Not to reopen that can of worms but...

[austinwildflower]

You won't be able to do it for long. Disney is currently looking how to stop this abuse of the system. They are fully aware and they don't like it, either.

 

[Kalliope]

It's sad you have this way of thinking. You're hurting other families that want to camp but can't due to throwaway bookings. Would it be okay for a billionaire to buy out Magic Kingdom admission for a day, so he could have it all to himself? After all, he would be giving Disney lots of money. Sometimes you have to think a bit about other people and about being an honest person, and not just about a bit of money.

Sure, if she can pay for it and Disney would allow it.

 

[Kalliope]

You won't be able to do it for long. Disney is currently looking how to stop this abuse of the system. They are fully aware and they don't like it, either.

They aren't going to stop throwaway rooms...a room is paid for that isn't being used. Disney gets their money, they don't care whether the room is actually occupied or not.

 

[HulkBuster]

You won't be able to do it for long. Disney is currently looking how to stop this abuse of the system. They are fully aware and they don't like it, either.

if you mean by 'currently' over the last 30 years or so okay they're currently looking at it, good luck with that

 

[BlackMagicWoman]

They aren't going to stop throwaway rooms...a room is paid for that isn't being used. Disney gets their money, they don't care whether the room is actually occupied or not.

I don't think that have any skin in this game so to speak but to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...Disney might not like the idea of throwaway room since they may actually be losing money. A family that was actually staying in that room would be spending money on food and souvenirs in addition to the room.

 

[crostorfer]

You won't be able to do it for long. Disney is currently looking how to stop this abuse of the system. They are fully aware and they don't like it, either.

And you know this, how..................?

 

[NavyDad]

Our experience with FP+ for our recent trip the last week of June:

Overall the system worked great for us with a few hitches.

We were at WDW at one of the busiest times of the year with crowd levels of 9 most days. We made our FP reservations late in the day on our 60 day mark and had no problem at all getting what we wanted at each park each day. I made most of our FP reservations between 10AM - 1PM.

MK day we had 7DMT, Buzz and Space Mountain. Wanted to add Wishes on as a 4th FP. I kept seeing Wishes available up until 1 PM but after we went on Space around 1:30 and then waited in line for the kiosk (behind people who had zero clue what they were doing) Wishes was gone and I think we snagged Splash and then Peter Pan for later that day. As of 2:30 that day there was plenty of availability or everything except A&E, 7DMT and Wishes.

Epcot day we had Soarin, Turtle Talk and Mission Space. I had been wanting to get Illuminations but by the time I was ready to book our 4th FP, I had to again wait in line at a kiosk. Illuminations was gone but we were able to get Test Track for later that day.

AK was a park for us that with getting there before RD and following Josh's Cheat Sheet we didn't really need FP at all. We did have EE, Dino, Kali and Character FP's for that day. We did pretty much everything we wanted to do (exception of the bird show) by early afternoon. When it began to rain we went home so I can't remember if we tried to get extra FP. We have spent full days in this park before but with a pre-RD ADR at Tusker House and using the cheat sheet we pretty much stayed 2 steps ahead of the crowds all day. I'm not a fan of calling AK a half day park but I think AK would be your best option if you wanted to tour a park in the morning and then make FP reservations for another park in the afternoon/evening.

HS day we had TSMM, ToT and Star Tours booked between 10 and 1. We wanted to add GMR and Frozen Sing along as additional FP and we had no problem with that. At around dinner time there was tons of availability for everything except TSMM, GMR (closed early that day due to Frozen) and the first Fantasmic show. We got FP for the second Fantasmic and rode RnR and ToT with no wait during the first show. We didn't really "need" the FP for the 2nd Fantasmic but it was nice getting early entry and good seats.

The biggest drawback BY FAR to our FP experience was the kiosks. Waiting in line behind people who don't have their stuff together can drive you insane if you let it.

There was lots of availability for a bunch of rides (not just the stuff nobody wants) all through the day at pretty much every park. The problem is if there is a big draw attractions or something you really want to do you just can't bet on it being available. You may have to pick something else. You can try the strategy of reserving all of your FP's as early as possible after RD but IMO that defeats the purpose as most rides were still pretty much walk on at that point for us.

There has been a lot of talk about FP increasing wait times on secondary rides. Josh has shown evidence of this at his site. The one time we actually noticed this was on Living with the Land at Epcot. We waited probably about 30 minutes to get on a ride that we had never waited more than 5 on any previous trips.

 

[JimmyV]

I don't think that have any skin in this game so to speak but to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...Disney might not like the idea of throwaway room since they may actually be losing money. A family that was actually staying in that room would be spending money on food and souvenirs in addition to the room.

You aren't being a Devil's Advocate. You are being logical. Disney wants its rooms occupied. If a room (or campsite) is rented out for seven consecutive "one-day unoccupied" stays versus 7 consecutive nights of occupancy, Disney definitely loses out on revenue. If nothing else, there is an even chance that the people who occupy the room will buy the Dining Plan, and as much as people like to debate the cost of the Plan(s), they are a huge profit center for Disney. So at a minimum, they want the occupants of the rooms to at least consider the Dining Plans, which absentee renters simply will not do. There are many other examples of where on-site guests will outspend off-site guests, but this is just the easiest example for people to understand.

Our experience with FP+ for our recent trip the last week of June:

Overall the system worked great for us with a few hitches.

Thanks for the report. I share your view that the most frustrating thing about the new system is the learning curve at the kiosks.

 

[socrateze]

I don't think that have any skin in this game so to speak but to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...Disney might not like the idea of throwaway room since they may actually be losing money. A family that was actually staying in that room would be spending money on food and souvenirs in addition to the room.

Disney saves money on housekeeping and there's no guarantee that hotel guests will buy food and souvenirs.

 

[itchin2go]

It's sad you have this way of thinking. You're hurting other families that want to camp but can't due to throwaway bookings. Would it be okay for a billionaire to buy out Magic Kingdom admission for a day, so he could have it all to himself? After all, he would be giving Disney lots of money. Sometimes you have to think a bit about other people and about being an honest person, and not just about a bit of money.

Sorry, but I disagree. When I'm on vacation, the only thing I care about is my family's enjoyment, that's what I'm paying for. If I am willing to pay for a campsite or room to assure that my family has a great vacation, I will do it. Anyone can do the same thing.

There are private rentals of the parks, right?

By the way, there is already a thread about throwaway bookings and we have been asked not to debate the morality of the issue.

Personally, if I book a room or a campsite and pay for it, I feel that I can use it however I want. Stay there as long as I want (or not). I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about booking something and paying for it. And I am an honest person. Other families have the same opportunity to book rooms or campsites as I do.

 

[itchin2go]

Disney saves money on housekeeping and there's no guarantee that hotel guests will buy food and souvenirs.

I stay offsite, and trust me, I buy more than my share of food and souvenirs.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

I stay offsite, and trust me, I buy more than my share of food and souvenirs.

Conversely, I stay onsite and don't spend much (comparatively) on non-essentials.

 

[BlackMagicWoman]

Disney saves money on housekeeping and there's no guarantee that hotel guests will buy food and souvenirs.

How are they saving money on housekeeping? The room is still booked. Housekeeper will still show up and go through the motions. And seriously, who stays on property (not even in a DVC) and doesn't buy any good whatsoever and not a single souvenir. I just don't think that makes sense as a counter argument.

 

[mom2rtk]

How are they saving money on housekeeping? The room is still booked. Housekeeper will still show up and go through the motions. And seriously, who stays on property (not even in a DVC) and doesn't buy any good whatsoever and not a single souvenir. I just don't think that makes sense as a counter argument.

I don't see what staying onsite/offsite has to do with whether you buy souvenirs. One could contend that onsite guests are more likely to be frequent guests and less likely to buy a t-shirt or mug every single time.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

How are they saving money on housekeeping? The room is still booked. Housekeeper will still show up and go through the motions. And seriously, who stays on property (not even in a DVC) and doesn't buy any good whatsoever and not a single souvenir. I just don't think that makes sense as a counter argument.

Yo.

I buy a $3.00 cup of oatmeal for breakfast every day at the resort and get water to drink. I eat lunch and dinner in the parks or at other resorts, which I could just as easily do staying offsite. I never buy souvenirs from the resorts. I have occasionally had to purchase band-aids or an overpriced bottle of Pepto Bismol, but I doubt Disney is planning to make their money back with sundry items.

I'm not saying this is indicative of most onsite guests, just that there are some of us weirdos out there.

 

[BlackMagicWoman]

Btw being onsite/offsite isn't relevant, that part of my argument wasn't predicated on where a customer was saying. I'm not even saying everyone will buy souvenirs, but you are hard pressed to stay on property and not eat a single meal there. That just isn't realistic.

I was countering the argument that someone would stay in a room and not eat a single meal on Disney property.

 

[itchin2go]

You won't be able to do it for long. Disney is currently looking how to stop this abuse of the system. They are fully aware and they don't like it, either.

Another poster told me this same thing. She was adamant about it. That was over a year ago.

I'll tell you what I told her. I don't think cutting down on people booking rooms/campsites and paying for them is high up on Disney's list of problems. And I don't think they care how much time I spend in the room or on the campsite. I don't know why they would. I don't know how they would "stop this abuse of the system" (the abuse that consists of booking something and paying for it?).

But throwaway rooms go WAY back. It was over a year ago when I started investigating them, but they predate me by a long shot. They go back to people trying to book reservations at Cinderella's table. It's nothing new.

FWIW - I booked (and paid for) a throwaway at Universal last year also. Never set foot in the room. I can't imagine Universal cared one bit.

 

[itchin2go]

You aren't being a Devil's Advocate. You are being logical. Disney wants its rooms occupied. If a room (or campsite) is rented out for seven consecutive "one-day unoccupied" stays versus 7 consecutive nights of occupancy, Disney definitely loses out on revenue. If nothing else, there is an even chance that the people who occupy the room will buy the Dining Plan, and as much as people like to debate the cost of the Plan(s), they are a huge profit center for Disney. So at a minimum, they want the occupants of the rooms to at least consider the Dining Plans, which absentee renters simply will not do. There are many other examples of where on-site guests will outspend off-site guests, but this is just the easiest example for people to understand.

Actually, I DID consider adding the dining plan when I booked the throwaway - for last year's trip and next year's. I know I would only be booking it for check in and check out day, but I priced it out to see if it would save me any money, based on where our ADSs were/would be. It didn't save us anything, so I didn't book it.

And I'll say it again - we stay offsite and eat most meals on Disney property. 99% of our souvenirs are bought on property, and I view shopping as an attraction, so trust me, much of my money gets left with Disney. I knocked out a bunch of my Christmas list on our last trip.

 

[DisneyFan2013]

how is FP+ working out for everyone?

FP+ has been implemented since January of 2014. So with little over a year under its belt, now seems like the time to get a good feel on how the system has performed. I remember all the negative comments and reviews in being stages. But now it seems like those reviews have gone away or simply are not being discussed.

Not to mention I'm headed there in October so....

I've had no problems with FP+. It worked great on my last two trips.

 

[JimmyV]

Actually, I DID consider adding the dining plan when I booked the throwaway...but I priced it out to see if it would save me any money, based on where our ADSs were/would be. It didn't save us anything, so I didn't book it.

BOOM! There it is. Disney doesn't want "almost booked the DP". Many people staying for a week don't (or can't) do the math and overpay for the plan. For a single day, the math is too easy.

Also, while I don't have the real statistics, I'll bet that the percentage of off site visitors who spend a day or two at Universal is way, way higher than the percentage of visitors who stay on site. The lure of sticking with WDW is just too strong. So while you eat 99% of your meals on site, off-site visitors who spend a couple of days at US drive their percentage down to 75% at best. There is no debating the point that once Disney has you on property, it has more of your money.