Are the Days of Walking a DVC Reservation Numbered?

[Genie+]

Now, having the virtual at 8 am might be doable but since not everyone is booking the same rooms, won’t you still be in the same situation with those who are all trying for the same room.

It wouldn’t be the same situation for someone who doesn’t want to start booking months prior to 11 months out. That person would be seeing their odds raised when they arrive at 11 months. The odds that get lowered are for those who were entering the system well before their window opened.

I realize some prefer the ability to start walking their special reservation months before their actual 11 month window opens. But not everyone is willing to give up booking within a more reasonable timeframe to gain that advantage. Personally I don’t want to have start thinking about a May 2026 trip right now. November 2025 is plenty far enough.

 

[Sandisw]

It wouldn’t be the same situation for someone who doesn’t want to start booking months prior to 11 months out. That person would be seeing their odds raised when they arrive at 11 months. The odds that get lowered are for those who were entering the system well before their window opened.

I realize some prefer the ability to start walking their special reservation months before their actual 11 month window opens. But not everyone is willing to give up booking within a more reasonable timeframe to gain that advantage. Personally I don’t want to have start thinking about a May 2026 trip right now. November 2025 is plenty far enough.

I don’t see how the virtual que helps the issue. It still allows people to log in and complete against everyone else who is in the Que that day for that specific room.

If 100 people want to book at BWV, doesn’t the virtual Que still put the same 100 people in the same position without it? What am I missing?

 

[Genie+]

I don’t see how the virtual que helps the issue. It still allows people to log in and complete against everyone else who is in the Que that day for that specific room.

If 100 people want to book at BWV, doesn’t the virtual Que still put the same 100 people in the same position without it? What am I missing?

I’ll use 100 people but we’re also talking about not enough rooms to go around. So let’s say they are competing for 60 rooms. If 50 of those 100 people walk their room, the remaining 50 people are left competing for 10 rooms at 11 months.

The walkers have near 100% chance at their room, the others get a 20% chance.

If everybody came in at 11 months, all 100 people would have a 60% chance.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ll use 100 people but we’re also talking about not enough rooms to go around. So let’s say they are competing for 60 rooms. If 50 of those 100 people walk their room, the remaining 50 people are left competing for 10 rooms at 11 months.

The walkers have near 100% chance at their room, the others get a 20% chance.

If everybody came in at 11 months, all 100 people would have a 60% chance.

My comment wasn’t about walking It was about how a virtual que helps with walking.

I don’t see how using a virtual queue does anything in preventing owners from going in and booking a room for a date they intend to change later.

But, even with walking, if 50 people go in and book but plan to move it, the other 50 who really want it end up with the room because supply is more than demand.

The impact of walking is when demand outweighs supply…stopping walking won’t change that…just will help people feel it’s fairer…and I do understand why people would feel that way.

However, as I have said, I will be extremely surprised if DVC is going to change the rules to a complicated structure that treats modifications differently depending on when they happen.

I think what we will see is a straightforward rule that treats all modifications the same, whether it’s at 11 months, or 10 months, or 3 month.

Why I would much rather see them use a different system like the special seasons list for those hard to book rooms

 

[Chili327]

Couldn’t they just not allow modify/changes until 10 months? (or have a 48hr waiting period until 10 months)
Or would that just allow them to walk if they have 1000’s of points?

 

[Genie+]

That seems like it may be a bit harsh and may effect more people than just walkers. Say someone who booked a competitive room for 4 nights but then only wants 3. they didn't really walk a reservation but by the time they can cancel and rebook their original room type would be full.

You wouldn't even need to limit WHEN someone is able to modify the reservation, just stop the system from showing them their single prebooked room as an option on the modify search screen, just show them the same exact availability that everyone else can see (what you would see now, minus their one room.) Then they could at least modify it if the room type is still available before it's gone.

Ahh yes I’m seeing the light! They’d no longer be holding that exact reservation when they go in to modify. They’d be back on square footing with everyone else.

 

[Genie+]

My comment wasn’t about walking It was about how a virtual que helps with walking.

VQ would be a replacement for booking earlier than 11 months, in tandem with other measures, in regard to the question: If 100 people want to book at BWV, doesn’t the virtual Que still put the same 100 people in the same position without it? What am I missing?

 

[Flash_Sloth]

VQ would be a replacement for booking earlier than 11 months, in tandem with other measures, in regard to the question: If 100 people want to book at BWV, doesn’t the virtual Que still put the same 100 people in the same position without it? What am I missing?

Right, a VQ by itself doesn't do anything to prevent walking. The VQ would be a more fair way for humans to compete against bots that will have the room booked before a human has a chance to click a few buttons. And for limited supply & high demand rooms, there won't ever be some magic to let everybody book it.

There has to be some other measures in place to limit or prevent walking. Currently, once somebody grabs that first night, they can walk for many months until they bump into the beginning of their next UY. To fix this, there needs to be a way to end the walk and give others a fair shot at booking the room. Can this be done without the rules getting crazy complex?

Maybe a rule of "a reservation can only exist in the 11 month + 7 day window for no more than X days"? Maybe X = 14 or 20 days? Something that would still give people a long enough window to make a longer reservation, and/or let people walk a few days.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I still think the simplest solution to reducing "walking" is to create a financial disincentive to do so. There is no need to make complex rule changes or other onerous modifications to the reservation system.

Allow owners to make a few no-cost changes to a reservation. That would account for the plethora of owners who need to modify a reservation to account for travel plan changes. Then, after this free "grace" number of modifications, begin charging a change fee for each modification. That would, to my thinking, discourage both the volume and length of reservation" walking."

Doing so doesn't impact the owners, who either don't make modifications or only make a few changes. It also still allows "walking" for those owners who want to pay the fees. This idea still allows for first-come-first-served reservations and no other rule modifications.

I realize that many owners would not endorse this idea, but it would significantly reduce the problem if we had to shell out more money for excessive changes.

 

[Sandisw]

I still think the simplest solution to reducing "walking" is to create a financial disincentive to do so. There is no need to make complex rule changes or other onerous modifications to the reservation system.

Allow owners to make a few no-cost changes to a reservation. That would account for the plethora of owners who need to modify a reservation to account for travel plan changes. Then, after this free "grace" number of modifications, begin charging a change fee for each modification. That would, to my thinking, discourage both the volume and length of reservation" walking."

Doing so doesn't impact the owners, who either don't make modifications or only make a few changes. It also still allows "walking" for those owners who want to pay the fees. This idea still allows for first-come-first-served reservations and no other rule modifications.

I realize that many owners would not endorse this idea, but it would significantly reduce the problem if we had to shell out more money for excessive changes.

Charging a fee would be a huge negative for owners who are not walking and IMO, it severely makes the marketing of how flexible DVC is harder.

And what counts as a charagble change? Dates, resorts.

Could a waitlist trigger the charge? And setting up a system that allows those with more points or income to achieve walking is not an idea I think would be seen as good from the DVc boards perspective because now they are condoning it as long as someone is willing to pay?

Just eliminate the plus 7 and make it day by day…stops walking and those that want to play the game of trying to get their entire trip in a hard to get room can…those that don’t will just book the other views and waitlist.

As I shared, the board stated at the meetings I was at that this is is also not widespread but they hear members concerns.

You can decide whether or not to take them at their word, but IMO, if they are putting that out there, then the changes that they make won’t be complex in anyway. Best case is to help curb it.

The worst case is they make every change a cancel and rebook which I can’t see being popular with anyone.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Charging a fee would be a huge negative for owners who are not walking and IMO, it severely makes the marketing of how flexible DVC is harder.

It wouldn't impact owners who don't regularly modify their reservations or walk. If everyone gets a set number of free modifications, then there is no impact.

And what counts as a charagble change? Dates, resorts.

Yes. To keep it simple, if you have an existing reservation that you then modify, it counts as a change.

Could a waitlist trigger the charge? And setting up a system that allows those with more points or income to achieve walking is not an idea I think would be seen as good from the DVc boards perspective.

I'm unclear how a waitlist would be counted towards a reservation modification. A waitlist request isn't a reservation, so you aren't modifying an existing reservation.

How does charging a change fee for excessive modifications create an advantage for owners with many points? All reservations are still made on first-come-first-served; everyone gets the same number of free modifications and pays the same change fee for extra modifications.

As I shared, the board stated at the meetings I was at that this is is also not widespread but they hear members concerns.

Widespread leaves a lot of latitude for us to interpret and guess what the Board meant. It's a big enough issue for many owners to have risen to the Board with a commitment (of sorts) to address it in some way.

You can decide whether or not to take them at their word, but IMO, if they are putting that out there, then the changes that they make won’t be complex in anyway. Best case is to help curb it.

I do tend to take things at face value. Adding a change fee isn't at all complex. It seems like one of the simplest solutions that I've seen to this point.

The worst case is they make every change a cancel and rebook which I can’t see being popular with anyone.

I totally agree with you here. Let's hope that's not the solution they choose.

 

[jcolvin5]

I still think the simplest solution to reducing "walking" is to create a financial disincentive to do so. There is no need to make complex rule changes or other onerous modifications to the reservation system.

Allow owners to make a few no-cost changes to a reservation. That would account for the plethora of owners who need to modify a reservation to account for travel plan changes. Then, after this free "grace" number of modifications, begin charging a change fee for each modification. That would, to my thinking, discourage both the volume and length of reservation" walking."

Doing so doesn't impact the owners, who either don't make modifications or only make a few changes. It also still allows "walking" for those owners who want to pay the fees. This idea still allows for first-come-first-served reservations and no other rule modifications.

I realize that many owners would not endorse this idea, but it would significantly reduce the problem if we had to shell out more money for excessive changes.

Sounds like paying for priority access to me. May deter some, but if an owner REALLY wants that reservation...cost won't stop them. IMO

 

[BeachClub2014]

Sounds like paying for priority access to me. May deter some, but if an owner REALLY wants that reservation...cost won't stop them. IMO

This is not paying for priority access. Everyone still has to make a base reservation within the existing rules, so there are no changes. Then, everyone gets a set number of free changes to the existing reservation, and "excessive" changes are charged a change fee. I agree that if someone wants a reservation bad enough, they can continue to "walk" it as they do today and pay. Many owners would stop doing so, thus reducing the overall problem.

 

[Sandisw]

It wouldn't impact owners who don't regularly modify their reservations or walk. If everyone gets a set number of free modifications, then there is no impact.


Yes. To keep it simple, if you have an existing reservation that you then modify, it counts as a change.


I'm unclear how a waitlist would be counted towards a reservation modification. A waitlist request isn't a reservation, so you aren't modifying an existing reservation.

How does charging a change fee for excessive modifications create an advantage for owners with many points? All reservations are still made on first-come-first-served; everyone gets the same number of free modifications and pays the same change fee for extra modifications.


Widespread leaves a lot of latitude for us to interpret and guess what the Board meant. It's a big enough issue for many owners to have risen to the Board with a commitment (of sorts) to address it in some way.


I do tend to take things at face value. Adding a change fee isn't at all complex. It seems like one of the simplest solutions that I've seen to this point.


I totally agree with you here. Let's hope that's not the solution they choose.

I am sure plenty modify and adjust trips regularly. One can’t get a SV room, so they book a PV room,,,and then waitlist a different view…or stalk.

Sometimes, they might be able to change dates a few days to get those nights in the cheaper view …maybe then one decides at 7 months to switch resorts…first choice not there so book second and keep checking. Modify and adjust as the trip gets closer if they need to.

The point is there are plenty of owners out there who want to modify and adjust because things can change from booking at 11 months. And, certain times of the year, canceling first can leave someone without a room.

Large point owners might now hold multiple reservations for a room type to avoid the change fee.

For example, an owner wants a 5 day trip but can flex it over 10 days so instead of taking one room for 10 days, which can be modified later. they make two 5 days that overlap to give them more flexibility to change without a potential fee.

A waitlist, if it fills, can be a modification so that means some of those could trigger a fee if the owner has exceeded the grace..now, you are impacting owners.

Isn’t is simpler to put back into play the special preference list for those hard to get rooms?

Take BWV…plenty of pool and garden to go around…but not SV…make SV rooms bookings subject to the rules of the list.

Pretty simple, doesn’t change the flexibility of the program and stops walking for the rooms in which walking has an impact. It pretty much solves the problem and that language already exists!!

My guess is that SSR owners are not concerned about walking in the way an AKV or BWV owner is.

That’s why I hope that any changes they make doesn’t put into restrictions to fix what I believe is a problem for a very small set of rooms.

ETA: Adding a fee that people might be willing to pay and still allows walking means DVC giving certain owners priority as they can afford to move things.

 

[jcolvin5]

This is not paying for priority access. Everyone still has to make a base reservation within the existing rules, so there are no changes. Then, everyone gets a set number of free changes to the existing reservation, and "excessive" changes are charged a change fee. I agree that if someone wants a reservation bad enough, they can continue to "walk" it as they do today and pay. Many owners would stop doing so, thus reducing the overall problem.

Defining "excessive" would be a subjective discussion.

I think this is all just trying to fix a symptom (ie walking) which I do not personally believe is a large problem for Disney or DVC owners.

What i do get reading through this thread is that many start by saying walking is bad, BUT I do it when I am forced into doing it. So it's only bad whenever one of those evil people do it, not innocent little ole me with snow white intentions.

 

[bk1273]

I have not bought in yet but thinking about it. However, what about this for a possible solution.

New reservation window is at 11 1/2 months. All inventory is open.

Changes limited to the 11 month window.

 

[Chili327]

I am sure plenty modify and adjust trips regularly. One can’t get a SV room, so they book a PV room,,,and then waitlist a different view…or stalk

This may be the biggest factor. How many changes does the average person make vs how many a commercial renter does?

 

[BeachClub2014]

The point is there are plenty of owners out there who want to modify and adjust because things can change from booking at 11 months. And, certain times of the year, canceling first can leave someone without a room.

I haven't suggested any changes that would result in a cancellation.

Large point owners might now hold multiple reservations for a room type to avoid the change fee.

They do this now. You've previously said that you've made multiple spec reservations to lock in a room until your plans solidify. I've done so, too. That's an advantage of having a lot of points.

Isn’t is simpler to put back into play the special preference list for those hard to get rooms?

I am not opposed to this, either.

ETA: Adding a fee that people might be willing to pay and still allows walking means DVC giving certain owners priority as they can afford to move things.

I still don't understand this concept of priority when everyone has the same opportunity to reserve a room under the rules, as you've often reminded us when discussing walking. Adding a fee for excessive modifications make zero change to the the booking rules and doesn't give anyone priority over anyoneone else.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Defining "excessive" would be a subjective discussion.

No doubt! Just like defining "commercial" when it comes to renting.

I think this is all just trying to fix a symptom (ie walking) which I do not personally believe is a large problem for Disney or DVC owners.

Maybe. Many of us do believe it is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[jcolvin5]

What is clear is that nothing is very clear when it concerns "walking"