok.

Never said it was right or wrong-just that US experiences throw away rooms as well.

 

[grnflash]

I do feel for those who truly do want to camp but can't get a reservation due to throwaway bookings. But the problem (and solution) still lies with Disney, not the loophole users.

Any argument regarding lost dining revenue is nonsense. There are no conditions regarding dining dollars spent associated with a room reservation. That thinking could be spun a million ways. Maybe Disney should take out all in-room refrigerators and ban on site grocery delivery if that's what the conditions include. Again, sorry but the argument is nonsense.

 

[AngiTN]

IF they close the rolling 60 day loophole, limiting 1-night reservations to ONLY 60-day out FPs for check-in & check-out days,

THEN guests might not decide that NO longer getting 7 days of 60-day out FPs(rolling loophole closed),

and yet ONLY getting the free parking & free MBs isn't
worth the cost of a throwaway room.

As Disney is likely aware of the loophole,
and already programs ADRs to length of onsite stay
for 180 + 10 days out
(with rolling days for the rest of length of onsite stay ONLY),

then
they should be able to program FPs @ 60 days out to be limited to length of onsite stay only.

Yep, there is no doubt at all they could limit FP to length of stay if they wanted to.

I do feel for those who truly do want to camp but can't get a reservation due to throwaway bookings. But the problem (and solution) still lies with Disney, not the loophole users.

Any argument regarding lost dining revenue is nonsense. There are no conditions regarding dining dollars spent associated with a room reservation. That thinking could be spun a million ways. Maybe Disney should take out all in-room refrigerators and ban on site grocery delivery if that's what the conditions include. Again, sorry but the argument is nonsense.

Bringing the dining issue up in relation to single night stays is for sure crossing in to silly discussion territory. Disney doesn't require guests to eat on site. Be they on site guests or off site ones.

 

[Westcoastwild]

You are absolutely right. From Disney's TOS, these bookings don't seem to be doing anything wrong. But they inordinately hurt people who are really camping as it is an activity that is not easily done for a short length of time (you have to drive there, then set up) and these bookings mess with the calendar. So, if as a tent camper, I can't book a length of time that is reasonable, I can't go to Fort Wilderness. It's not as simple as choosing one of the other 1,000s of hotel room because in comparison there are a tiny number of tent sites. I have 4 kids - for me to afford a room to "legally" accommodate all of us means that I can't stay onsite at all. I think it's a situation that hurts other Disney fans instead of the Disney corporation.

I can understand your point and I'm a camper too so I sympathize. But. I'm just as inclined to camp for one or two nights as I am for a week, so I don't agree with your argument that it isn't as easily done. (And I fly with my gear, so no, you don't have to drive).

I guess what I'm thinking is that there really isn't anyway for Disney to patrol that. If the customer is paying for it, they can use it or leave it vacant. If for example, weather was bad, I would stay in a hotel that night and camp the rest- someone could see my empty site and argue that I'm not using the site. But I will the next day, and since I'm paying for it, Disney isn't going to give it away.

I'd say they could give single nights away after a max check in time, but that would likely make tardy campers angry and wouldn't help anyone else as I don't think the fort is a spur of the moment destination really.

 

[TwoMisfits]

How is it a legal loophole? Do you really think Disney wants people paying $60 for one night at their resort and staying elsewhere for $200 a night yet keeping all the benefits as if they stayed the week at DW resort?

Disney is losing that entire week's resort room reservation payment. Plus people eating offsite for dinner after the park, and breakfast elsewhere before going to the parks from their offsite hotel.

There's no way DW set it up for that. And once they figure out a way to close that loophole they will.

The way to close the "loophole" is to just reduce benefits for FW or to jack up the price for FW...since the entire "problem" is that people pay too little to get benefits others get paying too much...as people have pointed out, tons of people pay for hotel rooms they don't sleep in (there's even a Shark Tank company who appeared looking to help hotels take advantage of these "day" vs "night" guests)...that's standard in the hotel industry...so, the only issue people seem to have with the people who pay for it, but don't sleep there, is that they really wanted to get to pay that cheap for it, but it got booked up too fast for them...

 

[AnnaKat]

The way to close the "loophole" is to just reduce benefits for FW or to jack up the price for FW...since the entire "problem" is that people pay too little to get benefits others get paying too much...as people have pointed out, tons of people pay for hotel rooms they don't sleep in (there's even a Shark Tank company who appeared looking to help hotels take advantage of these "day" vs "night" guests)...that's standard in the hotel industry...so, the only issue people seem to have with the people who pay for it, but don't sleep there, is that they really wanted to get to pay that cheap for it, but it got booked up too fast for them...

Since demand is so high for
the 1-night throwaway campsites, Disney could charge $500 for all 1-night campsite bookings,
and make it NON-refundable. SO outside of canceling within 48 hours of booking, cancellation results in loss of the $500!

Doubt that many 1-night throwaways would be booked THEN!

 

[ConnecticutFlea]

I have booked a week at Disney and also a one night stay at Universal mid way through that stay. During the one night I stay at Universal, my room in Disney is vacant. I would rather pay for both my room at Universal and my room at Disney for that night rather than pack up everything and check out and then back in when I return the following day. Following some of the logic expressed in this thread, this practice is somehow cheating the poor soul that might have wanted to book my room for the one night I left it vacant. Sorry, but they had the same option to book a room that I had. Just like everyone has the same option to book a campsite, whether they plan to use the site or not. I'm sure the mousekeepers aren't too upset when they find the room clean and untouched from the day before. I suspect Disney doesn't care it the site is used or not as long as the cost of the room is received. Since the campsites are frequently sold out I suspect booking a one night stay isn't hurting Disney's bottom line.

 

[5DisneyNuts]

It's not that Disney disagrees, it's that Disney hasn't worked a way yet to prevent it. How do you prove that someone is not staying on the site? Now you gonna go site to site and make sure someone is actually there? With online check-in it's harder. Especially if they actually go there and pitch a tent.

I don't think any of us are high enough on the Disney food chain to know what Disney knows or what they think.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but stating your opinion as the voice of Disney when you aren't can lead to incorrect impressions.

 

[DisneyMom93]

Yes, I think the problem between the 2 is the campsites are cheap enough that it's a common thing for people to do. 2 tickets for a day's admission, not as cheap and fewer are going to do it.


Here's why I don't think DW will ever bother do close the loophole, no one makes money off of it. They closed this current one when people made money by selling "tours" using it. They did the same with the old GAC abuse. When someone found a way to monetize it, they dealt with the abuse. Not before. Until, or unless, someone finds a way to monetize this, they'll leave it alone.
The only other way they address it is from complaints from people who want to camp and can't and can prove that a large number of camp sites are booked and unused. If Disney got enough complaints then they may address it. For the camp sites.

But Disney would make MORE money if people had to stay onsite entire length of stay to get the benefits for length of stay.

 

[danikoski]

Since demand is so high for
the 1-night throwaway campsites, Disney could charge $500 for all 1-night campsite bookings,
and make it NON-refundable. SO outside of canceling within 48 hours of booking, cancellation results in loss of the $500!

Doubt that many 1-night throwaways would be booked THEN!

They could just make the campsites a minimum of 2 or 3 nights.

 

[hodad]

Was the deleted fast pass loophole thread undeleted and closed? It suddenly reappeared in my followed threads feed today. If so, I like the change of policies.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

They could just make the campsites a minimum of 2 or 3 nights.

Then folks would just go to the other, not able to be discussed, method.

 

[AngiTN]

I have booked a week at Disney and also a one night stay at Universal mid way through that stay. During the one night I stay at Universal, my room in Disney is vacant. I would rather pay for both my room at Universal and my room at Disney for that night rather than pack up everything and check out and then back in when I return the following day. Following some of the logic expressed in this thread, this practice is somehow cheating the poor soul that might have wanted to book my room for the one night I left it vacant. Sorry, but they had the same option to book a room that I had. Just like everyone has the same option to book a campsite, whether they plan to use the site or not. I'm sure the mousekeepers aren't too upset when they find the room clean and untouched from the day before. I suspect Disney doesn't care it the site is used or not as long as the cost of the room is received. Since the campsites are frequently sold out I suspect booking a one night stay isn't hurting Disney's bottom line.

You are correct and I believe this is why the Throwaway room is allowed to be discussed here, in the long run.

I think where it rubs me the wrong way is as PP mentioned up thread, this is mostly something that happens at the campsites and hurts those who really want to camp when they try to get a site and find them sold out but not occupied. Their options are different than those who are looking for traditional rooms. There are a much more finite number of camp sites and when they are taken by folks looking just to get cheap on site benefits it just rubs the wrong way. If a few rooms at say, All Star are taken like that, it's not as "painful" so to speak, as there are still lots of other All Star rooms, usually. So someone can probably still find a room to book.