Allure going, going, gone...

[pilferk]

I understand the point you are trying to make as I think you understand mine. I may have presented my 'assertions' incorrectly for the debate, but I think that you will agree that neither my views nor yours can be proven without any type of empirical data. So at this point all we can agree is to disagree

Actually, my actual viewpoint DOES have proof....because my view is there is no proof. My correlating "view" is that I don't have an earthly clue one way or the other whether more people trade out of SSR or bought to trade, but there's not really enough evidence to say anything other than this: SSR is big, bigger than any of the other resorts, and the size has to have an effect on things. What effect, exactly? Don't know. Is there any merit to your point? Don't know that either. Maybe so. Maybe not. But without any real compelling evidence, and since there are alternate explanations that discount BOTH assertions (SSR is flawed, SSR is not flawed), I stand by the one quantifiable: SSR is BIG! SOOOO much bigger that I think the size is more of a point than anything else...because if there IS a flaw, the size is going to magnify it 100x, and if there is NOT a flaw, it's STILL going to have a (unknown quantifiable) effect.

I do want to thank you for responding to my question regarding vacancies; your answer was "Bigger means more vacancies". I understand that anecdotal experience hold little validity with you, but you should really check out if that statement holds true - I think you will be surprised at what you find.

By definition it's true. Keep in mind, I'm talking vacancies, not booking rate, % booked, availability, occupancy rate, etc. Simply # of vacancies/rooms to fill.

So, in other words, if you have 800 rooms, you have 800 rooms to fill. If you have 140 rooms, you have 140 rooms to fill.

Now the no brainer question: In which resort do you have more rooms to fill (aka vacancies).

Eliminating demand (which makes it an equal % in the equation) variances is going to show that the larger resort, simply by being larger, is going to have more rooms to fill and less numerical demand for those rooms (because the membership that's "left" is a smaller number).

Now I don't have empirical data to prove that SSR and OKW seem to have the most availability in close.....but that's what I would THINK would be true....

 

[pilferk]

OK, guys, here's the compelling reason to go to SSR: It's onsite!. Yep, I think it's that simple. Surely there are some "old-timers" that have been around as long or longer than I have that remember before SSR was built, much of the complaining from members who couldn't get ressies when they wanted them was from HHI or Vero owners who couldn't get onsite at high traffic times. I'm talking before 9/11 when vacation traffic was as high or higher than it is now. The general feel around here was "Why doesn't DVC build a bigger resort onsite so we have more options?" "We need bigger resorts than VWL or BCV".

"We" all hollered for more onsite DVC rooms and we got them. And, apparently, we're still not happy. The fact that you can get some accomodation onsite at 1 month out is a testament to their planning.
JMHO.

There's some truth to that, I thnk. I think demand exploded so quickly for DVC that SSR (an anchor like OKW) was sort of necessitated at that stage. That, combined with the Orlando Time share EXPLOSION of just the type of timeshare that SSR is. Now that SSR is done, AKV was designed a bit smaller, the plans for the rumored CRV look about that same size, etc. I have to wonder if that's intentional or not....anchor first, options next.....or if it just worked out that way using the land/resources/opportunities that presented themselves at the time.

 

[Cruiser1969]

Will there be a test at the end of this forum?

After reading all of this, I must admit I'm exhausted and a little confused . . . I am SO going to fail this test!!

BTW, one of the reasons I bought SSR (May 2007) is because it's so close to DD!! Can't wait to stay there!!

 

[lllovell]

Jollymon,

I think what you aren't thinking about or remembering here is that people who are unhappy are the ones that tend to speak up. We have been down this path so many times in the past about SSR and I am sure the wheel will turn to AK and what ever new projects come online in the future. From what I understand from the "oldtimers" this same argument was made about other facilities as they came online as well.

Anecdotal experience holds true if more than a few are experiencing the same issues AND there are no outside effects. Long ago in this thread, someone pointed out the effects of 9/11 and the fact that travel has recovered a great deal. Add a lot more people vying for the same spaces after the 7 month window (which would have happened even if SSR was not one large resort but several small ones) and you will have difficulties booking the smaller resorts on short notice.

You points about SSR not having a draw are valid for YOU but not for my family (which has 3 children by the way who love both the quiet pools at SSR and the main pool area). You don't like SSR and won't stay there. Point made that it doesn't hold interest for you. For my family, I have very little interest in the hotel like resorts. SSR and OKW both are much more relaxed and I don't feel like I must fuss and shhhhhhhsh my children all the time and I have a much better vacation there. As my family dynamics change and the children grow, we might begin to explore those hotel resort options again. Perhaps not, but if I never get to stay anywhere except for SSR, we would be thrilled.

Does it take longer to get to the parks....hmmmm - you know...I don't really know how long it takes. We are having fun, laughing, and not paying attention to time when we are riding. Sometimes at night, even a 5 minute ride (or heaven forbid a long walk pushing 100 pounds of children and carrying 60 more between hubby and I) can seem like torture or it can be the perfect moment to reflect on the day, plan tomorrow, sleep...my point is we are all different in our perspective.

Ah - the joys of DVC. Something to meet everyone's taste. I don't really believe that SSR has effected your ability to get into the smaller resorts. I don't think that most people that bought at SSR are simply using their points to book elsewhere and never intend to stay there. I do think a large number of people use the program as it was designed and like to stay at different resorts on different trips.

The number of DVC users overall and the greater number of travelers again with the recovering travel industry will effect us all ultimately. But, DVC continues to expand with other resorts as well so that isn't something any of us can control. It makes too much money apparently and we keep the resorts much more full than if they were simply deluxe properties for CRO to book (according to what I have gotten from DVD and WDW itself), so that will continue.

SSR is maturing and proving itself to be a quality resort. I am sorry it doesn't appeal to you - - - wait - not really (I have yet to face a "no-vacancy" sign but I reserve before the 7 month window), but I think you are facing a losing battle trying to stay at the smaller resorts with small notice.

Laura

 

[disneykid4ever]

I think its pathetic that whenever a non-SSR member has a problem getting a reservation at another resort besides SSR, they blame the existence of SSR for their trouble. I mean really it is entirely way past OLD already. There are usually so many other specifics that are involved (time, season, holidays, size of room wanted, DDP, special event, etc . . .) that it hardly seems to me that the eternal reason could be SSR owners like me. It just seems its EASIER to blame us instead of being realistic. "I want what I want when I want it and all you stupid people are making it hard for me" is entirely childish.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

These are some loooong posts. pilferk... how many wpm can you type?

 

[pilferk]

These are some loooong posts. pilferk... how many wpm can you type?

About 65, though my accuracy (ok, my spelling) means I edit them afterwards trying to make the words make sense.

Professional hazard. I'm a (and this will surprise no one) Data Analyst/IT guy...specializing mostly in medical and clinical research.

 

[OneMoreTry]

Give it up, guys. This has been debated several times in huge long threads by dogmatic heavy hitters. There were only two conclusions I -- or anyone -- could ever draw:

1. I'll never change anyone's mind.

2. I'm still right. (This was unanimously agreed on by 100%.)


But HELP is on the way !!! AKV will flood DVC with a HUGE number of themed, pool-defending members. And the CRV crowd will be close behind to relieve you guys of the duty of fighting over this topic, and then you can lurk with a beer or coffee and take occasional pot shots like this.

 

[Jollymon]

Now I don't have empirical data to prove that SSR and OKW seem to have the most availability in close.....but that's what I would THINK would be true....

Anecdotal experience would show otherwise; in early April, all DVC resorts, including OKW were sold out for the week of June 17th. I was able to get SSR with no problem. And when I asked the DVC operator to hold while I called my wife to verify the dates, her responce was, 'I can do that or you can call back, there is plenty of room.'

 

[kimberh]

I think its pathetic that whenever a non-SSR member has a problem getting a reservation at another resort besides SSR, they blame the existence of SSR for their trouble. I mean really it is entirely way past OLD already. There are usually so many other specifics that are involved (time, season, holidays, size of room wanted, DDP, special event, etc . . .) that it hardly seems to me that the eternal reason could be SSR owners like me. It just seems its EASIER to blame us instead of being realistic. "I want what I want when I want it and all you stupid people are making it hard for me" is entirely childish.

disneykid4ever, How is it in Hawaii? I bet you plan ahead.

 

[Chuck S]

Anecdotal experience would show otherwise; in early April, all DVC resorts, including OKW were sold out for the week of June 17th. I was able to get SSR with no problem. And when I asked the DVC operator to hold while I called my wife to verify the dates, her responce was, 'I can do that or you can call back, there is plenty of room.'

Remember, though, that SSR still has new rooms and buildings constantly coming in to DVC, which could explain the availability. Even though the resort is finished and ready for occupancy, not all rooms have been declared into DVC inventory, it is an ongoing process. So your recent experiences really don't support your conclusions.

 

[Snookies]

There's some truth to that, I thnk. I think demand exploded so quickly for DVC that SSR (an anchor like OKW) was sort of necessitated at that stage. That, combined with the Orlando Time share EXPLOSION of just the type of timeshare that SSR is. Now that SSR is done, AKV was designed a bit smaller, the plans for the rumored CRV look about that same size, etc. I have to wonder if that's intentional or not....anchor first, options next.....or if it just worked out that way using the land/resources/opportunities that presented themselves at the time.

Pilferk, the following is merely an anecdote consistent with the land/resources/opportunities view: Some will remember that before SSR was announced, the next DVC was to be Eagle Pines, a large golf course resort to be located approximately where the Four Seasons will be located. Like Pop Century, Eagle Pines was moth-balled because of the travel slowdown beginning in 2001 and accentuated by 9/11. Some may also remember that the Disney Institute Resort was also essentially closed (if memory serves at about the same time) because of the failure of Eisner's Disney Institute "A Different Kind of Disney Vacation" concept. The punchline is that in talking to my guide about this, she claimed that SSR substituted for Eagle Pines because the property became available at about that time and it would be more efficient to develop a resort on that site because the utilities were already in place. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it makes business sense and is consistent with your concluding statement about it maybe "just worked out that way using the land/resources/opportunities that presented themselves at the time."

Give it up, guys. This has been debated several times in huge long threads by dogmatic heavy hitters. There were only two conclusions I -- or anyone -- could ever draw:

1. I'll never change anyone's mind.

2. I'm still right. (This was unanimously agreed on by 100%.)


But HELP is on the way !!! AKV will flood DVC with a HUGE number of themed, pool-defending members. And the CRV crowd will be close behind to relieve you guys of the duty of fighting over this topic, and then you can lurk with a beer or coffee and take occasional pot shots like this.

I remember those threads well. And this thread is consistent with

1. No minds have been changed because the same topic keeps popping up.
2. Posting to these threads is just like eating M&Ms: you can't have just one.

BTW, OneMoreTry, I always enjoy your occasional potshots.

 

[loribell]

Remember, though, that SSR still has new rooms and buildings constantly coming in to DVC, which could explain the availability. Even though the resort is finished and ready for occupancy, not all rooms have been declared into DVC inventory, it is an ongoing process. So your recent experiences really don't support your conclusions.

Exactlly! New inventory released means last minute availablility.

 

[crisi]

Pilferk,

I did the same analysis years ago with the same results (different model - but functionally the same). Mine was in a spreadsheet so I could change assumptions. Even if SSR is twice as popular as any other resort, its size means that there is STILL availability there when everything else is booked. Even if BCV/VWL are half as popular, they still book faster than SSR. Populartity of the resort is a really minor variable - the critical factor is size. That's led me to believe that discussions on whether more SSR owners want to stay somewhere else than BCV owners (which I do believe is true - it doesn't hold water that people are willing to pay more in a resale and more in dues for a BCV contract unless they really want to stay there) are really irrelevant in the long run to discussions about SSR changing availabliity. The only thing that helps BCV availability is more small resorts (which AKL is not).

 

[DVCKennyD]

Reads more like rabble rousing of the type dumbo71 used to engage in before being banned.

Wow... I was thinking the exact same thing. I was wondering where he went! For the record, I am a proud new "owner" at SSR and recently returned from our first trip as members . I wholeheartedly agree with pilferk and the rest of the SSR supporters here... We love it!

My 3 boys loved the pools(HighRock and Grandstand), and my wife and I really appreciated the overall serenity and peace and quiet of the resort. IMO, a nice change of pace from the hustle and bustle of the parks I really don't need to be "immersed" in all things Disney 24/7 while I'm there... On the contrary, it was wonderful to leave it all behind whenever we returned to our new "home".

Ken

 

[BroganMc]

You know I was going to post this long response about how SSR is a destination resort more than BCV and why Pilferk's statistics are the only ones that make any logical sense... but then I realized I've done that dozens of times before on other eerily similar threads.

So I'm changing my tactic to the only true statistic I think matters: More BCV owners dislike SSR than any other resort.

 

[pilferk]

Anecdotal experience would show otherwise; in early April, all DVC resorts, including OKW were sold out for the week of June 17th. I was able to get SSR with no problem. And when I asked the DVC operator to hold while I called my wife to verify the dates, her responce was, 'I can do that or you can call back, there is plenty of room.'

Which is a specific anecdotal experience (so not very compelling)...and not outside what I would expect anyway. There was avail at SSR. Anywhere else? You say not. Either way, ONE of the two biggest resorts was available...actually, only the biggest was,which is within expectations. You don't know if OKW was the last to book prior to that...only that SSR was avail. I mean, on any given day, anything can happen anyway...it's the normalizing over long periods that would actually provide something statistically relevant. Barring that.....

 

[pilferk]

Pilferk, the following is merely an anecdote consistent with the land/resources/opportunities view: Some will remember that before SSR was announced, the next DVC was to be Eagle Pines, a large golf course resort to be located approximately where the Four Seasons will be located. Like Pop Century, Eagle Pines was moth-balled because of the travel slowdown beginning in 2001 and accentuated by 9/11. Some may also remember that the Disney Institute Resort was also essentially closed (if memory serves at about the same time) because of the failure of Eisner's Disney Institute "A Different Kind of Disney Vacation" concept. The punchline is that in talking to my guide about this, she claimed that SSR substituted for Eagle Pines because the property became available at about that time and it would be more efficient to develop a resort on that site because the utilities were already in place. I have no idea if this is true or not, but it makes business sense and is consistent with your concluding statement about it maybe "just worked out that way using the land/resources/opportunities that presented themselves at the time."

But even the plans for Eagle pines (those we saw, heard about, etc) seemed to indicate it was pretty big....which still leaves me wondering which scenario is playing out at DVD...plans or opportunity.

 

[pilferk]

Pilferk,

I did the same analysis years ago with the same results (different model - but functionally the same). Mine was in a spreadsheet so I could change assumptions. Even if SSR is twice as popular as any other resort, its size means that there is STILL availability there when everything else is booked. Even if BCV/VWL are half as popular, they still book faster than SSR. Populartity of the resort is a really minor variable - the critical factor is size. That's led me to believe that discussions on whether more SSR owners want to stay somewhere else than BCV owners (which I do believe is true - it doesn't hold water that people are willing to pay more in a resale and more in dues for a BCV contract unless they really want to stay there) are really irrelevant in the long run to discussions about SSR changing availabliity. The only thing that helps BCV availability is more small resorts (which AKL is not).

Exactly my point..

The only thing I disagree with (and only very, very slightly) is that AKV doesn't help. It does, a bit....just not "enough". It DOES offload some demand (in my scenario it was about 5 units or so, tops.....drops in the bucket, I suppose, when demand probalby outstrips supply by double or more). It just looks like DVD has gone away from "small", for now (and maybe for good). It's going to mean the BCV and VWL are going to be tough tickets for non-owners, or anyone wanting to book short notice. Unless DVD starts building a bunch of 200 unit villas on property, I think you're right...it's never going to "normalize". I think thats' just the nature of the beast that the popularity of the program brings.

 

[pilferk]

You know I was going to post this long response about how SSR is a destination resort more than BCV and why Pilferk's statistics are the only ones that make any logical sense... but then I realized I've done that dozens of times before on other eerily similar threads.

So I'm changing my tactic to the only true statistic I think matters: More BCV owners dislike SSR than any other resort.

LOL!!! That's too funny......