Are the Days of Walking a DVC Reservation Numbered?

[Sandisw]

Yes, we know you were there. I even complimented you for going, which is great!

Are the comments quoted in the article inaccurate or incomplete in any way? If not, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for walking or validation that the practice is within the rules or allowable.

Nothing inaccurate but having been there, it was longer conversation and the message that was also clear is that they recognize how important the flexibility of being able to change reservation is and that any potential changes would weigh the impact carefully.

I do feel that the way the statements were made, in the context of the conversation was that yes, they know about walking…had to explain it to the group because a gentlemen there has no idea what is was…are monitoring it and recognize it as not being what was intended when the rules were made…implying that it’s currently allowed, which is why he said “well, it definitely goes against the spirit of the rule” with a slight laugh.

They explained why the changed the rules from day by day…which wasn’t the intent of the old booking rule either…and that they don’t want to end up in the same position they are now.

Making a change to the rules, only to have unintended consequences agains.

So, it definitely is something on their radar and we could see changes but IMO, I won’t be surprised not to see them anytime soon, especially since they validated the concern about losing flexibility that the current system allows.

Since this was the first time for owners to have such an open forum, and it being a hot topic it was picked up on.

Now I did attend a second meeting and the conversation at that one did not discuss walking to the same extent because no one asked a question about it but made a comment and so they simply said, • Yes, we are aware of concerns”

 

[BeachClub2014]

I'm always amused by these discussions about walking. They are, inevitably, full of solutions in search of a problem. IMO, walking is perfectly OK as long as it is not used in conjunction commercial renting. It's the commercial renting that is the core of everything. Not members booking vacations for themselves.

Further from the article: https://dvcfan.com/general-dvc/are-the-days-of-walking-a-dvc-reservation-numbered/
"For now, walking a reservation remains an option for those willing to put in the effort. However, it’s clear that DVC is paying attention to the concerns surrounding this practice and exploring ways to make the booking process more equitable for all Members."

It would appear that many believe it to be a problem, with the emphasis on more equitable.

 

[tx911]

The non-walker has the SAME opportunity to walk their reservation. There is no advantage.

They do not have the same opportunity, because I believe a large portion of owners don't know about it.
Others know about it, but don't want to deal with the hassle. Still others believe is it wrong to take advantage of other owners who don't do it, so choose not to for that reason.

DVC apparently recognizes it as a use of the membership that is not as intended, that is becoming an ever-increasing problem. So, problem found. Solution still unclear.

 

[Chili327]

If DVC is 100% okie dokie with walking

Spin it any way that you'd like. If DVC were good with it, and if it fell 100% within the rules, as many argue here, then they would have said so. My read on it is that they realize the practice is not consistent with the rules, spirit, or otherwise, and that the problem has continued to grow exponentially, and now they need to address it.

Being 100% ok with it, and it being against the rules are 2 different things.
It is NOT against the rules, but they can see how they may need to implement a rule or make some changes because they can see how it NOT being against the rules may have some issues. So moving forward they are "looking into it".

 

[Sandisw]

They do not have the same opportunity, because I believe a large portion of owners don't know about it.
Others know about it, but don't want to deal with the hassle. Still others believe is it wrong to take advantage of other owners who don't do it, so choose not to for that reason.

DVC apparently recognizes it as a use of the membership that is not as intended, that is becoming an ever-increasing problem. So, problem found. Solution still unclear.

Not knowing something doesn’t change the equity in a situation

I think we all agree that they recognize that some owners are not okay with the current rules and feel they should work to have ones that appear to be fairer.

I think some of the points being made…in order to fix it, DVC has to change the rules.

When asked at the meeting, the gentleman said that he heard about walking and it being allowed. Then asked “Do you have any say in changing the rules to stop it” the answer by Yvonne was “Yes, we make the rules so we can change them”

That to me was her acknowledging that walking is part of the current rules but then the conversation expanded to discussing it.

 

[Chili327]

Yeah I sorta give up at this point because it’s clear there's no way to convince some there’s no rule. I can’t prove a negative I can only point out there is no rule that bans walking and dvc will tell you it’s allowed and help you do it. But you don’t want it to be allowed so you imagined a nonexistent rule that forbids it.

Yea, if a cast member will do it for you, it is definitely not against the rules. lol

 

[tx911]

Not knowing something doesn’t change the equity in a situation

I think we all agree that they recognize that some owners are not okay with the current rules and feel they should work to have ones that appear to be fairer.

I think some of the points being made…in order to fix it, DVC has to change the rules.

When asked at the meeting, the gentleman said that he heard about walking and it being allowed. Then asked “Do you have any say in changing the rules to stop it” the answer by Yvonne was “Yes, we make the rules so we can change them”

That to me was her acknowledging that walking is part of the current rules but then the conversation expanded to discussing it.

Right, they're basically saying: It's not against the rules as written, but it should be.
How can a method of booking rooms that specifically relies on everyone NOT doing it be equitable? If everyone did it, it wouldn't work.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Being 100% ok with it, and it being against the rules are 2 different things.
It is NOT against the rules, but they can see how they may need to implement a rule or make some changes because they can see how it NOT being against the rules may have some issues. So moving forward they are "looking into it".

If the practice were 100% within the rules, they would have said so. It's only our opinion that it is either NOT (your caps) against the rules or that it isn't consistent with them. That is pure speculation and opinion. DVC decides what is allowed and what is not.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Yea, if a cast member will do it for you, it is definitely not against the rules. lol

Really? Your supposition is that a cast member never does something inconsistent with the rules? That's laughable.

 

[Chili327]

If the practice were 100% within the rules, they would have said so. It's only our opinion that it is either NOT (your caps) against the rules or that it isn't consistent with them. That is pure speculation and opinion. DVC decides what is allowed and what is not.

Really? Your supposition is that a cast member never does something inconsistent with the rules? That's laughable.

Call MS right now and ask them.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Call MS right now and ask them.

Repeatedly stating an opinion as fact and being snarky doesn't make the opinion any more correct.

When all is said and done, DVC may publicly endorse walking as perfectly fair, acceptable, and consistent with the rules, but they didn't in this instance when they had the chance. A deliberate decision would have been made not to do so in their responses, which is why we got what we got.

The article's entire point and senior leadership quotes certainly leave room for a reasonable person to conclude that the practice may not be consistent with the rules. Time will tell.

I also recognize that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say here to move the needle on opinions, which is the beauty of the DISboards.

 

[Tatebeck]

I did send them a secure message about it just because I am so curious, but I suspect that they will give a cop out answer back in response

 

[Leight19]

Right, they're basically saying: It's not against the rules as written, but it should be.
How can a method of booking rooms that specifically relies on everyone NOT doing it be equitable? If everyone did it, it wouldn't work.

So to clarify to me their statement is it’s not against the rules but they are considering whether they should make rules to prevent it.

With respect to equity, it doesn’t rely on everyone else not doing it. If everyone walked it would still work for some who started earlier or tried more consistently to start walks. To me everyone has an equal chance to try to walk regardless of whether they try to do so or not.

 

[Sandisw]

Right, they're basically saying: It's not against the rules as written, but it should be.
How can a method of booking rooms that specifically relies on everyone NOT doing it be equitable? If everyone did it, it wouldn't work.

Except 8 am est time isn’t as convenient for all owners so some get an advantage. Not everyone can book at 11 months either…so those that can get an advantage.

People who have a lot of points have an advantage over smaller point owners.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect and no rules they have will be seen as good by everyone because we all have different views or needs on using our membership.

That’s not to say that walking as an advantage should not become prohibited. But it can only be stopped if they change the rules for modifying a current reservation.

And, depending what they do, assuming they do anything, owners may not be happy.

Plus, they did indicate it’s not widespread so while acknowledging it happens, the implication was it may not be as “impactful” as some believe it is.

My pure speculation here is that they are going to change things regarding renting, especially inn reference to commerical and that those changes may be enough to make this a minor issue.

 

[Sandisw]

If the practice were 100% within the rules, they would have said so. It's only our opinion that it is either NOT (your caps) against the rules or that it isn't consistent with them. That is pure speculation and opinion. DVC decides what is allowed and what is not.

In a way they did…I posted the way the question was phrased to Yvonne…he said he heard about waking and that is allowed to happen. Can you change the rules to stop it?

Her response was “we make them so we can change them”. That statement certainly appears to confirm since she could have said “well, it’s actually not allowed” and she did not.

Obviously, we can read into things but given how strong the language was in reference to commerical renting not being allowed and this being “we are open to rule changes to help” is enough of a distinction that they know they can’t stop owners from doing it unless they act.

Having been there, as I said, there was definitely an implication that this is something that is currently not a violation but that they’d be willing to consider rule changes.

 

[Chili327]

Repeatedly stating an opinion as fact and being snarky doesn't make the opinion any more correct.

When all is said and done, DVC may publicly endorse walking as perfectly fair, acceptable, and consistent with the rules, but they didn't in this instance when they had the chance. A deliberate decision would have been made not to do so in their responses, which is why we got what we got.

The article's entire point and senior leadership quotes certainly leave room for a reasonable person to conclude that the practice may not be consistent with the rules. Time will tell.

I also recognize that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say here to move the needle on opinions, which is the beauty of the DISboards.

Correct. They are looking into it, because there may need to be a rule implemented... because right now there isn't a rule. Snarky or not, that is all were saying, it is not against the rules.
For the record, I think there should be a rule, i'm all for making a rule, but that's because there isn't one right now.

I did send them a secure message about it just because I am so curious, but I suspect that they will give a cop out answer back in response

I was thinking of doing the same just to see what they'd say. lol

 

[Genie+]

AGAIN, it doesn't say that it has to be a day that you "want to visit" - as you said you can leave the room empty if you wish. They never say anything about desire to physically stay in a room. The rules are very specific in their wording.

I have posted it many times but here you go again... "Members may call Member Services or make a reservation online via the DVC Website no earlier than eleven (11) months prior to the desired check in day for a reservation"

Each reservation can only have 1 check in day. The definition of a check in day is the day your reservation will start. You cannot choose or ever have 2 check in days for a reservation.

You choose your desired check in day, then that determines if you are able to book yet.

If I start walking a reservation today solely for a stay next Christmas, my desired check in day is 12/25 and is over 11 months away. If I want to lie and say that my desired check in day is different to secure a reservation that I can modify forward later, I have now broken the 11 month FCFS rules. If Disney believes I have done so, they can now choose to do something about it or not.

Before they added the computer system and changed to check in day booking, there was no walking. You could not call before other members were eligible to book and extend your stay. You were calling each day and competing for any other members that wanted to book that day and any days further into the window, but you were NOT allowed in any way to book the day 11 months out ahead of anyone else.

And yes DVC can stop or prevent any booking if they feel it was not made within the rules.
"Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purpose other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited"

It does not say for any personal use, but any personal use "described herein" the rules. If you make a reservation, and they feel it was not for personal use, or was not within the rules (even if it was for personal use), then they can choose to do something about it if they wish, also as part of the rules. Just because they have chosen not to do anything doesn't mean that they can't do something.

"DVC Operator shall have the right to temporarily modify, adjust, or amend these Rules and Regulations, or suspend enforcement of, or make exceptions to enforcement of or adherence to, these Rules and Regulations"

I felt similar about the intention of the rules stating:
"Members may call Member Services or make a reservation online via the DVC Website no earlier than eleven (11) months prior to the desired check in day for a reservation"

It was heavily debated that walking is still securing that room at 11 months. The result of such practice moves FCFS outside 11 months and I think that was not part of how the system was intended to work, so I did not agree. When not many people were calling into MS over and over to do it, and it wasn’t making a noticeable impact, there wouldn’t have been a need for DVC to change it even if not initially functioning as intended. Things today are different than 5 or 10yrs ago and just like happened with DAS, people notice the impact of walking increasing even though it’s hard for us as individuals to get concrete numbers ‘proof’ without access to Disney’s data. We can only share if our experience is deteriorating and take that with the clues given. Then Disney/DVC has to decide whether or not to change how they manage things.

The meeting said walking’s under consideration. They mentioned unintended consequences, seemingly aware not to make the cure worse than disease. They acknowledged walking is not in the spirit of the rules and that says to me the system was set up with the intention of keeping trip lead time reasonable, and not as we find with the result of walking: forcing the need to book more than a year out otherwise give up our first come first serve ability.

That’s where I feel DVC has a responsibility to fix that 11m fcfs if there’s a way that doesn’t break the system worse. I’m pretty confident they can figure out a decent solution. There is no way to modify a change in room type that preserves FCFS booking over 11 months out the way walking allows. Check-in date at 11m should be treated closer to that, adjusted with a few extra allowances to return some flexibility. Just not all of it lol.

 

[tx911]

So to clarify to me their statement is it’s not against the rules but they are considering whether they should make rules to prevent it.

With respect to equity, it doesn’t rely on everyone else not doing it. If everyone walked it would still work for some who started earlier or tried more consistently to start walks. To me everyone has an equal chance to try to walk regardless of whether they try to do so or not.

If everyone walked, there would be no advantage conveyed to a particular owner. Same as if everyone booked at the 8am 11 months out. It confers an advantage only because most don't do it,

The system INTENDS for all owners to book the week they intend to stay at 8am 11 months out.

If you are doing something other than that, you are perverting the very flexible system that DVC gave us for personal gain. Which may at some point put that flexibility in jeopardy.

 

[Chili327]

If you are doing something other than that, you are perverting the very flexible system that DVC gave us for personal gain. Which may at some point put that flexibility in jeopardy.

Correct, they may have to put a rule in place someday.

 

[Sandisw]

https://dvcnews.com/dvc-program-men...mmercial-renting-walking-during-condo-meeting

This was also posted in relation to it and gives a little bit of a different take on how to interpret what happened.