Current owners: Do you feel that renters are impacting resort availability?

[Sandisw]

If the cancel and rebook is for lead name change only, how much would you be affected?

Me? Potenitally because I book a lot of rooms at 11 months because I don’t know what I will need and who is going. Many end up canceled, but some get the names changed. And, I always book with me when I book hard to get to make sure the system doesn’t lock me out and I lose it.

Happened once when changing a name and so I change later to ensure the room especially when booking early December.

DVC used to go with the booking from check out, which had its own issues. But, as mentioned, keeping owner as lead guest is possible for many rooms…especially now that most studios sleep 5, including those at BWV SV which is one of the highest demand rentals out there.

This is why I am not in favor of any changes to modification rules that can impact owners who are not renting, or walking.

 

[Chuck S]

The lead guest counts towards room capacity, so you are negating a family of 4 for a lot rentals. It wouldn’t solve everything, but it wouldn’t harm much, either.

Most studios and one bedrooms at WDW now sleep 5, except OKW studios and value studios.

 

[Tatebeck]

They could find a bunch of the most egregious offenders pretty easily if they wanted to. Disney could search through all the members and see who bought a bunch of points and has never checked into a reservation themselves. Members who bought thousands of points a number of years ago, yet have never actually checked into a reservation themselves would be a pretty safe place to start investigating lol.

Say someone bought 2000 cheap points 5 years ago across 4 use year memberships, but have rented out every point using cheap studios during popular times, but stayed under 20 per membership? Very suspicious even though technically doing less than what Disney said would trigger an investigation.

It shouldn't even be per membership, it should be per household. Splitting up into different use years or under different family members makes it too easy to spread the rentals out. And Disney doesn't have specifically what constitutes commercial renting in the POS for all the older resorts, they can choose to look at anyone at any time if they really wanted to, they just used the 20 rentals as an example I believe

 

[Sandisw]

They could find a bunch of the most egregious offenders pretty easily if they wanted to. Disney could search through all the members and see who bought a bunch of points and has never checked into a reservation themselves. Members who bought thousands of points a number of years ago, yet have never actually checked into a reservation themselves would be a pretty safe place to start investigating lol.

Say someone bought 2000 cheap points 5 years ago across 4 use year memberships, but have rented out every point using cheap studios during popular times, but stayed under 20 per membership? Very suspicious even though technically doing less than what Disney said would trigger an investigation.

It shouldn't even be per membership, it should be per household. Splitting up into different use years or under different family members makes it too easy to spread the rentals out. And Disney doesn't have specifically what constitutes commercial renting in the POS for all the older resorts, they can choose to look at anyone at any time if they really wanted to, they just used the 20 rentals as an example I believe

I believe that the 20 rentals was put into something official. I think the fact that DVD has updated the wording in the POS for CFW to include more specific language that mentions patterns, use of third party sites, etc. leads me to believe the know they need that to be explicit stated.

That could be why it was done like that and why they may believe that they can’t apply it retroactively to that degree.

Now, one change that they could institute that may be a better measure, to address what you said, is having the % across all memberships vs number of reservations.

I could see that working…for example, let’s say 25% of all points need to be used by an owner over the course of every 2 years…allows for family and friends that are not rentals? It also allows for those who may not use yearly just one year.

Triggers the review of what you mention above? The only problem is they’d have to try and write a program in such a way that can capture that? I am sure it is possible…but there would still be a way around it for the savy renter.

 

[Chuck S]

They could find a bunch of the most egregious offenders pretty easily if they wanted to. Disney could search through all the members and see who bought a bunch of points and has never checked into a reservation themselves. Members who bought thousands of points a number of years ago, yet have never actually checked into a reservation themselves would be a pretty safe place to start investigating lol.

Say someone bought 2000 cheap points 5 years ago across 4 use year memberships, but have rented out every point using cheap studios during popular times, but stayed under 20 per membership? Very suspicious even though technically doing less than what Disney said would trigger an investigation.

It shouldn't even be per membership, it should be per household. Splitting up into different use years or under different family members makes it too easy to spread the rentals out. And Disney doesn't have specifically what constitutes commercial renting in the POS for all the older resorts, they can choose to look at anyone at any time if they really wanted to, they just used the 20 rentals as an example I believe

SInce it would require additional cast members for detailed investigations, I think I'd rather see those cast members manning the phone lines.

 

[Chuck S]

I believe that the 20 rentals was put into something official. I think the fact that DVD has updated the wording in the POS for CFW to include more specific language that mentions patterns, use of third party sites, etc. leads me to believe the know they need that to be explicit stated.

That could be why it was done like that and why they may believe that they can’t apply it retroactively to that degree.

Now, one change that they could institute that may be a better measure, to address what you said, is having the % across all memberships vs number of reservations.

I could see that working…for example, let’s say 25% of all points need to be used by an owner over the course of every 2 years…allows for family and friends that are not rentals? It also allows for those who may not use yearly just one year.

Triggers the review of what you mention above? The only problem is they’d have to try and write a program in such a way that can capture that? I am sure it is possible…but there would still be a way around it for the savy renter.

I don't like that idea. There are times I travel with a group and I need multiple reservations, using 70% to 75% of my points, banking and borrowing, for rooms where I am not an occupant, but we are all traveling together, even though I am not blood or marriage related to the rest of that large group, who is related to each other by blood or marriage.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't like that idea. There are times I travel with a group and I need multiple reservations, using 70% to 75% of my points, banking and borrowing, for rooms where I am not an occupant, but we are all traveling together, even though I am not blood or marriage related to the rest of that large group, who is related to each other by blood or marriage.

Not my favorite but that is why I said over a 2 year period…should have added rolling…to at least show that an owner is going?

Maybe add that if the owner is traveling at the same time then all rooms count as part of owners use. Thst would make sense.

 

[sndral]

Agreed - there are legitimate reasons why people may need to change a reservation by a day here and there. Forcing a cancel and rebook to add or remove a day would take away flexibility. We booked 8 nights for 10/2024 at BCV - decided a few weeks ago to add a night and did so via modifying our reservation. It would, in my opinion, be incredibly punitive and/or draconian if the system had forced us to cancel and rebook the entire trip, thus risking us losing the room entirely.

In that case you could have booked the extra night & then called MS to merge it with the existing reservation.

IMO the only way to stop almost all renting is to:

• Make every change of lead guest be a cancel & rebook.
• Upgrade the waitlist software to check the waitlist before every booking

If every change was a cancel and rebook and the waitlist software upgraded, walking would also be virtually eliminated as well.

I doubt very few of us would welcome those changes. I know I would not

Neither of those changes would bother me at all since I’ve never changed the lead guest.
I actually like the idea of making the waitlist more robust, I’ve never had a waitlist come through - although I have picked up days I’d waitlisted via stalking.
Quite some time ago Disney took steps on the cash side to curtail what I’d call hoarding of days - folks would book more days than they planned to use & then as they firmed up their plans they’d call & cancel the extra days. Disney started requiring them to cancel & rebook the whole reservation rather than allowing them to prune a few days from it which often resulted in the loss of the discount they’d booked under, so at least on the cash side Disney has used a more sweeping policy of change = cancel & rebook.

 

[keishashadow]

My stance will always be based on what is currently in the rules…and if DVC sees less than 20 reservations per year that appear to be rentals as a non issue, then I am okay with that.

For better or worse, I often find myself more of a contrarian. However, when it comes to DVC, I realize it’s their sandbox, they make the rules.

Love my DVC, warts and all. Doesn’t mean I won’t express my thots on it here when it comes up in discussion that is hopefully constructive in some sense.
Not sure if DVC still has readers or not to assess the waters.