BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 but short stays are what i want!!!!I have 3 nights in december, 2 in feburary and 3 in october... If i can convince the wife ill to another 2 nights in april and maybe 3 more in december 2016It seems like as long as you're not looking during peak/holiday periods, folks have still been able to snag weekends without too much trouble. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grumpy and Grandma 739 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Presumably they check in, but for all the talk about "phantom" or "throwaway" sites, I've never actually talked to someone that's done it to find out what the deal is. Some folks claim it's a huge problem, others claim it hardly happens. It's kind of like Big Foot. We've been there many, many weekends when there is only one or two empty sites in the place so I call to it being a "BIG" problem..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ceemike...Mike & Judy 50 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 These days FP+ and ADRs are probably worth a lot more than EMH. Presumably they check in, but for all the talk about "phantom" or "throwaway" sites, I've never actually talked to someone that's done it to find out what the deal is. Some folks claim it's a huge problem, others claim it hardly happens. It's kind of like Big Foot. The recent changes to the reservation should put the kibosh on this to some extent, as it's made it harder to book short stays.The whole concept puzzles me, because I thought anyone, resort guest or not, could make ADRs 180 days out, and if someone wanted to book a FP 60 days out, then just book a resort reservation for any resort, put the one night deposit on a credit card, book your FPs, and then cancel the resort reservation. From what I've read, cancelling the the resort reservation doesn't cancel ADRs or FPs connected with the resort reservation. I may be wrong, though, as it's been known to happen before. I also hope that it's not too hard to book a short stay, as I need one more night for our December trip, as I posted elsewhere on the site. :TantrumSmiley: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ceemike...Mike & Judy 50 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 I apologize for the triple post. :facepalm: I can't find a way to delete them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigTom 76 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Was in 1504 one time. There were 4 or 5 cars parked on pad a1502, they were there all day, gone late at night, never saw the people. Probably was cheaper than parking at the parks plus the other perks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Was in 1504 one time. There were 4 or 5 cars parked on pad a1502, they were there all day, gone late at night, never saw the people. Probably was cheaper than parking at the parks plus the other perks. At $17+ per car, it probably was. Especially if there were multiple people per car splitting the site fee. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Avatab.... Steve 124 Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Was in 1504 one time. There were 4 or 5 cars parked on pad a1502, they were there all day, gone late at night, never saw the people. Probably was cheaper than parking at the parks plus the other perks. And it may be that the bigger issue isn't the phantom sites with no one on them, but the people who book one or two sites and then cram as many people on them as possible. As noted above, that would very cheap on a per-person basis. We have all routinely seen sites with WAY too many cars and people on them. IMHO if sites were restricted to immediate family and a reduced maximum number of people, many of those sites would open up as the abusers went elsewhere. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tri-Circle-D 2,059 Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 And it may be that the bigger issue isn't the phantom sites with no one on them, but the people who book one or two sites and then cram as many people on them as possible. As noted above, that would very cheap on a per-person basis. We have all routinely seen sites with WAY too many cars and people on them. IMHO if sites were restricted to immediate family and a reduced maximum number of people, many of those sites would open up as the abusers went elsewhere. Ah, and that's why the idiots in charge don't do anything to fix it. In their narrow-minded thinking, they don't care how the site gets used. They're happy if the site is paid for. Same deal with freeloaders in the pool. It would cost them money to get rid of them, but costs them nothing to have them there. So, we have freeloaders. Idiots. TCD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigTom 76 Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 And it may be that the bigger issue isn't the phantom sites with no one on them, but the people who book one or two sites and then cram as many people on them as possible. As noted above, that would very cheap on a per-person basis. We have all routinely seen sites with WAY too many cars and people on them. IMHO if sites were restricted to immediate family and a reduced maximum number of people, many of those sites would open up as the abusers went elsewhere.Would have been different if there had been a tent on site, but there were nothing but cars Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Avatab.... Steve 124 Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Ah, and that's why the idiots in charge don't do anything to fix it. In their narrow-minded thinking, they don't care how the site gets used. They're happy if the site is paid for. Same deal with freeloaders in the pool. It would cost them money to get rid of them, but costs them nothing to have them there. So, we have freeloaders. Idiots. TCD Exactly Would have been different if there had been a tent on site, but there were nothing but cars Sounds like there is more than one issue causing sites to be in short supply. What is the common denominator? Weak rules and spotty enforcement. Or, as TCD said above: "IDIOTS"!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
geoffdaddy 33 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'm not sure how they would be able to get rid of freeloaders apart from putting an unsightly fence around the pool area, and I'm definitely against that! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CCIntrigue...aka Gwen 547 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 They have fences around other pools. Why not at the fort? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tri-Circle-D 2,059 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 They have fences around other pools. Why not at the fort? Fences cost money. Next question. TCD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Katman1356...Jason 1,140 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Fences cost money. Next question. TCDI wouldnt be surprised if there ends up being one. After the drowning at AOA Disney said they were going to put up fences and lock down the pools for after hours. They have been adding them to the resorts that didnt have them a little at a time from what I understand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023 Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 They announced ages ago that all pools on property would be fenced. The caveat was that it would be done as part of "routine maintenance" Apparently that takes a while at the Fort. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
swimmarz 72 Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 sounds like a Place to add a MB scanner and restrict those using the pool now that fences are going up Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Momof6....aka Marty 769 Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 I can't say how big the problem of people booking a "phantom" site is, but I am sure it happens. They book one night at the campground for their arrival day. Then they can make FP+ 60 days out from that night for that day and the next. The next day, they can make it for another day. And so on for the rest of their stay. They never check into the campground, but still get "free" parking at the theme parks for two days, Magic bands for the whole group, and the FP+ advantage. I believe that the perecent of WDW guests who really plan out their vacations with touring plans, reserving their FP+ at midnight on the 60th day, and such is a small percent. And only some of those people stay off-property. And only some of them will figure out that they can book a "throw-away" night at FW. But some do. And I think it is a shame. OTOH, I have no trouble with them allowing unrelated people to share campsites. I have shared campsites with some Wild Womenz which much success! :banana: Besides, I highly doubt WDW wants to get into the murky waters of saying only related people can share lodging. As for why they don't allow 10 people in a hotel room, that is for safety issues and the fire regulations. They don't allow 10 related people in the rooms either. One reason my family stays at the Fort is we would have to get 2 hotels rooms to accommodate the 8 of us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Avatab.... Steve 124 Posted September 13, 2015 Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 I can't say how big the problem of people booking a "phantom" site is, but I am sure it happens. They book one night at the campground for their arrival day. Then they can make FP+ 60 days out from that night for that day and the next. The next day, they can make it for another day. And so on for the rest of their stay. They never check into the campground, but still get "free" parking at the theme parks for two days, Magic bands for the whole group, and the FP+ advantage. I believe that the perecent of WDW guests who really plan out their vacations with touring plans, reserving their FP+ at midnight on the 60th day, and such is a small percent. And only some of those people stay off-property. And only some of them will figure out that they can book a "throw-away" night at FW. But some do. And I think it is a shame. OTOH, I have no trouble with them allowing unrelated people to share campsites. I have shared campsites with some Wild Womenz which much success! :banana: Besides, I highly doubt WDW wants to get into the murky waters of saying only related people can share lodging. As for why they don't allow 10 people in a hotel room, that is for safety issues and the fire regulations. They don't allow 10 related people in the rooms either. One reason my family stays at the Fort is we would have to get 2 hotels rooms to accommodate the 8 of us. The reason I mentioned "related people" is because that would be one way to get the site overcrowding back under control. I agree it would be a tough rule to enforce, but it would give Security or the Sheriffs another tool to kick out any site they get called to for problems. Just like no-alcohol rules. IIRC the Fort was Walt's idea to provide a more affordable way for a family to come to Disney World. What would he say if he was to take a tour of the present-day Fort with all of the crazy groups/tents/cars/trucks/golfcarts/etc crammed onto site after site. I know that there are large families that want to be on one site. I also know that there are groups like the Wild Womenz who are not a problem. It's the groups who abuse the Fort and related amenities that are an issue. I say use the same rule for campsites that are used in many (most?) campgrounds. 2 adults max per site, any more need to pay an additional fee. If you want to have more adults you can either rent more sites or pay extra for each adult over 2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mouseketab.....Carol 1,261 Posted September 13, 2015 Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 They actually used to have a fee for adults over 2, but it was a paltry $2 per night per adult. They did away with that several years ago. The last time I paid the $2 for extra adults, the site fee was like $27 a night for a partial, so adding $16 for 8 extra adults was still less $$ than the base rate for a partial site nowadays.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
geoffdaddy 33 Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Ok, back on topic, sorta... We're going to buy an AP for the water parks only. Is that upgradeable to a regular AP later and/or any discounts that can be applied from one of those to the regular AP when it's time to renew? We're not quite ready for a real AP yet (waiting for the kids to get a little taller), but we are not far off now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mouseketab.....Carol 1,261 Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Ok, back on topic, sorta... We're going to buy an AP for the water parks only. Is that upgradeable to a regular AP later and/or any discounts that can be applied from one of those to the regular AP when it's time to renew? We're not quite ready for a real AP yet (waiting for the kids to get a little taller), but we are not far off now.If you upgrade later in that year with the Water Park AP, then you will have to upgrade to a Premium AP. We very rarely renew. We usually let our AP lapse for a few months then buy a new one for our next trip. The renewal discount rarely makes up for the later expiration date. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
swimmarz 72 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 If you upgrade later in that year with the Water Park AP, then you will have to upgrade to a Premium AP. We very rarely renew. We usually let our AP lapse for a few months then buy a new one for our next trip. The renewal discount rarely makes up for the later expiration date.we take an entire year off in between... then its like visiting a new park as we last had passes that expired on 12/14 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CCIntrigue...aka Gwen 547 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 We've never renewed our APs. Go one year, buy the APs, and then visit again the next year in the month before the APs expire. Then wait until the next year and buy new APs. If we lived closer and could take multiple trips each year, we'd renew. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 We've never renewed our APs. Go one year, buy the APs, and then visit again the next year in the month before the APs expire. Then wait until the next year and buy new APs. We do the same. For our one big annual trip, it works the best and saves us the most, as we only buy APs every other year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CCIntrigue...aka Gwen 547 Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 We do the same. For our one big annual trip, it works the best and saves us the most, as we only buy APs every other year. Even when the kids were young this was our strategy. And we only went 4 weeks every AP. Now we get 7-8 weeks every AP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.