site squatters

[Hammer bird 6]

I've seen this mentioned in a couple of posts.  People arrive at their assigned site only to find someone in the site or the neighbors "holding" the site for friends.  I hope this rarely occurs.  If the neighbors are holding the site and it's assigned to me (providing they haven't parked a vehicle on site) do you just pull in? and pray that they don't mess with you? I'm not sure the front desk would be terribly helpful.  And I'm going during a very busy time (spring break) so moving to another site (or another available site) might be impossible.... what would you do?  

[Beckers 1,136]

Honestly i wouldn't want that site because I'd be worried they would

Be mad and be awful neighbors.

[ependydad...Doug 176]

I'd first try to find someone to talk to. Make sure they're not just parking there out of convenience. Then, if they ARE saving the site.

I'd call the front desk from the site and ask for assistance. If I can be moved to an equal or better site, I'd just as well move. If the other site options aren't as desireable- sorry squatters, move your crap and I'm moving in. If they have an issue, talk to Disney.

Depending on the cast of characters and their attitudes (ie, if I get an ugly vibe from them), I may take cell pictures of my setup + their license plates.

[Starbuc71 162]

This happened to us over thanksgiving. I was the nice person and went to the desk and moved. I won't do that again.

[Hammer bird 6]

Here's what I don't get.  Don't  these people link their reservations? Especially if they're traveling together?  I know that's no guarantee but... I'm also hoping that arriving on a Monday will be easier than a Friday...

[Katman1356...Jason 1,140]

Here's what I don't get.  Don't  these people link their reservations? Especially if they're traveling together?  I know that's no guarantee but... I'm also hoping that arriving on a Monday will be easier than a Friday...

 

being linked together as traveling with is not a guarantee you will get sites side by side. They usually try but doesnt mean 100% of the time it will work out that way.

[CJHokie 43]

I was talking to a guy at the dog park and told him we were trying to will every camper by the empty spot next to us so our friends would get it.  He suggested I go park in it or just tell people not to take it. 

 

I was like, what?  Doing this would never even occur to me.  And we didn't.

[LONE-STAR 370]

I'd first try to find someone to talk to. Make sure they're not just parking there out of convenience. Then, if they ARE saving the site.I'd call the front desk from the site and ask for assistance. If I can be moved to an equal or better site, I'd just as well move. If the other site options aren't as desireable- sorry squatters, move your crap and I'm moving in. If they have an issue, talk to Disney.Depending on the cast of characters and their attitudes (ie, if I get an ugly vibe from them), I may take cell pictures of my setup + their license plates.

What he said.

[rtguy007 74]

Never happened to me but I would probably move unless it is one of the few sites I really want. At that point I doubt that my diesel would have a problem relocating them. :D

[twiceblessed....nacole 433]

I've said it before. . I think it would be so much easier, if Disney simply allowed you to go online and pick your site number when making the reservation, then require you to pay in full, 30 days before you arrive.

[Katman1356...Jason 1,140]

I've said it before. . I think it would be so much easier, if Disney simply allowed you to go online and pick your site number when making the reservation, then require you to pay in full, 30 days before you arrive.

 

You would end up with more sites empty more of the time. By having them assign them they can shuffle things so they minimize the empty sites. 

[BradyBzLyn...Mo 2,023]

I'd first try to find someone to talk to. Make sure they're not just parking there out of convenience. Then, if they ARE saving the site.

I'd call the front desk from the site and ask for assistance. If I can be moved to an equal or better site, I'd just as well move. If the other site options aren't as desireable- sorry squatters, move your crap and I'm moving in. If they have an issue, talk to Disney.

Depending on the cast of characters and their attitudes (ie, if I get an ugly vibe from them), I may take cell pictures of my setup + their license plates.

 

What he said.

 

Ditto.

 

FWIW I don't think this happens a ton.

 

If it happened to me, I'd be very nice about it and if the squatters had an issue, I'd shrug and say, "sorry, you'll have to go talk to the folks up front, I'm just doing as I was told." 

[GaDawgFan.....Kelly 799]

Ditto.

FWIW I don't think this happens a ton.

If it happened to me, I'd be very nice about it and if the squatters had an issue, I'd shrug and say, "sorry, you'll have to go talk to the folks up front, I'm just doing as I was told."

Me too!

[twiceblessed....nacole 433]

You would end up with more sites empty more of the time. By having them assign them they can shuffle things so they minimize the empty sites.

I'm missing why...can you help me understand?

[keith_h 420]

You would end up with more sites empty more of the time. By having them assign them they can shuffle things so they minimize the empty sites. 

 

I'm missing why...can you help me understand?

 

I wonder too. If you select when reserving from the list of available sites if someone cancels whoever reserves after that would have the site added to their list. For people not reserving online the guest could tell the agent the site number or the agent could assign the site based on customer criteria.

 

Edit:

I can see how it might mean that less folks get a specific site they request but it does open up a better opportunity for them to get an alternate site they would like.

[djsamuel 322]

I'm missing why...can you help me understand?

Agree. It works well for Florida State parks as well as others using Reserve America. People will find the gaps.

[tim5055 120]

You would end up with more sites empty more of the time. By having them assign them they can shuffle things so they minimize the empty sites. 

 

As much as it may not seem to make a difference, this is correct and allows for more even utilization of the sites.  With site specific reservations you end up with lots of 2-3-4 day openings in each sites "use schedule" as not being desirable to book. So Site 1 may have Sun-Mon not booked, Site 2 Tues-Wed-Thurs not booked and Site 3 Fri-Sat not booked.  With non site specific reservations the bookings can be moved around and this "week" of unbooked nights becomes a week available on a single site, rather than being spread out over three sites.  Multiply that by hundreds of sites and you end up with a lot more bookable nights.

 

Additionally, this allows for folks to add days to their reservation after arrival as Disney does not need to worry about someone checking in for that specific site.

 

A second reason is that if they need to close a loop for any reason they can just adjust people away from that loop as necessary rather than being stuck with folks who have it booked site specific. 

[Starbuc71 162]

Remember. We're talking about the fort here. If it's not profitable for Disney, they are not going to spend the money to have someone spend the time and effort to come up with a plan and implement it online to pick a specific site. They fill up already without it. Can anyone tell me the last thing they did at the fort to improve the guest experience without focusing on increasing the bottom line? I do many things at my job that increases customer satisfaction and sometimes it decreases the bottom line, but it increases my reputation. My experience with state or county parks at least here in FL is that you can never get the sites you want by choosing ahead of time because all the snowbirds pick them at the 6 month window

[Starbuc71 162]

As much as it may not seem to make a difference, this is correct and allows for more even utilization of the sites.  With site specific reservations you end up with lots of 2-3-4 day openings in each sites "use schedule" as not being desirable to book. So Site 1 may have Sun-Mon not booked, Site 2 Tues-Wed-Thurs not booked and Site 3 Fri-Sat not booked.  With non site specific reservations the bookings can be moved around and this "week" of unbooked nights becomes a week available on a single site, rather than being spread out over three sites.  Multiply that by hundreds of sites and you end up with a lot more bookable nights.

 

Additionally, this allows for folks to add days to their reservation after arrival as Disney does not need to worry about someone checking in for that specific site.

 

A second reason is that if they need to close a loop for any reason they can just adjust people away from that loop as necessary rather than being stuck with folks who have it booked site specific.

You are exactly right

[Hammer bird 6]

If they also had specific sites you could reserve, they'd also be able to tell right away if someone reserved a site and never checked in.  

[tim5055 120]

If they also had specific sites you could reserve, they'd also be able to tell right away if someone reserved a site and never checked in.

I'm confused.... They always know if you have checked in.

[Hammer bird 6]

People who do the phantom reservations.  They never physically appear at the fort. - never check in. So the site was reserved and never "claimed"

[Momof6....aka Marty 769]

People who do the phantom reservations.  They never physically appear at the fort. - never check in. So the site was reserved and never "claimed"

But I believe these people do pay for the site.  We all have heard of people who make a "throw-away" reservation at a tent site so they can stay off-site but get some advantages to staying onsite.  They get free magic bands, the ability to make FP+ reservations at 60 days out, and free parking for 2 days.  For some people, that is worth paying for a tent site for one night, even though they never come to the campground.  

 

Here is a recent thread on easywdw.com where this is discussed: http://www.easywdw.com/forums/showthread.php?30211-Throw-away-nights

[tim5055 120]

People who do the phantom reservations.  They never physically appear at the fort. - never check in. So the site was reserved and never "claimed"

They have to  check in or their "benefits" wouldn't work.

 

For it to work best they would want to drive through FW and get their windshield parking pass for the parks

[djsamuel 322]

But I believe these people do pay for the site.  We all have heard of people who make a "throw-away" reservation at a tent site so they can stay off-site but get some advantages to staying onsite.  They get free magic bands, the ability to make FP+ reservations at 60 days out, and free parking for 2 days.  For some people, that is worth paying for a tent site for one night, even though they never come to the campground.  

 

Here is a recent thread on easywdw.com where this is discussed: http://www.easywdw.com/forums/showthread.php?30211-Throw-away-nights

 

Wow, that thread is appalling.  Nobody on it thinks of the ethics behind this.  They get their Magic Bands, and use them to get past parking?  I never knew you could use the Magic Bands for parking, other than access into resorts.  I'm assuming most never check in and keep their fast passes and reservations.