As is their right. As I said, I don’t blame Disney at all for trying to prevent throwaway rooms etc. Likewise, I don’t blame the folks who exploited the loophole. Everyone is just trying to maximize the situation for their benefit. Castigating the parties either side of the equation is just unnecessary.
1 Like
Actually on the official Disney World website it says those STAYING in a Disney resort hotel can make FPs 60 days prior to check in. That sounds like a rule that says if you aren’t staying there, then you don’t get the 60 days. So if you plan on booking and cancelling and staying offsite, you are breaking the rules, as you are not staying at a Disney resort.
Just playing devils advocate because Disney has used wording like this to change a policy before.
3 Likes
That’s what it sounds like, but that’s not what it says. It says what it says, everything else is open for interpretation.
What they’d have to say is “If you are NOT staying at a Disney Resort, you CANNOT make Fastpasses at 60 days.” Then people would be breaking the rule. But it doesn’t say that- yet. It appears that is about to change, as you yourself say. If the rule was clear, they wouldn’t have to change it.
This! Well said.
I should clarify. I’m not saying the loophole is a policy. I personally believe it is breaking the rules. Not all rules need to be negative. In fact for kids, it’s better to tell them what they can do, instead of what they can’t. Instead of “stop standing on the couch”, you would say “We sit on the couch, please sit down.” In my children’s classroom there are rules such as listen when others are speaking, instead of don’t talk when others are speaking. If Disney had their policies listed as you can’t do this and you can’t do that, i think there would be a negative reaction by most people.
What I’m referring to with policy, Is about some of instances of the dining plan regarding sharing credits with those not on the plan.
And sorry I should say, it says if you are staying on Disney property. If you are offsite and cancelling an on-site reservation, you are not staying on Disney property.
Edited to add: I’m not super passionate about this situation. I don’t agree with it, but it is what it is. I just don’t agree with your justification for it and I’m in kind of a debating sort of mood.
2 Likes
I agree that it’s much more productive to emphasis positive behaviors with children. To teach them what to do, not what not to do. But Disney guests are not children. In fact, they want to improve the outcomes for their own children, even if it’s just a trip to Disney.
This issue is closer to a point of law than it is modeling good behaviors in children. People interpret the 60 day FP rule to mean you must stay on property to benefit- but it doesn’t say that. One could read that simply as a friendly reminder to on-site guests that this privilege is available. And, in fact, Disney’s own actual behavior on this topic reinforces this interpretation. They’ve let people book rooms, cancel the reservation and keep the fastpasses.
So, if the wording in Disney’s rules AND their actual enforcement of said rules allows people to book throwaway rooms, I can hardly blame folks for doing it. I’m not going to say they can’t- of course they can. Disney not only didn’t prohibit it, they didn’t do anything when visitors did this. There are tax court rulings regarding the IRS that are based on less than this!
Likewise, I don’t blame Disney for changing their policy. But changing it is what they are doing.
3 Likes
My point is that as adults, we should not need something telling us point blank what not to do. We have already been taught what is right and wrong. If we are teaching our children more positive directions, then adults should respond the same. There are Disney guests that are children, my own three children included. I don’t want them to think of what only benefits them, so I follow the rules and parameters Disney (and other businesses) has intentionally set up. I don’t see a need to do throwaway rooms, as I have been able to obtain the FPs we have needed within the rules. Even if I hadn’t, I would’ve figured out another way, such as doing them at rope drop.
Like I said, loopholes are not policy. They are a result of a system that needs corrected. I have no doubt that Disney did not intend for this practice to ever start. Since it has, it apparently is being addressed.
2 Likes
This isn’t a question of morality, it’s a business contract that’s spelled out in black and white. It’s not anyone’s job to look out for Disney’s business but their own. Every minute of every day that we are there, they’re looking to part us from our money. Their fiduciary duty is to their stockholders, not to us- our happiness is simply the means by which they deliver results to shareholders.
The duty of guests, on the other hand, is to their families. Happily, most of the time, these two sets of goals- Disney’s and the guests- are quite compatible. That’s why we love going to Disney, and why they’re so successful. But sometimes the goals don’t mesh, and as long as folks aren’t breaking any rules or laws, I don’t begrudge them looking out for their families.
3 Likes
I’m not looking out for Disney. I could care less about their stockholders. I’m being respectful to other fellow vacationers. Everyone is there to have a good time and make memories. I don’t need to use loopholes to cut others out of the fun or to make a lesser experience for them. I do look out for my family and I don’t tolerate people pushing us around. But I also have run into some very nice people while at DW, like many people on this board, and I want them to have just as great of a time as my family is having.
3 Likes
Now that is a totally different argument, one that I happen to agree with. I personally wouldn’t ever hold a leading reservation unless I thought I might be able to actually use it. As soon as I find out what my final plans are, I’m going to either let it go or keep it.
On the other hand, I have a lot more financial resources than most folks who visit. So I’m not going to judge others for what they do to enhance their experience.
1 Like
Sorry to disagree with you, however it does say those STAYING, not playing on staying but those staying can make them 60 days out. So if I have a reservation for staying at a resort, that means I am staying there and I can make my FP reservations up to 60 out, oh plus the 10 days since I am staying on property. So with making them, I am going to be staying, however once I cancel, I am no longer staying and there for the whole reservation would be cancelled, which means everything, It is a perk for staying on property, not for making a reservation to stay and then cancel.
You can read it how you wish, however it is in black and white. Stay on property gives you the right to make the FP up to 60 days out, don’t stay on property, up to 30 days out. Its very plan to most people, unless you are looking for ways to get around the way the system was setup.
Yes Disney should have had it where it would cancel anything associated with the reservation and as the articles I read did say that in most cases the FP reservations were cancelled when the resort reservation was cancelled. The way you phrase it is much more confusing. You sound like someone who looks for loopholes or ways to get around the system. If I am wrong, please forgive me.
1 Like
You are wrong, and I do forgive you. 
I have no need for loopholes, but I don’t judge people who do use them. I’m simply a former philosophy major- I’m educated in logic and to understand words in a very precise way, not to impute meaning where it doesn’t clearly exist. And I look at everything from many different angles.
I don’t even really disagree with you in theory, but the rules are poorly written and in fact, do not expressly prohibit these types of reservations, which is why people make them. And Disney, until now, makes no effort to stop this practice. I just don’t understand why anyone would be mad that people use this situation to their advantage.
Apparently Disney has decided to put an end to some of these practices, which likewise is just fine with me. It’s their business. What they need to do is more clearly word their booking rules. Which is what the problem has been all along.
3 Likes
I do understand. Lets take FOP, which is the hardest FP to get. If you were trying to get it and someone else who had no intention of staying was why you couldn’t get it, yes you would be upset.
The situation with the ADRs and people abusing that system caused Disney to make changes.
The situation with people hiring someone who had disabled so that they could get to the front of lines, Disney changed that.
The situation with people using the resort mugs from previous vacations caused Disney to make changes to that.
This situation with people doing what they were has caused Disney to change it.
You are looking at it in the way you are because you feel it is poorly written, however, it is in black and white, not Oh it doesn’t expressly state it the way I want it to.
If you come to a crosswalk, and it changes from the Walk to Do Not Walk, does that mean its ok to Run or Crawl across because it doesn’t list it. No, it means you do not cross. People take advantage of things and I can prove it. You didn’t see this type of behavior listed or talked about anywhere on this site. People would whisper or secretly tell others about the loophole they found. If it was not the case, then why didn’t you see it suggested as a way to get FP?
Are there ways to have 2 dining reservations at the same time? Remember that you can only have dining reservations no closer than 1 hour apart. The answer is actually yes, however it isn’t right to do it and I won;t share how it could be done. It happened to me on more than one occasion and I made sure that it was cancelled right away and even contacted Disney.
I could tell all sorts of people but you see, that would mean that I was abusing the system and doing things that I;m not supposed to do. With that said, I don’t tell anyone how to get 2 dining reservations at the same time or closer than 1 hour apart and I won’t do it. I let Disney know there is a problem and that it needs fixed.
Sorry, but I do not see it the way you do, and I think you can see from most of the posts, that people don’t see it the way you do. You believe what you want to on it, and see it the way you want to see it. As for me and most of the people on here that follow the rules, it is a good thing that is being done.
2 Likes
You’re taking this far too personally. For me, it’s just a mental exercise. It’s fun.
But now that you have decided to call into question my character, when all I’m doing is advancing an argument, I feel I have to end the conversation. Have a good night, and a great time when you visit Disney!
1 Like
That is fine that you want to call an end to it, and i am fine with that.
I never called into question your character. If you think that is what I was doing, I am sorry.
Except the rules do say that you can book FPs at 30 days. It then says that those staying onsite can book FPs at 60 days for the length of their stay (up to 14 days).
It specifies it for those not staying onsite. So booking them at 60 days and not staying onsite is breaking them, isn’t it?
2 Likes
Does staying mean sleeping? Or does staying mean paying? I still contend that Disney (or any hotel operator) does not care if you are sleeping in the room you paid for.
This all makes for a fascinating read.
Firstly, is there any evidence this has actually happened. I’ve seen one post here that noted a warning they’d had about cancelling a reservation, but that’s it and apparently that was a message seen in other circumstances before.
Besides that I’ve seen absolutely no evidence on any of the other forums that this is actually more than a rumour. Has anyone else?
Edit: Just had a clear confirmation it has changed on our very own forums but waiting to see the actual impact on leading reservations rather than outright cancellation.
Secondly, while I love the Disney experience I find people’s desire to defend what is clearly a cut-throat money-making machine with such indignation quite amazing (I’m mostly talking about the other boards, TP’s lovely on the whole).
It borders on religious zeal at times.
Disney took $20.3 billion from their parks last year and made $4.5 billion profit. That’s $55 million revenue a DAY.
They increased their park parking charges TWICE last year, a 25% hike in a year, that’s 23% above inflation, and introduced charging for the luxury of parking your own car at a hotel you’re paying hundreds of dollars a night for. And this is just the tip of the iceberg as many will know.
But God forbid anyone dares to find ways through their deliberately opaque and vague rules to make the most of the money they spend there.
I’m glad they are closing this loophole, if they are. To me booking then deliberately cancelling was always the wrong side of the line. But I’m not going to condemn anyone who didn’t feel the same. The only tactics I’m happy to condemn are those that involve outright lying such as Rider Swap and DAS scamming.
Otherwise, I’m all for loving Disney, but also working my butt off to find any advantage I can get to make the most of the thousands I’m spending with them, and help anyone else who cares to educated and research to do the same.
Let’s be very clear, Disney is ‘The Man’ and I’m going to love them, and stick it to them!
7 Likes
I love that you said this.
About a dozen years ago I first found Disboards. I was both intrigued and horrified by the vehemence spouted by some of the Disney apologist party over there. It took me a few months before I had the guts to even create a username. Within a few posts, when I somehow outted myself as an off-siter, I started getting skewered. I distinctly remember telling my DH that it seemed like a religion for some of those posters. Though I’ve been a member for over a decade I have a low post count because it can be scary!
The bottom line is until they make it impossible to utilize a work around there will be people who employ the work around for all the reasons you’ve mentioned.
@Pod I love your description - they are in the business of pleasing stockholders, I am in the business of pleasing my family. I might do the whole on-property thing if it were not astronomically expensive for a family my size. But then again, maybe not. I didn’t do it when it was just one child, either…
3 Likes
Let’s be careful with the use of the word “allowed”.
That word can have two different connotations.
There is what is “allowed”, as in, what you can away with because there is nothing explicitly preventing you or diallowing it.
Then, there is what is “allowed”, as in, what the intention of the existing rules are.
I have a hard time believing that anyone actually believes Disney’s rules were set up to “allow” (in the second sense) people to book a throwaway room for gaining 60 day FPP access. It may be allowed in the first sense, but it is fairly clear based on the rules they DO have in place that it was never MEANT to be allowed.
I think the struggle people are having with this is the ethics of it, not the “legality” of it. The fact that Disney is now explicitly enforcing this without having an explicit RULE suggests that it was NEVER “allowed” in the second sense at all.
Now, as far as the defense of Disney…I’m not sure that it matters. A business has every right to make as much money as they can. If people are willing to pay, they will keep doing it. Is that their fault? Are they evil for it? Nope. Do I wish DIsney were more affordable? Yes. Or, well…maybe. Or perhaps not. Because if it is TOO affordable, more people go. More people go, it is more crowded. More crowded, you can do less. Further, without them bringing extra money, they can’t invest in future improvements/experiences that draw us all in and make us want to go back.
So, it is a love/hate relationship really. I hate that going to Disney drains my bank account. At the same time, love draining my bank account for a good Disney trip!
Anyhow, if I start down a path of justifying taking advantage of a company such a Disney through loopholes and such, it soon becomes a slippery slope. If Disney “deserves it” then who else does? How does one decide who deserves it and who doesn’t? It becomes all quite subjective.
I’ve put a great deal of thought into this because the idea of a throwaway was, in fact, tempting to me for a while as well. It took some level-headed discussion and thinking about it to come to this. I also get that those who have done it don’t want to feel “guilty” of anything. But I think that just because one can “get away with it” doesn’t mean it was supposed to be allowed.
2 Likes