Are the Days of Walking a DVC Reservation Numbered?

[TCRAIG]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before in this thread, but this seems like a fairly simple issue to solve by only allowing X number of revisions to the reservation. I don't see why anyone would need to modify a reservation date more than 4 times between a booking window and the stay. It would give people more than enough opportunity to make changes based on flight availability and prices, and changes with DVC special events that are announced after a stay is booked. The commercial renting seems like the harder issue to solve though.

Haha challenge accepted. This isn’t the 1990’s society anymore. It’s cut throat. Bet the same or many more then currently walk the system will day to day it. Since it’s kind of a backwards idea, we will call it the “moonwalk”. It failed once already. Nowadays we are competitors. More DVC resorts..more members…more points in the club. Just look at Moonlight Magic. Some run 20 internet connections at once to get in.

I don’t walk now but if DVC made changes such that we need to book based on checkout day rather than checkin - I sure as you know what would be booking day by day…and with 1500+ points - I’d be booking a butt load of days!

 

[Nabas]

Booking by checkout day is a cure worse than the illness.

Let's consider some checkout day schemes.

Assume that Disney only allows members to book 11 months in advance, not 11 months plus 6 nights. Without any other change, some will book their check-in day at soon as it's available and then try to add to it one night at a time. This means they are doing the "8 AM thing" seven mornings in a row. That's annoying.

Now let's assume there are seven members competing for one room for the same seven nights. Each is desperate for those seven nights, so they grab what they can and waitlist what they cannot. We could end up with a scenario where each member gets one night and then waitlists the other nights in the hope that they eventually come through. Chances are, none of these original seven ends up with what they want, as other more flexible members grab individual nights as they become available as each one of the original seven gives up at different times. (Think AKV-Club where there are only 5 rooms and lots of members who would settle for a single night to try it out. Or Beach Club during Food & Wine Festival.)

Let's add a "no modification" restriction, so we cannot add nights to an existing reservation. This negatively impacts a ton of other members that have nothing to do with walking. (My biggest fear.)

Let's add a "no modifications until 10 months" restriction. Members will still grab what they can and waitlist the rest. We could end up with members doing a "reverse walk" where they start to grab days before their check-in date in order to discourage those who want to go on overlapping dates. (For example, you want March 15 to 22. I want March 17 to 24. I might be tempted to grab March 15, even though I have no intention of using it, just to stop you from booking March 17 to 22, which I really want.)

I'm sure there are other checkout day schemes but, hopefully, this demonstrates what Disney means when they talk about "unintended consequences".

 

[Nabas]

As I recall, Disney currently allows reservations that are as long as 30 nights. So maybe Disney could use a scheme where the check-out date can be no more than 30 nights from the original check-in date of the original reservation?

Alternatively, limit this to (for example) 7 nights but allow for 30 nights as long as the original check-in date is not modified. (This lets those with longer stays to book their first 7 nights like everyone else and then add additional nights.)

Also allow for unlimited modifications after (for example) 31 days from the original check-in date once it's no longer possible to walk the reservation.

We'd still have some walking, but this would limit walking to 6 nights (in the case of someone who wants just a single night). This would address the most egregious examples of walking. (Based on observation, some categories of rooms are being walked for months.)

Added: I suspect commercial renters are doing a big chunk of the walking. So first fix this before changing anything else.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

Yes, folks may book day by day for the hard to get reservations.

How is that trolling? Do you know what trolling is?
It is not someone posting who defends a difference of opinion.

Except according to the board last week, it wasn’t just some folks doing it. It was a lot of owners who were calling day by day.

That is the reason they stated it changed. Owner concerns and overwhelming of MS.

So, while this prevents walking, and every morning all rooms are open for all, but that doesn’t mean it’s more fair than current, unless the only thing one is defining is open rooms.

In this system, especially given online booking you could end up with day one of your trip and not get day two. Now, you’ve got a gap.

Fair is not always equal and equal is not always fair. The 8 am booking start online is the same for everyone but you can’t say that it works for everyone equally.

DVC is never going to be able make a system that is going to be 100% fair and equal in every owner’s eyes.

So, we come back to what booking rules should we have in place that meets the needs of the membership as a whole and what creates the least amount of negatives that owners see as acceptable.

Some of us just believe that walking is the best negative in exchange for being able to use our membership with maximum flexibility.

 

[tx911]

Can I curse here? Cause holy ****, I didn’t look at this thread for 2 days and you guys have added more than 35 pages I’m gonna take a wild guess that we haven’t found a solution yet…not sure if I have it in me to read through and find out tbh

ETA: evidently, you can’t curse, good to know

The walkers have agree that the non-walkers should either get a fixed week or shut-up and take their sloppy seconds at 11 months

 

[lowlight]

I’m looking at VGF availability in Nov 2025 and it looks pretty darn open to me. Yes, the 19th may be booked off in some places…. but all of the days behind them are open.

What are you talking about? The studio and 2br lock off standard views are clearly being walked and unavailable already. I guess the resort studio standard view is technically available because it’s a terrible room and is last to go. The 1br standard was being walked, but it does appear open at the moment so maybe they landed on the pre thanksgiving week.

 

[DanCali]

I’m looking at VGF availability in Nov 2025 and it looks pretty darn open to me. Yes, the 19th may be booked off in some places…. but all of the days behind them are open.

Correct... Same with RIV... Same with BLT.

What are you talking about? The studio and 2br lock off standard views are clearly being walked and unavailable already. I guess the resort studio standard view is technically available because it’s a terrible room and is last to go. The 1br standard was being walked, but it does appear open at the moment so maybe they landed on the pre thanksgiving week.

Nobody says that if you click at 8:01ET stuff just has to sit there for the taking.

It's indeed likely that quite a few people are booking at 8:00ET and then moving those reservations. But with "clear walking" stuff is often not available for the subsequent days (see current value and club level lack of availability for tomorrow - 11/21 - at AKVJ).

VGF and BLT and RIV standard studios are not like that. If it's available at 7:59am ET most days then it's not "clearly walked". I say it's just "walked unnecessarily" by overly anxious owners. They are all playing by the rules though...

But if you own at VGF and RIV does it really hurt you in the end? Is there currently ANY date between Nov 5, 2025 and Nov 19, 2025 for which you cannot book a standard view studio? If you can book your desired dates at 10.5 months out, that's a lot better than they have it at some other resorts where walking may actually pose a problem. If you want Nov 20, wait a few days and it will be there.... probably even tomorrow.

P.S. I also prefer the original building but the VGF resort studios are really not that bad, IMO (and shorten the walk to the monorail and the park). But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[tx911]

Correct... Same with RIV... Same with BLT.



Nobody says that if you click at 8:01ET stuff just has to sit there for the taking.

It's indeed likely that quite a few people are booking at 8:00ET and then moving those reservations. But with "clear walking" stuff is often not available for the subsequent days (see current value and club level lack of availability for tomorrow - 11/21 - at AKVJ).

VGF and BLT and RIV standard studios are not like that. If it's available at 7:59am ET most days then it's not "clearly walked". I say it's just "walked unnecessarily" by overly anxious owners.

If you own at VGF and RIV does it really hurt you in the end? Is there currently ANY date between Nov 5 and Nov 19 for which you cannot book a standard view studio? If you can book your desired dates at 10.5 months out, that's a lot better than they have it at some other resorts where walking may actually pose a problem. If you want Nov 20, wait a few days and it will be there....

P.S. I also prefer the original building but the VGF resort studios are really not that bad, IMO (and shorten the walk to the monorail and the park). But that's a topic for another thread.

All this talk of the minimal impact of walking is not a good defense for doing it. The number of walkers almost certainly has grown, and the practice itself encourages more and more to do it. It currently may not impact every room type and resort, but it has a large impact on at least some room types and resorts, which simply proves that it can affect availability.

Why not take steps to address this self-serving practice before it gets any more prevalent than it already is?

 

[Sandisw]

What are you talking about? The studio and 2br lock off standard views are clearly being walked and unavailable already. I guess the resort studio standard view is technically available because it’s a terrible room and is last to go. The 1br standard was being walked, but it does appear open at the moment so maybe they landed on the pre thanksgiving week.

Yes, walkers take rooms but return them, unless they want them.

If the ultimate result is that an owner who wants the date that are not in high demand, gets them, then the impact of walking is not really relevant.

Unless you go on right at 8:00 am at the 11 month window, you see it. Someone who waits a few days and is able to get the rooms has no idea that rooms disappeared and came back.

People walk because the cost of those rooms are less than the other option that is readily available. Even you admit that no one has been locked out of the home resorts in any rooms size.

So, maybe that’s where it should start? Make the cost difference only one point or two points, and that alone will help because some owners will be fine to take those higher point rooms if it’s not a big savings?

 

[Sandisw]

All this talk of the minimal impact of walking is not a good defense for doing it. The number of walkers almost certainly has grown, and the practice itself encourages more and more to do it. It currently may not impact every room type and resort, but it has a large impact on at least some room types and resorts, which simply proves that it can affect availability.

Why not take steps to address this self-serving practice before it gets any more prevalent than it already is?

My only comment is impact is going to be part of the process that DVC will go through when deciding what rules should be in place, and whether rules in place need to be changed.

So, IMO, they are going to look at that aspect of the practice and the impact of any changes that curb or stop it.

That is exactly what they stated last week…open to exploring a rules change but also include the impact of any change on the program as a whole.

This still comes down to intent and while DVC can put in whatever rules they want, the membership agreement requires any limitations to be included in the rules.

So, is it reasonable to think that DVC is going to put in a system that includes reasons for booking that must be met? Do owners really want that?

Do they want to see DVC being able to decide “pattern of canceling” based on whatever they think? Think of it outside walking.

IMO, the word desired is not enough to say it meets their obligation to make the procedures and limitations of booking and canceling clear.

Any changes that I see DVC entertaining, assuming they do, would be about updating the rules to include language that makes clear what limitations are in place if you want to cancel a previously booked night/nights.

DVC already has a lot of power to control tho gs…I prefer not to give them the power to decide intent.

 

[lowlight]

Nobody says that if you click at 8:01ET stuff just has to sit there for the taking.

It's indeed likely that quite a few people are booking at 8:00ET and then moving those reservations. But with "clear walking" stuff is often not available for the subsequent days (see current value and club level lack of availability for tomorrow - 11/21 - at AKVJ).

VGF and BLT and RIV standard studios are not like that. If it's available at 7:59am ET most days then it's not "clearly walked". I say it's just "walked unnecessarily" by overly anxious owners. They are all playing by the rules though...

But if you own at VGF and RIV does it really hurt you in the end? Is there currently ANY date between Nov 5, 2025 and Nov 19, 2025 for which you cannot book a standard view studio? If you can book your desired dates at 10.5 months out, that's a lot better than they have it at some other resorts where walking may actually pose a problem. If you want Nov 20, wait a few days and it will be there.... probably even tomorrow.

P.S. I also prefer the original building but the VGF resort studios are really not that bad, IMO (and shorten the walk to the monorail and the park). But that's a topic for another thread.

There are two roads you can take here-

1) Walking happens, it's not a big deal.
2) Walking happens, it's a big deal.

Somehow, some of you keep trying to take the third road of "walking isn't happening, don't believe your lying eyes". Or the fourth road, "It's happening, but what does it matter if you can pick up the scraps after they walk past your date". I'm not really sure why people are being disingenuous. It's very, very suspicious the amount of deflection occurring here, except for AstroBlasters who has admitted he does it to get an advantage and cares about his own family trip more than yours. The facts are:

1) Walking is happening. Full stop, no question about it.
2) Walking is affecting me. That's enough for me to be concerned.
3) Booking is designed to be at 8AM EST on the 11 month date of your desired check in. I don't want to, nor should I have to, wait for walkers to "pass me by". Especially when they are heading for the same date. I am not sure you understand- I already am locked out my week 47 trip for 2025 by walkers. It will never open up again. The same thing happened last year. Please stop telling me how walking looks, I am quite aware how it looks, and it's being walked. It's been walked for weeks at this point. To be 100% clear, I was locked out of attempting to book the rooms on my desired check in date of week 47 2025 over a month in advance. This is not ok, and no amount of people gaslighting me is going to make me change my mind.

If the ultimate result is that an owner who wants the date that are not in high demand, gets them, then the impact of walking is not really relevant.

Unless you go on right at 8:00 am at the 11 month window, you see it. Someone who waits a few days and is able to get the rooms has no idea that rooms disappeared and came back.

I want a fair chance at a date that is in high demand. If 10/10 rooms are available on day 1 of my check in and I don't get one because of competition, that's tough luck for me. If 10/10 rooms are not available on day 1 of my check in because people have walked them for a month, that's not ok. In games, that would be called a "rigged game". Do you honestly, seriously, non ironically not see the difference in that?

And the argument that rooms are available, just not the ones I want? You understand a contract isn't an either/or proposition? DVC doesn't guarantee that I'll get the room I want, so they aren't in violation of that, you are correct. They are, however, in violation of upholding the first come, first served 11 months prior to desired check in date part of the contract. My question to everyone who is a legal scholar on DVC, what are my remedies for part of the contract not being upheld by management?

 

[zavandor]

1) Walking happens, it's not a big deal.

I pick 1).

 

[disfanforlife]

What are you talking about? The studio and 2br lock off standard views are clearly being walked and unavailable already. I guess the resort studio standard view is technically available because it’s a terrible room and is last to go. The 1br standard was being walked, but it does appear open at the moment so maybe they landed on the pre thanksgiving week.

I guess that’s why I was able to get a standard view room at 7 months. As a non owner at GF I was just glad to get a room there for a few nights. I stayed on the lagoon view in October and loved it. This will be my hubby’s first time to stay at GF.

 

[tx911]

There are two roads you can take here-

1) Walking happens, it's not a big deal.
2) Walking happens, it's a big deal.

Somehow, some of you keep trying to take the third road of "walking isn't happening, don't believe your lying eyes". Or the fourth road, "It's happening, but what does it matter if you can pick up the scraps after they walk past your date". I'm not really sure why people are being disingenuous. It's very, very suspicious the amount of deflection occurring here, except for AstroBlasters who has admitted he does it to get an advantage and cares about his own family trip more than yours. The facts are:

1) Walking is happening. Full stop, no question about it.
2) Walking is affecting me. That's enough for me to be concerned.
3) Booking is designed to be at 8AM EST on the 11 month date of your desired check in. I don't want to, nor should I have to, wait for walkers to "pass me by". Especially when they are heading for the same date. I am not sure you understand- I already am locked out my week 47 trip for 2025 by walkers. It will never open up again. The same thing happened last year. Please stop telling me how walking looks, I am quite aware how it looks, and it's being walked. It's been walked for weeks at this point. To be 100% clear, I was locked out of attempting to book the rooms on my desired check in date of week 47 2025 over a month in advance. This is not ok, and no amount of people gaslighting me is going to make me change my mind.



I want a fair chance at a date that is in high demand. If 10/10 rooms are available on day 1 of my check in and I don't get one because of competition, that's tough luck for me. If 10/10 rooms are not available on day 1 of my check in because people have walked them for a month, that's not ok. In games, that would be called a "rigged game". Do you honestly, seriously, non ironically not see the difference in that?

And the argument that rooms are available, just not the ones I want? You understand a contract isn't an either/or proposition? DVC doesn't guarantee that I'll get the room I want, so they aren't in violation of that, you are correct. They are, however, in violation of upholding the first come, first served 11 months prior to desired check in date part of the contract. My question to everyone who is a legal scholar on DVC, what are my remedies for part of the contract not being upheld by management?

My pick is:

3. Walking is happening, it's a big deal in some situations already, and it's growing.

 

[disfanforlife]

We own at BW and the past few years I have had a hard time booking right at 11 months. I am persistent and was able to book a pool view and then modify to standard view for a week as the days opened up. It feels like a cat and mouse game and that I was lucky to get it. I don’t mind pool view but only have enough points for a full week with standard view so it’s worth it to me to keep trying to get an extra night.

 

[dvcsince93]

We have been through this back and forth endless times in endless threads. Those that walk, or support walking, do not believe they are doing anything wrong, or frankly don’t care that they are doing anything wrong.

Personally, I promised myself I would not do this again after last year. The walking has already started weeks ago for every, and I mean EVERY single standard room category for VGF and RR. If it follows last year, it will walk to week 48 of 2025, the week after Thanksgiving.

There is no talking about solutions. The contract is clear. DVC has admitted unintended consequences are happening, which is clearly “violations of the first come first serve booking at 11 months prior to desired check in date”. DVC doesn’t just get to hand wave this away- a contract is a two way street. Management has an obligation, under the contract, to protect members use of their points. They have failed to do so in regards to both the commercial renting and walking of reservations aspect. I am not able to use my membership as laid out in the contract I signed, not due to circumstances within my control, but rather because they have allowed a loophole to be abused to the detriment of their membership at large.

Can someone who is familiar with contracts tell me what remedies are available in a situation where I was sold a membership under false pretenses and am unable to use it as laid out in the contract?

It would be hard to prove that they sold you the contract under false pretenses since DVC would argue they did not know or condone walking when they sold the contracts. The fact that walking starting happening or even grew would not be enough.

However, the wildcard in this situation is that the board of DVC has a fiduciary duty to all members. In theory, if a group of members can show that they are adversely affected by other members violating the T&C by, e.g., walking or commercial rentals, DVC may have no option but to act or risk being sued.

Personally, that is one reason I believe DVC is saying the problem isn't great, because the existence of big problems would open them up to liability.

I also think they will to do something about both walking and commercial renting because both activites negatively impact members trying to use the membership as set forth in the T&C, thus, setting themselves up for possible liability whereas banning both activities would only impact members who are violating at least the spirit if not the letter of the contract provisions.

 

[jcolvin5]

There are two roads you can take here-

1) Walking happens, it's not a big deal.
2) Walking happens, it's a big deal.

Option 1

 

[lowlight]

I guess that’s why I was able to get a standard view room at 7 months. As a non owner at GF I was just glad to get a room there for a few nights. I stayed on the lagoon view in October and loved it. This will be my hubby’s first time to stay at GF.

Do you own at VGF? Have you tried booking week 47 the past 2 years in a standard room of any size? This is a sometimes problem, not an all the time.

 

[lowlight]

However, the wildcard in this situation is that the board of DVC has a fiduciary duty to all members. In theory, if a group of members can show that they are adversely affected by other members violating the T&C by, e.g., walking or commercial rentals, DVC may have no option but to act or risk being sued.

Bingo.

 

[AstroBlasters]

All this talk of the minimal impact of walking is not a good defense for doing it. The number of walkers almost certainly has grown, and the practice itself encourages more and more to do it. It currently may not impact every room type and resort, but it has a large impact on at least some room types and resorts, which simply proves that it can affect availability.

Why not take steps to address this self-serving practice before it gets any more prevalent than it already is?

I don’t agree with you on this. You want to put restrictions on the entire system year round for something that isn’t really a problem.