Would you agree with a check-in fee?

[zavandor]

A friend of mine owns a timeshare (Hapimag) that doesn't charge cleaning into the MF, but every time they check in, they pay for cleaning depending on lenght of stay and room type.
It sounds weird to me, I like a lot arriving at a DVC resort and having the room already paid off full in advance. However it makes me think that it could be fairer somehow.
Let's take two extremes:
- one person books 7 one-night stays: every time he checks in he has a clean room and fresh towels. His rooms have been cleaned a total of 7 times
- one person books a one week stay: his room has been cleaned only once plus a trash and towel day.

Both members pay the same MF, but the first one costs much more to the resort.

What if instead DVC lowers all our MF by about $0.50, but every time you check in you pay the cost of the one-time cleaning? For the average member it would cost the same, people doing short visits would pay a bit more, people doing long visits would pay a bit less.
As a consequence, people might tend to do less split stays, lowering front desk and bell services costs, lowering MF even more.

Of course this is just an academic discussion, I don't think this will ever change. However, what do you think?

 

[onestitchloose]

Difficult one, not too sure I'd like to turn up and still have to pay, regardless of the amounts, it would be the mindset of it.

Ideally Disney should clamp down on anyone that does the 7 one night stays to keep it fair?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

If somebody's willing to go to that much trouble on vacation, more power to'em. I ain't got time for such nonsense.

 

[zavandor]

I didn't say they are 7 consecutive nights
If I lived within a couple of hours drive from WDW; I would book many Saturdays stays: arrive Saturday morning and lean Sunday evening. Many times a year. Living 8 hours flight away, it's not a very good strategy

 

[Meriweather]

I wouldn't like it, no matter the length of stay. It is the idea of another added fee, no matter how small

 

[onestitchloose]

I think when you buy in to DVC, as you know, you make sure it suits your needs. Probably best to try not to worry about what others do and just make the best of the reasons you bought into it.

 

[drusba]

I guess I look at it as why would anyone want to do it that way. Disney could do a lot of things to charge members transaction fees that someone could argue were "fairer" and would reduce dues. Why not charge a per trip fee for the buses so that those that actually use them or use them the most pay for them and lower our dues? Why not charge an entry fee whenever you go to the pool because it is fairer to those who do not use the pool and would reduce dues? Why not charge every member for their amount of electricity used every trip, thus lowering dues and assuring those who keep the air conitioner at "warm" are treated more fairly? (You could even get the environmentalists coming out in droves to favor that one because it would encourage less power use.)

Despite being a timeshare, this is a major vacation resort where you are going with the expectation that you are not going to be nickled and dimed to death by fees for any of the normal services and amenities when visiting. And you definitely don't want to create another item for which individual costs per trip could keep going up every time you go. Airlines constantly create new transaction fees, banks likewise, colleges have been looting students for years with newly created fees, and despite any arguments that those fees are "fairer" because they charge more to those who use them the most, the result is that they are always just a new profit center for which the price will only go up, never down.

 

[LoveBWVVBR]

Why not do what Wyndham does and have so many "housekeeping credits" per year, after which you are charged for credits when you book more stays? This takes care of the 7 one-night stays housekeeping issue.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I'm still trying to figure out what's broken the way it is. Why are you trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[disneynutz]

We have zero knowledge of how DVC accounting works now so thinking about changing how we pay is impossible. How do housekeepers record their time, how do they charge for split services, electricity, sewer, trash, security, common areas, front desk, transportation?

Bill

 

[spiceycat]

though DVC members who used the housekeeping every day paid for it already. Did they change the policy? and it is a lot more than what you suggest.

now if you are talking about charging a member who stays less (me) - because they live near by - I would consider that unfair. could definitely see selling my DVC if that ever happened. lots of DVC members do live in Florida.

 

[chalee94]

though DVC members who used the housekeeping every day paid for it already. Did they change the policy?

that's not what they are talking about. (not necessarily "consecutive" nights.)

so if you live nearby and book 7 one-night stays over the course of the year, you would cost DVC seven full cleanings (plus a little extra for MS time if you book on the phone) compared to someone living in Minnesota who flies in once a year for a 7 night stay...

 

[Simba's Mom]

Frankly, I wouldn't like it. I like the fact that when I go to WDW, there's no charge for the room. We laid out an appreciable purchase price, pay yearly dues, and now they might charge per trip? Doing what Wyndam does, with housekeeping "credits" seems like a viable alternative, however.

 

[CarolMN]

Why not do what Wyndham does and have so many "housekeeping credits" per year, after which you are charged for credits when you book more stays? This takes care of the 7 one-night stays housekeeping issue.

It costs to keep track of such things.

FWIW, I value the predictability of the current annual dues system and prefer it over any nickel and dime system for allocating costs that somehow might be deemed more "fair". I agree with those who say there would be no end of fees if we started going that route.

 

[zavandor]

It costs to keep track of such things.

FWIW, I value the predictability of the current annual dues system and prefer it over any nickel and dime system for allocating costs that somehow might be deemed more "fair". I agree with those who say there would be no end of fees if we started going that route.

Aren't you in favor of a fee to cancel a reservation?

 

[CarolMN]

Aren't you in favor of a fee to cancel a reservation?

Not really - although I may have said or implied so in other threads.

I'm actually OK with the booking rules as they are and am more worried about unintended consequences of changes than I am about walking or trying to allocate dues across the membership according to the services used. I'd prefer a software update to the waitlist procedures over any additional booking restrictions or fees.

 

[bwvBound]

This is a genuine problem in both points-based timeshares and those allowing split-stays in more traditional weeks-based systems. It not a new problem and, as mentioned, Wyndham and others have implemented housekeeping credits/tokens, pay-to-play strategies and the like. DVC seems to be managing this by spreading out the costs to all owners, per resort, through the annual dues.

Should DVC change their Housekeeping policy to shift the costs to those owners who enjoy spreading their points across more frequent visits, I'd understand but not enjoy it. Speaking from the experience of owning other timeshares, even if the change does not impact me financially -- it does emotionally. Juggling the added fees changes how one plans their usage. It inherently carries a negative vibe -- even if one could defend it as "good for the larger system/body." One does get tired of discussing affordability, sustainability, and similar budget/planning terms, right?

My first timeshare, Worldmark, is a points-based system that started off using DVC's model: wrap housekeeping into dues. It revised the policy just a few years later to address the situation stated by the OP: cost differences between an owner who consumed one 7-night stay vs an owner who consumed seven 1-night stays. The second owner generates greater turn-around costs due to increased housekeeping work. To level the playing field, the policy was revised: Owners will receive1 housekeeping token for every 10,000 points owned (where 10k points = 1 week, 2BR unit in high season, most properties). Additional housekeeping tokens were available for purchase at the time of your reservation and costs varied by unit size. Summary: Your dues covers the housekeeping for a typical 1-week stay; additional housekeeping tokens offered as "pay to play."

Impact to me: My original Worldmark membership was subject to the revised "housekeeping token/pay-to-play" structure. I found myself gaming my reservation plan so that the "free" reservations within each use year were LARGE units (3 bedroom, Penthouse, Presidential, etc.) but later reservations were smaller (1BR) to avoid hitting big housekeeping fees. Ugh. Not fun to be "gaming" every reservation. Instead I found, and purchased, an older, grandfathered membership from the original policy. I merged the two accounts, preserving the grandfathered features as primary. Now, I'm afraid to tinker with the account. I have what I have ... but not likely to buy more for fear of a clerical hiccup fouling my status. Oh, well -- glad to have what I have.

Just know -- that should DVC choose to shift the housekeeping burden to a play-to-play model ... it might be "more fair to all" but it will create a sour taste for those who enjoy multiple short-stays through the use year.

A friend of mine owns a timeshare (Hapimag) that doesn't charge cleaning into the MF, but every time they check in, they pay for cleaning depending on lenght of stay and room type.
It sounds weird to me, I like a lot arriving at a DVC resort and having the room already paid off full in advance. However it makes me think that it could be fairer somehow.
Let's take two extremes:
- one person books 7 one-night stays: every time he checks in he has a clean room and fresh towels. His rooms have been cleaned a total of 7 times
- one person books a one week stay: his room has been cleaned only once plus a trash and towel day.

Both members pay the same MF, but the first one costs much more to the resort.

What if instead DVC lowers all our MF by about $0.50, but every time you check in you pay the cost of the one-time cleaning? For the average member it would cost the same, people doing short visits would pay a bit more, people doing long visits would pay a bit less.
As a consequence, people might tend to do less split stays, lowering front desk and bell services costs, lowering MF even more.

Of course this is just an academic discussion, I don't think this will ever change. However, what do you think?

 

[hakepb]

We have zero knowledge of how DVC accounting works now so thinking about changing how we pay is impossible. How do housekeepers record their time, how do they charge for split services, electricity, sewer, trash, security, common areas, front desk, transportation?

Bill

I assume housekeepers bill one hour for each minute worked.

Housekeeping is basically $1/point in the dues breakdown.
For a VGF 1BR, that is about $300/week in mid season.

 

[disneynutz]

I assume housekeepers bill one hour for each minute worked.

Housekeeping is basically $1/point in the dues breakdown.
For a VGF 1BR, that is about $300/week in mid season.

Seems high for the work that actually gets done, I guess resorts are billing us and keeping a profit.

Twice during our ownership we returned to our room and caught housekeeping sitting on the couch watching TV, one of the times she was sitting with a CM from maintenance!!!

Bill

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

No, I would not want that to be the system for housekeeping. There are several things that I like about DVC that are or have been different from many timeshares. I like the flexibility of the point system (really think they never should have added in the fixed week component) and do not want nickel and diming. It's like I dislike a hotel that automatically adds a resort fee. Just have it in the price.