2020 Point Charts

[skier_pete]

It occurs to me that generation of lockoff points means that there should be greater availability in general at the seven month mark - though only by a few percent. This should occur across all resorts, since they have reduced the power of points at most resorts. Not sure to argue this much of a benefit, though.

 

[mustinjourney]

It occurs to me that generation of lockoff points means that there should be greater availability in general at the seven month mark - though only by a few percent. This should occur across all resorts, since they have reduced the power of points at most resorts. Not sure to argue this much of a benefit, though.

Congratulations! Everything now costs more, but the benefit is that things might be 3% easier to get.

 

[mustinjourney]

Disney pockets $50 million extra per year and SOME members can pick up an extra day or two at SSR or OKW.

Sounds like a win-win

 

[skier_pete]

Congratulations! Everything now costs more, but the benefit is that things might be 3% easier to get.

Oh, I'm not saying it washes out what Disney did, but just taking the positives where I can get it.

 

[glamdring269]

Disney pockets $50 million extra per year and SOME members can pick up an extra day or two at SSR or OKW.

Sounds like a win-win

Ha!

 

[Mikamarii]

I haven’t read all the posts on this point charts deal but from what I have gathered is that people are of the consensus that it is legal but unethical.

You state that because their actions don’t meet your standard you won’t speak positively of them; implying they don’t meet your moral code

I'm with you. I used to trust that Disney would do the right thing. All of these recent changes are making me think otherwise.

I have pretty much the same feelings as you. I'm almost more disappointed in this move more than anything. I know they are a publicly traded company and need to maximize profits, but Disney usually goes the extra mile in customer service in so many aspects, that this whole situation just feels icky. I'd expect this from a normal timeshare company -- but not Disney. And certainly not 26 years into DVC.

In all seriousness though -- I went from preaching the DVC gospel to anyone that would listen to now being a little turned off. I'm no longer willing to recommend it to anyone at this point in time until I here someone in management explain what the hell they were thinking.

But then you post this.

Well -- one thing is for sure -- after all this ****, I certainly don't feel bad about telling Disney my youngest was 2 on this last trip (even though she was just over 3 years). Saved $550 on tickets and $30 on a character breakfast.

hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/
noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

 

[deerh]

I too, am not happy about the changes, but a little baffled as to some people that say my week's stay at X resort is going up 10-19 points and have to "cut short" their stay.
Let's say you have 200 points, and you stay in X studio/1BR. Now, in 2020, it is 215 points for "your week". IF you go to the same resort at the same
timeframe (Magic season/etc). You could borrow 15 points/year you could stay at that resort and never run out of points until 13 years later!!

200-215=185. 185-215=170.. 170-215=155... etc, etc. So, people saying they will have to "cut short their week" is NOT really true.. Just my .02

 

[Dean]

That is what we agree on studios had issues, 1BR's brought up the rear. So what then needed fixing on the 2BR's if it fell in between? To even out then studios should be made less appealing, 1BR's more appealing and leave 2BR's in the middle hoping the other 2 will meet up with it.

But we don't have the data, DVCMC does. They could have taken that approach and they didn't. This is uncharted territory, the only ways to increase demand for 2 BR is to make them cheaper, more appealing (less difference) or simply to code them as 2 BR and not allow them all to be booked as separate components, something they've done in the past.

And the realist in me feels the same way - we can't fight this and win. And I'm not going to sell my existing points. But as I said, I've cut back my plan to buy more points. At least for now. Impossible to see what the future holds, but for almost 5 years I've wanted more points (and did buy a 2nd contract) but now I don't. And I don't now "hate" Disney or DVC, just disappointed I guess. Isn't that what angry parents say to their kids? "I'm not mad, just disappointed."

Oh well, they don't much care what I or any existing owner thinks. Clearly.

You missed my point. If it's legal, it's ethical, so no reason to be disappointed. If it's illegal, how can you trust them on anything and why would you want to take the chance going forward. Thus I only see 2 reasonable options, sell or pursue, if I felt they were doing this illegally. To say it's illegal but I'm disappointed is simply illogical IMO, it's an emotional reaction to a contractual issue.

 

[mikebb]

I too, am not happy about the changes, but a little baffled as to some people that say my week's stay at X resort is going up 10-19 points and have to "cut short" their stay.
Let's say you have 200 points, and you stay in X studio/1BR. Now, in 2020, it is 215 points for "your week". IF you go to the same resort at the same
timeframe (Magic season/etc). You could borrow 15 points/year you could stay at that resort and never run out of points until 13 years later!!

200-215=185. 185-215=170.. 170-215=155... etc, etc. So, people saying they will have to "cut short their week" is NOT really true.. Just my .02

I'm sorry, but countering peoples arguments that they will cut short their vacations by saying "just borrow against your future" is just silly. Ok, using your logic, at one point my points got me a week long Disney vacation in a Studio every year. Now, they only get me a week every year until the 13th year, then I can't go on vacation that year. Any way you slice it, I've lost value.

That said, I'm wondering what's Disney's angle with one-time-use points and all of this. I.E. how many people do they figure will be in the above boat, and will just say "Oh, I'll buy the 15 points I need for $19/pt." Another bump in revenue for Disney. There are a lot of folks on here with much more knowledge than me, does anyone know what Disney's allotment of one-time-use points per year looks like? We've bought them a few times over the past years, and have never been told "sorry, one-time points are all sold out for the year."

 

[skier_pete]

200-215=185. 185-215=170.. 170-215=155... etc, etc. So, people saying they will have to "cut short their week" is NOT really true.. Just my .02

Regardless it's a loss of days. If it's a loss of one week every seven years or one day every year that's still a loss. And a bigger problem for people that have just enough points for the week. In your scenario, you have someone with 200 points for a weeks stay - that person staying in a studio likely doesn't have to borrow. What about the person that bought a 100 point contract so they could go 2 out of every 3 years. Myself - I got lucky in all this that I added on 75 pts 2 years ago and have 235 total, and so I have enough that we still mostly get what we want. Not everyone would have that luxury.

If it's legal, it's ethical, so no reason to be disappointed.

You can't really believe that right? If it's legal, it's ethical? It's legal for me to cheat on my wife, so therefore it's ethical?

To say it's illegal but I'm disappointed is simply illogical IMO, it's an emotional reaction to a contractual issue.

First of all, I'll saying it's (most likely) legal - not illegal. That said, I can STILL feel that they are taking advantage of the members and be disappointed without wanting to sell my points. You are right in that I could choose to sell my DVC properties. I would even make a pretty penny doing so. (Probably close to $10,000 over when I bought them.) But the value because of when I bought them, my benefits that they haven't taken away from me...etc...and the fact we still love going to Disney means I am not going to sell them. It DOES mean I am much less likely to buy more points.

 

[Madame]

You can't really believe that right? If it's legal, it's ethical? It's legal for me to cheat on my wife, so therefore it's ethical?

I agree. Slavery was legal too... Big difference between legal and ethical.

 

[Dean]

I'm sorry, but countering peoples arguments that they will cut short their vacations by saying "just borrow against your future" is just silly. Ok, using your logic, at one point my points got me a week long Disney vacation in a Studio every year. Now, they only get me a week every year until the 13th year, then I can't go on vacation that year. Any way you slice it, I've lost value.

That said, I'm wondering what's Disney's angle with one-time-use points and all of this. I.E. how many people do they figure will be in the above boat, and will just say "Oh, I'll buy the 15 points I need for $19/pt." Another bump in revenue for Disney. There are a lot of folks on here with much more knowledge than me, does anyone know what Disney's allotment of one-time-use points per year looks like? We've bought them a few times over the past years, and have never been told "sorry, one-time points are all sold out for the year."

Lost value if you use for studios and 1 BR, in most cases yes. Regardless there is a new reality where they'll have to adjust and one of the options is to borrow ahead and skip a trip or do a trip in some other way than owned points.

You can't really believe that right? If it's legal, it's ethical? It's legal for me to cheat on my wife, so therefore it's ethical?



First of all, I'll saying it's (most likely) legal - not illegal. That said, I can STILL feel that they are taking advantage of the members and be disappointed without wanting to sell my points. You are right in that I could choose to sell my DVC properties. I would even make a pretty penny doing so. (Probably close to $10,000 over when I bought them.) But the value because of when I bought them, my benefits that they haven't taken away from me...etc...and the fact we still love going to Disney means I am not going to sell them. It DOES mean I am much less likely to buy more points.

Absolutely I do, there are almost no situations where one can say something in timeshares is unethical but legal and certainly this is not one. But I don't believe for a second that the motivation behind this is more breakage or selling more OTU Points. If I believed otherwise I would sell or go the route on working up to legal action. IMO there really isn't any in between for me. The reality is we wall bought into a system that can change and they can change the POS unilaterally in many situations. I understand being unhappy and disappointed if one's trips will be more expensive but not being livid about "how dare they" which is the attitude I'm reading from many.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But we don't have the data, DVCMC does. They could have taken that approach and they didn't. This is uncharted territory, the only ways to increase demand for 2 BR is to make them cheaper, more appealing (less difference) or simply to code them as 2 BR and not allow them all to be booked as separate components, something they've done in the past.

You missed my point. If it's legal, it's ethical, so no reason to be disappointed. If it's illegal, how can you trust them on anything and why would you want to take the chance going forward. Thus I only see 2 reasonable options, sell or pursue, if I felt they were doing this illegally. To say it's illegal but I'm disappointed is simply illogical IMO, it's an emotional reaction to a contractual issue.

I was quoting your response that we all agree that studios go first, then the larger villas and finally the 1BR's. Of course the members observance is anecdotal but visual trends aren't necessarily wrong and from my observances for several years provide enough evidence to question this decision IMO. Of course numbers can be worked to represent a whole lot of things too depending on how they are presented or what is focused on. I've stated that my observation at the newer resorts is that the 1BR's likely do go faster than the 2BR's. At older resorts that accommodate 4ppl instead of 5ppl they do not. Yet the changes were almost identical across the board except for OKW.

In my business ethics class there never was a statement that legal = ethical. It's the only type I have so I can't compare to other ethics classes however in life I know that similar applies. Legal actually does not = ethical. It might, but it also might not.

 

[tjkraz]

It occurs to me that generation of lockoff points means that there should be greater availability in general at the seven month mark - though only by a few percent. This should occur across all resorts, since they have reduced the power of points at most resorts. Not sure to argue this much of a benefit, though.

When it comes to availability, don't discount the impact of members' ability to bank and borrow points.

Galaxy's Edge has long been billed as coming in "late 2019." The safe approach to visiting is to wait until 2020. Anecdotally, it seems reasonable to conclude that members will bank a larger percentage of their 2019 points than most years. And there are people already planning lengthy stays with the intention of borrowing of 2021 points.

There are about 55 million points in the DVC resorts at WDW alone. If members are banking and borrowing points in relatively equal numbers from year to year, all is well. But if members collectively attempt to use 60-65 million points to book 55 million worth of accommodations, there's a problem. DVC already has some insight on this matter via point banking and reservation trends for 2019.

The number of available rooms will help keep things in check--members cannot book more than the available capacity. But the problem will first be reflected in availability (or lack thereof) as owners book with banked, current and borrowed points, perhaps more aggressively than at any time in the history of DVC. Additionally, large sections of SSR will be closed off throughout 2019 and 2020 for the major refurbishment, taking dozens of rooms out of the system at a time.

Even with these so-called "added" points in the charts, 2020 is likely to be a very ugly year for availability at WDW. I suspect there are far more members hoping to visit Galaxy's Edge than there are available villas.

 

[Dean]

I was quoting your response that we all agree that studios go first, then the larger villas and finally the 1BR's. Of course the members observance is anecdotal but visual trends aren't necessarily wrong and from my observances for several years provide enough evidence to question this decision IMO. Of course numbers can be worked to represent a whole lot of things too depending on how they are presented or what is focused on. I've stated that my observation at the newer resorts is that the 1BR's likely do go faster than the 2BR's. At older resorts that accommodate 4ppl instead of 5ppl they do not. Yet the changes were almost identical across the board except for OKW.

In my business ethics class there never was a statement that legal = ethical. It's the only type I have so I can't compare to other ethics classes however in life I know that similar applies. Legal actually does not = ethical. It might, but it also might not.

When it comes to timeshares they are almost synonymous IMO. I've seen a couple of exceptions over the years but this is certainly not one of them IMO. My point was that if 2 BR are in higher demand, raising studios and lowering 1 BR doesn't help that, if anything, it makes it worse. I think it's a mistake to assume availability is the same as demand since points have to be used. But as I've stated previously, I do wonder if there are other changes like enforcing the 4 in the appropriate 1 BR and even not allowing the one under 2 not to count. We'll see.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

When it comes to timeshares they are almost synonymous IMO. I've seen a couple of exceptions over the years but this is certainly not one of them IMO. My point was that if 2 BR are in higher demand, raising studios and lowering 1 BR doesn't help that, if anything, it makes it worse. I think it's a mistake to assume availability is the same as demand since points have to be used. But as I've stated previously, I do wonder if there are other changes like enforcing the 4 in the appropriate 1 BR and even not allowing the one under 2 not to count. We'll see.

If they were to do that then question would be repeated on why they added the 5th to the studios in the older resorts. It's a very tangled web they start to weave themselves if they head down that path.

For ethical vs legal in timeshares? It may just be that ethical doesn't apply to timeshares. That's the perception they have long had and would explain why it seems legal and ethical is the same thing within them.

 

[mustinjourney]

Oh, I'm not saying it washes out what Disney did, but just taking the positives where I can get it.

I understood you.

My comment was supposed to be read with cheesy game show announcer voice dripping with sarcasm.

 

[mustinjourney]

I haven’t read all the posts on this point charts deal but from what I have gathered is that people are of the consensus that it is legal but unethical.

You state that because their actions don’t meet your standard you won’t speak positively of them; implying they don’t meet your moral code







But then you post this.



hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/
noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

What’s your point? Before, I felt a little bad. Now, not so much.

My “moral” bad was $600. Their moral ambiguity is harming all Dvc members while pocketing $50 million for themselves. Kind of a big difference.

Additionally -- I never said anything about morality. Just that I expected Disney not to act like a sleazy timeshare company.

 

[DougEMG]

But we don't have the data, DVCMC does. They could have taken that approach and they didn't. This is uncharted territory, the only ways to increase demand for 2 BR is to make them cheaper, more appealing (less difference) or simply to code them as 2 BR and not allow them all to be booked as separate components, something they've done in the past.

You missed my point. If it's legal, it's ethical, so no reason to be disappointed. If it's illegal, how can you trust them on anything and why would you want to take the chance going forward. Thus I only see 2 reasonable options, sell or pursue, if I felt they were doing this illegally. To say it's illegal but I'm disappointed is simply illogical IMO, it's an emotional reaction to a contractual issue.

We have data on the availability for studios, 1 bedrooms and 2 bedrooms for an entire year for every 2 week period for every resort. That is the data that members are looking at to try and understand what would be a reasonable point reallocation.

Disney is legally allowed to reallocate points for the benefit of members. No argument there. My argument is that point reallocation looks like it is NOT for the benefit of members, instead it looks like it benefits DVC a lot. Until DVC provides an explanation of how the point reallocation is benefitting members as a whole, then I do NOT trust what they are doing. The fact that DVC can get away with not having to provide an explanation on how the reallocation benefits members without being taken to court seems to be a rather large loophole.

Saying there is a requirement to increase demand for 2 bedrooms, doesn't make sense at SSR, there are no dedicated 2 bedroom units at SSR. Hence there is no requirement to increase demand for 2 bedrooms, so why decrease the 2 bedroom costs?

 

[Mikamarii]

What’s your point? Before, I felt a little bad. Now, not so much.

My “moral” bad was $600. Their moral ambiguity is harming all Dvc members while pocketing $50 million for themselves. Kind of a big difference.

My point was that you are a hypocrite. On one hand you accuse them of being unethical to make a profit and on the other hand you do something unethical to make a profit. Your’s is apparently ok because the dollar value is low. That’s the funny thing about ethics. People try to justify their actions.

Anyway sorry to thread for getting off topic.