Allure going, going, gone...

[Starr W.]

I've been taking some of Dean's advice(if you want to trade, perhaps you should have another non-DVC timeshare, and doing a lot of research). I've been on some other timeshare message boards lately and there is a sense of deja vu when I read them. I could be back here. "5 years ago I could call at 3 months and get BCV or get a really great exchange" now I can't and it's because of "insert new big resort". The facts are more people are travelling now and are finding out about timeshares(including DVC) and are thanks to various sites becoming "knowledgable" about using the systems(booking windows, II or RCI) earlier on in their ownership and plan accordingly. Of course this hurts the people that don't pay attention to what's happening now.

Also alot of people plunk down that $15000 for places they don't like(I would never buy a timeshare in a place I wouldn't want to go every year, because you might have to if you can't get a trade).

 

[zoomsharedisney]

This was not meant a bash to the DVC system - I love it - I talk it up to whomever I meet. It was a statement of how things, in my perspective, have changed and how I feel that SSR has made them change. Some of the respondents have posted several logical explanations which have lots of merit (post 9/11 slowdown, less regard for school schedules, etc.) so maybe it is not all SSR's fault - but I still believe it is a major contributor to the 'problem'.

To the OP: You talk about how SSR has caused changes to DVC. So let's think about this...every resort that is built causes changes to DVC!! Who will you blame next? AKV? CRV? Perhaps the next DVC Resort to be built? I get that YOU don't like SSR, but don't blame it for you not being able to book at the last minute. DVC gives members the flexability to book at ANY DVC Resort at 7 months out. You snooze...you lose. It's as simple as that. You knew the rules going into this. There is no way that you could have been so absent-minded as to not realize that other DVC Resorts would be built and that you would have to contend with thousands more owner. Seroiusly...what resort will you blame next? And obviously you don't like change. Well I hope you are living in the 21st Century at least. Life changes - deal with it. And if you can't accept the changes of life (or DVC) then perhaps you should sell your share because there are members and non-members who are more than willing to gobble up your BCV points and book at the 11 month window or use their owner perk of being able to book at ANY of the DVC Resorts at 7 months out.

On a side note not directed specifically to the OP...has anyone ever thought that people start threads to stir the pot and see how many posts their thread will get? I am assuming that the OP has done this since this topic has been brought up MANY times before!

 

[JimMIA]

You are aware, of course, that the OP is upset that the SSR people have booked up his home resort, which is why it is full, and why there is availability at SSR. BWV is a pretty large resort, too. Shouldn't there "always" be availability there, too.

I actually don't think for one minute that OP is upset about anything. I think OP is just trolling for laughs watching y'all go back and forth over SSR.

If OP is truly upset about not being able to get a ressie at ANY DVC resort one month out (or any other timeshare on the planet, for that matter), OP lives in a dream world.

 

[deerh]

The same thing happened to me... We wanted to book BWV (I own there) in Jan for a July trip. I have been a DVC member for 8 years. So... MS said, no BWV available during your trip.. (Now this is the slowwww period of JULY!). I said, what else do you have, and she said SSR is availble. Well, my best friend bought SSR in 05, and she loves it.. I said, "Ok, book me at SSR in a 2 br for a week..
We leave in less than 2 weeks, and I can't wait! My friend says its' wonderful, I have seen her pictures, and she is there now with her family....

So.. Moral of the story... I KNEW I had to book outside of 7 mos, we just decided to go down when we did not think we were going this summer, but in Jan we decided to go to WDW... I don't care, it is something new (we have been ONLY to BWV and no where else in the DVC system at WDW).
So, I am excited to see something new!!!

As for NICK, you can have the drive, the noisy kids, the rude parents, all that, we stayed there years ago, and it is NOT my cup of tea... and YES, I have kids, but much older now, and not into Nick really....

deerh

 

[pilferk]

I have been a DVC member for over 5 years and all this time I have held this to be one of the smartest decsions I have ever done. It helps that I live in South Florida and can travel to Orlando frequently; but this is also the problem.

It used to be that I could reserve BCV in the second week of September, a month out (we do a lot of our traveling at the spur of the moment). Now it is completely booked. Only chance of getting BCV is to book 11 months out (I own at BCV). There is however, plenty of space at Saratoga Springs.

Of course, having recently stayed at Saratoga Springs, I don't want to stay there again and I think this feeling is shared by most who own there and they are flocking to the other resorts filling them up even in the periods of low vacancy.

I think DVC made a strategic error with with SSR. The combination of a huge number of rooms and sub-par* facilities/location is driving huge amount of traffic to the other resorts effectively crowding them out and adversely affecting the availability. Unless SSR becomes a destination resort such as BCV or WLV, this will continue to be the case. Imagine the difference if SSR sported a pool such as Stormalong Bay or a location such as VWL (nature setting or proximity to MK) and families with kids actually flocked there.

There is another hotel in the area that is fully booked year around and commands stratospheric rates for its rooms. I am talking about Nick Hotel - everyone who stays there raves of the amenities and how much the kids love the place, the pool area, the diversions, etc. I am an ardent Disney fan, but I can tell you that my kids were not raving about SSR. Quite the contrary, they kept asking me if we were going to go to the swirly, sandy pool. I told them that yes, in September we would go. :>(

Andrew Medina


*I do not mean to offend anyone and my term of 'sub-par' reflect the needs and desires of a parent with 3 kids (namely close proximity to pools, an incredbile aquatic facility, and proximity to parks that does not require hopping in the car everyday). Being that Disney is centered around famlies with kids, I feel that this should be a priority and therefore cannot explain the lack of a spectacular pool or other amenity at SSR that would 'wow' families.

I disagree, almost entirely, with much of your post. I'd also like to point out that this discussion has been "done to death". That being said, I'm not above beating that dead horse:

1) I don't think SSR was the "mistake". I think BCV and VWL were. It's not that SSR is "too big"...it's that BCV and VWL are WAAAAAY to small. It seems that DVD underestimated the populatiry of DVC, in general, and "underbuilt" those two resorts. SSR is not the problem, increased DVC membership as a whole is. And every new DVC resort is going to make it worse for the undersized resorts.

2) SSR is wonderful. LOTS of people like the accomodation style, the proximity to DTD, the landscaping and the pools. That's what makes DVC so great: Different strokes for different folks. Just because YOUR priorities and personal taste doesn't put SSR at the top of your list, doesn't mean building it to suit OTHERS priorities and tastes is a mistake.

3) SSR is a much more traditional time share build, more like OKW actually, just bigger. There is (look at how many time shares are built and sold in Orlando) PLENTY of market, apparently, for that style of accomodation/resort. Notice that once it was complete, Disney went back to the "Deluxe related" villas with AKV. It think you're seeing Disney try to cater to as many markets as possilbe. You, likely, were not the market they intended SSR for...which is fine.

4) There are plenty (and I mean plenty...check the review boards and orlando attractions and hotel boards) of people who don't like the Nick Hotels. Not kids, obviously, but many adults. More proof that one man's treasure is another man's bull puckey.

5) You have a 4 month exclusivity on your home resort. If you're not using it, I'm not really sure that's something that puts SSR at fault. It's the nature of the system. The system benefits and prioritizes those who can plan FAR in advance. Once the 7 month window hits...I've got bad news for you...you're no better off than than any other owner at ANY other resort. Again, not SSR's fault.

 

[Granny]

1) I don't think SSR was the "mistake". I think BCV and VWL were.

I think this sentence is going to cause me dizziness and nausea.

 

[CarolA]

I actually don't think for one minute that OP is upset about anything. I think OP is just trolling for laughs watching y'all go back and forth over SSR.

If OP is truly upset about not being able to get a ressie at ANY DVC resort one month out (or any other timeshare on the planet, for that matter), OP lives in a dream world.

I agree. The fact that OP thinks the NICK hotel is a nice place to stay.... (Yeah if you really like overpriced, dirty, garish and overrun with kids garish it's great!!! I like kids, but IMHO Nick is "pandering" They are giving an inferior product knowing parents today will do almost anything to make darling happy. LOL!)

 

[pilferk]

I think I was perfectly clear that my evaluation of 'sub/par' in respect to SSR amenities was totally dependent on my particular situation. I am a parent with 3 kids, and when I arrived at the pool, there was not a single chair or lounger available and the pool was overrun with people. I am not sure why such a small pool would be built for such a large property. This, in my situation is 'sub/par'.

This was not meant a bash to the DVC system - I love it - I talk it up to whomever I meet. It was a statement of how things, in my perspective, have changed and how I feel that SSR has made them change. Some of the respondents have posted several logical explanations which have lots of merit (post 9/11 slowdown, less regard for school schedules, etc.) so maybe it is not all SSR's fault - but I still believe it is a major contributor to the 'problem'.

For discussion sake, it is irrelevant the responses about booking early. My post specifically alluded to the (now gone) ability of booking late. To me it was a major allure of the system and whether this was due to lower room counts, demand, or whatever, it is no longer available and it is sorely missed.

My remark on the 'Nick' property is based on disbelief that DVC did not put some type of marquee amenity at SSR that would draw the people (kids) in by the boat load. If 'Nick' could do it, why did DVC not do it with a resort built at pretty much the same time? Honestly, not bashing here, but if I had to 'pay' for accommodations and the choice was between 'Nick' and SSR, I would choose 'Nick', not because of my personal preference (I prefer natural settings), but because my kids would have a better time (at this point in my life, it is not about me).

I have to believe that the only reason a marquee aquatic facility was not built, has to do with the additional expense that it would entail. Being that these units will sell with or without this marquee attraction, why include it? One can argue that it would raise the cost of the 'points', but I think there is plenty of money here. I remember a study I did based on what I paid for the contract and the percentage of the unit that is detailed on the deed; I cannot recall if the amount that the whole unit would sell for was $1.6 million or $3.6 million, but it was crazy money and that was when points were selling at $80! Let's face it, spending as little as possible and selling for as much as possible is a great business plan, but I think it killed my ability to book late!

1) So, because it was outrageously popular, it was sub/par. GO to the Nick hotel....you wanna talk about a swarmed pool?

2) If you bought DVC to be able to book last minute, you should probably sell your interest. CRO is a much better option on that front (though your choices will still be more limited). The system is not designed to do what you want it to do....and it's not like the system has changed. Demand has (because membership increases) but whether DVD added 1 800 unit resort or 2 400 unit resorts....you'd likely see the same stress put on the smaller resorts.

3) I understand you THINK SSR is the main reason, but I think it's been explained, quite well, why your perception is flawed.

4) On the reasons for not including a "aquatic feature" on the scale of Nick's: You'd be paying more in dues, for one. FYI...you do realize Nick levies a $20 per guest "resort fee" (on TOP of the room rate) basically to pay for the pools (and activities...but mostly the pools).

5) You're looking at is as buying a physical plant. You're not doing that (regardless of you ownership interest in a particular unit). You're buying a leasehold stake for 50 years. You may THINK the dollar to dollar ratio on build out cost to purchase price is astronmically high...but then add in the cost of building out amenities, landscaping, infrastructure, etc....and the ratio isn't NEARLY as high as you would think. For sure, DVD is making good money....if they weren't DVC would have ceased to exist....but make sure you're taking everything into account before you do that "study". Again, "not building SAB at SSR" likely has little to do with you not being able to book.

 

[pilferk]

I think this sentence is going to cause me dizziness and nausea.

Again, I'm only talking about a "mistake" in terms of size, and only then in hindsight. They're both GREAT places to stay...they're just VERY small. And with the way DVC popularity has exploded....they're always going to be the resorts that are hardest to book at the 7 month window. Largely because, even assuming absolute balance on demand, they have the fewest units to fill, and the lowest ratio of "rooms to entire DVC membership" of the WDW offerings. I mean, you can't fault DVD for building that way....I don't think even THEY could have predicted how much DVC has "exploded" in recent years...but in hindsight, those "small" resorts are "mistakes" in the sense that they're going to be overly stressed by the demand put on them by the growing membership (no matter what the source of that membeship is...SSR, AKV, CRV, GCV, whatever).

 

[pilferk]

I agree. The fact that OP thinks the NICK hotel is a nice place to stay.... (Yeah if you really like overpriced, dirty, garish and overrun with kids garish it's great!!! I like kids, but IMHO Nick is "pandering" They are giving an inferior product knowing parents today will do almost anything to make darling happy. LOL!)

I agree....and I'm one of those parents being "taken in" by the pandering.

We're doing 1 night there in January before checking in to AKV on the 5th....that way the kids get their fix (they've been asking about it since we drove past it on ME on our way to the Contemp in Jan '06), but we (the adults) don't have to stay for very long.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Don't get apopleptic just yet, Granny! LOL! I think the point was that VWL and BCV were too small. In a way, I agree with that sentiment. They were added to the system quickly to have something to sell, and they really are small. It seems to be extra important to have home resort priveleges at those two smaller resorts. Not a slam of the resorts, but at DVC for making them too small. Yep, even though some think SSR and OKW are too big.

 

[Starr W.]

I agree....and I'm one of those parents being "taken in" by the pandering.

We're doing 1 night there in January before checking in to AKV on the 5th....that way the kids get their fix (they've been asking about it since we drove past it on ME on our way to the Contemp in Jan '06), but we (the adults) don't have to stay for very long.

Guess I have lucked out or my kids have turned into "DVC snobs" after a couple of visits. They have eyeballed it on the way in from the airport, but being told "they would have to share a bed." they thought better of it. They are 6 & 10 yr old boys.

 

[pilferk]

Guess I have lucked out or my kids have turned into "DVC snobs" after a couple of visits. They have eyeballed it on the way in from the airport, but being told "they would have to share a bed." they thought better of it. They are 6 & 10 yr old boys.

Don't tell..but they do have 2BR with 2 twins (and a pullout).

I'm HOPING ours will become DVC snobs too...but this was a nice way to avoid paying out another weekend nights points, get the kids their fix, and since we're driving from CT in a straight shot, go somewhere my wife can keep the kids occupied easily and close by while I sleep off the 20 hour drive I'll have just done.

 

[Starr W.]

Don't tell..but they do have 2BR with 2 twins (and a pullout).

I'm HOPING ours will become DVC snobs too...but this was a nice way to avoid paying out another weekend nights points, get the kids their fix, and since we're driving from CT in a straight shot, go somewhere my wife can keep the kids occupied easily and close by while I sleep off the 20 hour drive I'll have just done.

They are not that "in love" with Nick characters, now if Cartoon Network had a themed hotel I might be in trouble. . I have nightmares about a Ed,Edd and Eddy themed pool.

 

[pilferk]

They are not that "in love" with Nick characters, now if Cartoon Network had a themed hotel I might be in trouble. . I have nightmares about a Ed,Edd and Eddy themed pool.

Yeah, in our house Dora, Diego, and Blue rule their "kiddie culture" world (followed by Little Einstens and Backyardigans). A lot of that has to do with age, I'm sure...our oldest is younger than your youngest! I'm hoping they "graduate" soon...but my eldest daughter has been in "dora mode" since she was about 18 months old.

 

[Jollymon]

I am not just trolling here and I apologize if this is an oft posed topic. I have been a member of this site since 2002 but I visit it maybe once or twice a year. After my last visit to SSR, I made it a point to express my feelings and if such can be deemed as causing trouble, then all I can say is that this is not my intention.

I think that some readers have read more into the posts than what I wrote; the jist of the argument here is that if you build such a huge resort, give it some marquee amenity that will draw the owners there instead of having them book in the other resorts.

I am not as wise to the DVC selling tactics as some of you, but I would assume that (all, some, most) buyers to SSR were teased with the idea of buying SSR solely to have access to the other resorts. I on the other hand, was sold BCV on the premise of gaining access to Stormalong Bay, the marquee attraction at BCV, having access to the other resorts was just an added benefit. See the difference?

If the sole reason to buy SSR was to have access to the other resorts, then DVC did a disfavor to all of us. There has to be an intrinsic, on property reason to buy SSR or its only amenity is its capacity; as some previous poster said "I love SSR, without it, I would not have where to stay at peak times".

I agree that my argument is based on the assumption that nobody stays at SSR willingly, I am sure that there are many that will argue otherwise (and correctly so). But, as I have reiterated before, this is based on my particular circumstance; that being a parent with 3 children. Being that Disney is primarily a family destination, then the argument, statistically has legs to stand on.
So here is a real life example; I am a parent with 3 kids, I have bought at SSR, I am planning my yearly trip to Disney. Where do you think I am going to try to reserve at? SSR? If you agree, then you are deluding yourself, the majority will try to book at the resort with the best marquee amenity. How many of these ‘swaps’ need to occur before the ‘small’ resorts are sold out?
Maybe now the argument of the missing marquee amenity at SSR is clear.


Andrew Medina

 

[pilferk]

I think that some readers have read more into the posts than what I wrote; the jist of the argument here is that if you build such a huge resort, give it some marquee amenity that will draw the owners there instead of having them book in the other resorts.

SSR does have marquee amenities. The spa, the pool, the access to DTD, access to golf, etc. They're just not amenities YOU find to be useful or important. Other people do. That's the disconnect. You're trying to imply that statistically more people MUST feel the same way you do, simply because anyone not feeling that way must be "delusional".

I am not as wise to the DVC selling tactics as some of you, but I would assume that (all, some, most) buyers to SSR were teased with the idea of buying SSR solely to have access to the other resorts. I on the other hand, was sold BCV on the premise of gaining access to Stormalong Bay, the marquee attraction at BCV, having access to the other resorts was just an added benefit. See the difference?

You're assuming something not, necessarily, true. Do you have PROOF? Do you KNOW that more (%-wise, here) SSR owners trade out than non-SSR owners? Do you KNOW how they were sold to? I rather think you don't. So you're forming your assumption on not much other than possibly anecdotal evidence OR some sort of pre-conceived notion formed to support your already held opinion, to perpetuate your frustration with SSR and not being able to book your resort when you'd like. That's why people aren't lending much credence to your point...it doesn't have a real sound basis to it.

If the sole reason to buy SSR was to have access to the other resorts, then DVC did a disfavor to all of us. There has to be an intrinsic, on property reason to buy SSR or its only amenity is its capacity; as some previous poster said "I love SSR, without it, I would not have where to stay at peak times".

IF...but your IF isn't supported with any real evidence that it's true....other than YOUR perception and opinion. You're setting up a "straw man"...assuming something happened and then trying to "beat the strawman" to make a point. Again, you're also trying to insinuate everyone is going to have your perception or tastes. I don't think that's a real solid assumption.

I agree that my argument is based on the assumption that nobody stays at SSR willingly, I am sure that there are many that will argue otherwise (and correctly so). But, as I have reiterated before, this is based on my particular circumstance; that being a parent with 3 children. Being that Disney is primarily a family destination, then the argument, statistically has legs to stand on.

Not just your circumstances....but your likes, dislikes, tastes, experiences and perceptions. Not everyone with 3 kids feels as you do just because they have 3 kids. You're projecting WAY to much.....

So here is a real life example; I am a parent with 3 kids, I have bought at SSR, I am planning my yearly trip to Disney. Where do you think I am going to try to reserve at? SSR? If you agree, then you are deluding yourself, the majority will try to book at the resort with the best marquee amenity.

Prove it.

Of course, you can't. You're simply making an assumption based on what YOU want, desire, need, etc. For YOU BCV is a great fit. Doesn't mean it is for everyone else. SSR is a GREAT fit for some families...families with older kids, families who have a member who likes to get in some golf on vacation, families who have someone who really wants some spa time on their vacation, families who really want to partake of some nightlife on vacation, etc, etc, etc. That may not be you. Great. But you're not everyone. And I don't think it's fair to say that you can adequately speak for the entire SSR membership, their motivations for buying, HOW they were sold to, their vacation habits, etc.

How many of these ‘swaps’ need to occur before the ‘small’ resorts are sold out?
Maybe now the argument of the missing marquee amenity at SSR is clear.


Andrew Medina

Not many, but not many (%-wise) when looking at the DVC membership as a whole. You've precisely demonstratetd why BCV and VWL are "too small"....they were built to a size that can't come close to satisfying the demand from the rest of the (much larger, numerically) membership, even assuming like % on tradeouts across all the resorts.

 

[Chuck S]

So here is a real life example; I am a parent with 3 kids, I have bought at SSR, I am planning my yearly trip to Disney. Where do you think I am going to try to reserve at? SSR? If you agree, then you are deluding yourself, the majority will try to book at the resort with the best marquee amenity. How many of these ‘swaps’ need to occur before the ‘small’ resorts are sold out?
Maybe now the argument of the missing marquee amenity at SSR is clear.

Curious, you obviously consider SAB at BCV to be the draw or as you say "marquee amenity" for your family. What do you consider the marquee amenity for families at all the other DVC resorts?

 

[loribell]

Okay I really wasn't going to post to one of these yet again but after you just keep saying over & over I feel like I have to.

I am a VWL owner, yes one of the SMALL DVC resorts. I absolutely love it. Yet I have not stayed there on all of my visits. In fact, my one stay at BCV's was when I only owned at VWL. When we bought we were told that we could book at any of the resorts at the 7 month window "based on availability". We were told that if we weren't the type of vacationers that could plan our trips in advance then we should not buy.

We added on points at SSR two years ago. It was not with the intention of staying somewhere else all the time. We absolutely love SSR. In fact one of the things we love the most about it is THE POOL! It is a fabulous pool, especially if you have smaller children. IMHO SAB is not a great pool for small kids. It is much to spread out, thus making if hard to keep up with the kids.

I will add more points on at SSR to make ou stays there even larger. I will add on points at AKV. I will add on points at VB. I may at some point add on points at BCV.

Just because you do not like SSR does not mean that the majority of people that have bought there are doing it primarily to stay only at other resorts.

This has really gotten old!

 

[pilferk]

Here's a demand breakdown I posted awhile back in a thread discussing this topic...it has both "before and after SSR" breakouts, and it was done before AKV was announced (which will actually offload demand from some of the larger resorts, and bring BWV back into better "balance"):

To do this, we're going to make some assumptions that aren't founded on anything other the making some accross the board generalizations to work the equations and make "all things equal". I'm going to assume a 20% trade out rate for all of the 5 "on property" DVC resorts (I'm going to take out VB and HHI because they seem like something of anomalies in regards to trade out and trade in). I'm going to assume equal demand at all 5 resorts (so, in other words, an even distribution of the "trade outs" amongst the 4 possible options). I'm going to assume "full" booking for a given day (meaning all points are used that are available). I KNOW CRO holds back some rooms for booking, but if we ignore it at each resort, it becomes a non-factor. The numbers presented are, obviously, not remotely "fact" but just some comparison "figuring". Here's what I get:

AFTER SSR

SSR has 828 units.
OKW has 709 units
BWV has 383 units
BCV has 205 units
VWL has 136 units

I'm going to round UP on anything >= .5.

SSR * .20 = 166 units
OKW * .20 = 142 units
BWV * .20 = 77 units
BCV * .20 = 41 units
VWL * .20 = 27 units

So, there are more vacancies at SSR, even though the % is equal. Now, lets distribute those trade outs assuming equal demand amongst the trade out population.

SSR owners are going to book 42 units at OKW, BWV, BCV, and VWL.

OKW owners are going to book 36 units at SSR, BWV, BCV, and VWL.

BWV owners are going to book 19 units at SSR, OKW, BCV, and VWL.

BCV owners are going to book 10 units at SSR, OKW, BWV, and VWL.

VWL owners are going to book 7 units at SSR, OWK, BWV, and BCV.

SSR units desired to be booked = 36 + 19 + 10 + 7 = 72 units

OKW units desired to be booked = 42 + 19 +10 + 7 = 78 units

BWV units desired to be booked = 42 + 36 + 10 + 7 = 95 units

BCV units desired to be booked = 42 + 36 + 19 + 7 = 104 units

VWL units desired to be booked = 42 + 36 + 19 + 10 = 107 units

Which means be break down to this:

Resort_________Available__________Demand
SSR_____________166_____________72
OKW____________142______________78
BWV_____________77______________95
BCV_____________41______________104
VWL____________ 27______________107

BEFORE SSR:

OKW has 709 units
BWV has 383 units
BCV has 205 units
VWL has 136 units

I'm going to round UP on anything >= .5.

OKW * .20 = 142 units
BWV * .20 = 77 units
BCV * .20 = 41 units
VWL * .20 = 27 units

So, there are more vacancies at SSR, even though the % is equal. Now, lets distribute those trade outs assuming equal demand amongst the trade out population.

OKW owners are going to book 47 units at SSR, BWV, BCV, and VWL.

BWV owners are going to book 26 units at SSR, OKW, BCV, and VWL.

BCV owners are going to book 14 units at SSR, OKW, BWV, and VWL.

VWL owners are going to book 9 units at SSR, OWK, BWV, and BCV.

OKW units desired to be booked = 26 + 14 + 9 = 49 units

BWV units desired to be booked = 47 + 14 + 9 = 70 units

BCV units desired to be booked = 47 + 26 + 9 = 82 units

VWL units desired to be booked = 47 + 26 + 14 = 87 units

Which means be break down to this:

Resort_________Available__________Demand
OKW____________142______________49
BWV_____________77______________70
BCV_____________41______________82
VWL____________ 27______________87

Again, the nature of the system, and the size of the smaller resorts, seems to be more at work than anything else here. Just by nature of being small, those resorts are overburdened by the system.