DVC Occupancy Thread Part 2

[abk96]

Wow. That's crazy.

My family just spent a week at the Beach Club on the club level and I know that these rooms have enough beds to sleep 5 but they don't really have the space for 5. The one bedrooms that I've been in over the years have way more space.

I guess I'm just thinking the way a normal person would. Disney being the non normal person of course.

More space fits more people.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by abk96

More space fits more people.

I can't agree with you there.

Whenever you book a hotel, the assumption is that there will be a bed for everyone. If a hotel accepts a reservation for a party of 5, there should be sleeping accommodations for 5.

The resorts we are talking about only have beds for 4--a king bed and a queen-size sofa bed. I don't blame Disney / CRO for only allowing 4 people in those villas.

If we want to point fingers, I personally think CRO's approach is better than DVC's. The old policy of 4 occupants plus one under the age of 3 was also reasonable since there is a porta-crib available for the child. Allowing 5 occupants of any age in a room designed for 4 has always seemed excessive / unnecessary / inappropriate IMO.

[abk96]

Originally Posted by tjkraz

.
Whenever you book a hotel, the assumption is that there will be a bed for everyone. If a hotel accepts a reservation for a party of 5, there should be sleeping accommodations for 5.

The resorts we are talking about only have beds for 4--a king bed and a queen-size sofa bed. I don't blame Disney / CRO for only allowing 4 people in those villas.

.

Exactly. So why make different rules for members and non- members. The members don't have a bed for their fifth occupant.

What I'm trying to say is that since I already know for a fact that these rooms can sleep 5 through member services then why don't they let others do the same.

I think it should be one set of rules straight across the board.

I'm more annoyed knowing that 5 "members" can have a 1 bdrm. but 5 "non-members" can not. And most people don't even realize that. But I do and it's not the way things should be run.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by abk96

Exactly. So why make different rules for members and non- members. The members don't have a bed for their fifth occupant.

What I'm trying to say is that since I already know for a fact that these rooms can sleep 5 through member services then why don't they let others do the same.

I think it should be one set of rules straight across the board.

I'm more annoyed knowing that 5 "members" can have a 1 bdrm. but 5 "non-members" can not. And most people don't even realize that. But I do and it's not the way things should be run.

May just be splitting hairs now but the rooms we're talking about do NOT "sleep 5." They only sleep 4.

As for your other comments, I can only go back to: It's Disney's sandbox and they can do whatever they wish. This isn't some super-secret policy that they've tried to keep under wraps. It's just the way different divisions of the company have established different policies for the same accommodations.

If you want to try renting points from a member, they will allow 5 names on a One Bedroom reservation booked with (rented) points.

If you want to book through CRO, they will only allow 4.

Unfortunately your awareness of the policy differences isn't going to prompt any exceptions. Good luck.

[abk96]

I'll just say one more thing. You and I know that it is kind of a "super-secret policy" when you allow more guests in a room that shouldn't be there only because they are members.

There are fire code laws after all.I guess.

[DebbieB]

Originally Posted by abk96

Exactly. So why make different rules for members and non- members. The members don't have a bed for their fifth occupant.

What I'm trying to say is that since I already know for a fact that these rooms can sleep 5 through member services then why don't they let others do the same.

I think it should be one set of rules straight across the board.

I'm more annoyed knowing that 5 "members" can have a 1 bdrm. but 5 "non-members" can not. And most people don't even realize that. But I do and it's not the way things should be run.

Because DVC guides have used the line "you can have 5 in your 1 bedroom" to sell DVC for years. Otherwise, telling a family of 5 that they have to get a 2 bedroom would be too many points to afford for many.

Originally Posted by abk96

I'll just say one more thing. You and I know that it is kind of a "super-secret policy" when you allow more guests in a room that shouldn't be there only because they are members.

There are fire code laws after all.I guess.

They would not go against fire code for anybody, that would be a huge legal risk. Disney occupancy rules and fire code are 2 different things.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by abk96

That really doesn't make sense though. If they will let a family who are members do it then what's the difference if a non-member family wants to do the same especially since I know this from experience being in the dvc at one time.

Will they be replacing the chairs in the one bedrooms with a sleeper chair? This would make sense.

The fact is that the CRO interpretation is more in line with the legal interpretation.

Originally Posted by tjkraz

Disney's sandbox...Disney's rules.

Yes and no. practically that's accurate to a degree, however, this really is more of a legal and rule issue. It is my opinion that one could legally require DVC to enforce the rules if one wanted to go to such lengths. IF the 2 sets of rules ever merge, expect the CRO rules to be the one going forward.

Originally Posted by DebbieB

Because DVC guides have used the line "you can have 5 in your 1 bedroom" to sell DVC for years. Otherwise, telling a family of 5 that they have to get a 2 bedroom would be too many points to afford for many.

There would be no legal or technical issue with enforcing the rules as stated. Oral representations are not enforceable in timeshares sales, esp if they conflict with the written documentation as they would in this situation. Of course each resort would be considered independently and only the owners at that given resort would have any potential argument. The truth is that for non home resorts, they could reduce the occupancy if they wanted to say 2 for a studio for example.

[DVCtinkerbell]

The good thing about Disney is that there will be beds for everyone in your party. I have made reservations at other hotel and then once we get in the room there were accommodations for only 2 out of the 4 of us. No rolling beds, nothing. The management could care less. At Disney I never have to worry about whether or not there are beds for my whole family.

[Deb & Bill]

Originally Posted by abk96

I'll just say one more thing. You and I know that it is kind of a "super-secret policy" when you allow more guests in a room that shouldn't be there only because they are members.

There are fire code laws after all.I guess.

Fire codes don't really care how many people are in the room. They just care how many people will be in the corridor and stairwell evacuating the building. Most hotels solve the calculation by limiting the number of guests in a room. It's not the size of the room, it's the size of the corridor and number of stair exits.

[abk96]

Originally Posted by Deb & Bill

Fire codes don't really care how many people are in the room. They just care how many people will be in the corridor and stairwell evacuating the building. Most hotels solve the calculation by limiting the number of guests in a room. It's not the size of the room, it's the size of the corridor and number of stair exits.

Well won't those people from the room be in the corridor if there is ever an emergency?

And again, I'm saying that DVC member services is allowing more people in a 1 bdrm than CRO would just because you are a member. Doesn't make sense now does it.

There should be one set of rules for both parts of Disney. Whether it's MS or CRO.

[Chuck S]

Originally Posted by abk96

There should be one set of rules for both parts of Disney. Whether it's MS or CRO.

Why? I mean, the rules vary for almost all other parts of the program between cash and points. Limited housekeeping for point stays, booking categories, booking seasons, booking windows, availability...so why shouldn't occupancy also be different. Legally, DVC and Disney are separate entities, and their interests are not always mutually inclusive.

In this case, the interest of Disney making more $ by renting a 2 bdrm vs. a 1 bdrm, and the interest of DVC by being able to sell a family of 5 DVC in a 1 brdm that would not buy into a 2 brdm.

[tjkraz]

Originally Posted by abk96

There should be one set of rules for both parts of Disney. Whether it's MS or CRO.

IMO, my 10 year old should only have to pay $12 for the paltry servings of chicken nuggets & pizza he will eat at a Disney character buffet. But Disney is still gonna charge me the $30 "adult" rate.

This is not much different than Disney granting ticket discounts to FL residents or meal discounts to Annual Passholders. In this case DVC members get an extra body in the rooms. There really isn't any moral high ground.

Perhaps Dean is correct and it would not survive a legal challenge. But who is going to mount such a challenge?

As long as Disney isn't discriminating on the basis of race, gender or creed, they can (and do) set different policies for different groups.

[DebbieB]

Originally Posted by Dean

There would be no legal or technical issue with enforcing the rules as stated. Oral representations are not enforceable in timeshares sales, esp if they conflict with the written documentation as they would in this situation. Of course each resort would be considered independently and only the owners at that given resort would have any potential argument. The truth is that for non home resorts, they could reduce the occupancy if they wanted to say 2 for a studio for example.

I was responding to the question on why DVC has different rules for members vs CRO. They are choosing not to enforce the rules for members I believe because of past (and probably current) statements to buyers. Yes, they could legally choose to start enforcing it but I don't think they want to open up that can of worms at least not while they are still building properties. But it doesn't mean they should have to extend those exceptions to CRO reservations.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by DebbieB

I was responding to the question on why DVC has different rules for members vs CRO. They are choosing not to enforce the rules for members I believe because of past (and probably current) statements to buyers. Yes, they could legally choose to start enforcing it but I don't think they want to open up that can of worms at least not while they are still building properties. But it doesn't mean they should have to extend those exceptions to CRO reservations.

Thanks Debbie.

[abk96]

Originally Posted by tjkraz

IMO, my 10 year old should only have to pay $12 for the paltry servings of chicken nuggets & pizza he will eat at a Disney character buffet. But Disney is still gonna charge me the $30 "adult" rate.

This is not much different than Disney granting ticket discounts to FL residents or meal discounts to Annual Passholders. In this case DVC members get an extra body in the rooms. There really isn't any moral high ground.

Perhaps Dean is correct and it would not survive a legal challenge. But who is going to mount such a challenge?

As long as Disney isn't discriminating on the basis of race, gender or creed, they can (and do) set different policies for different groups.

Now you're being silly.

And occupancy in a room is totally different than chicken nuggets. Come on now.

I didn't think any of you would agree with me because you all are members. But I know a lot of people who aren't members and when I tell them about this they are confused. And it is confusing and well quite frankly "wrong".