As members aren't we entitled to a fair Wait List system?

[palhockeymomof2]

I don't know how the system works but yesterday I had to cancel 3 standard view studios at BWV for 10/28-11/1.... since my niece is due with her first baby 11/3....I checked right after and none showed up as available online

 

[mjc2003]

I could be wrong but I don't think that's how the one time use points work.

It is. If I have a night held with one time points and I cancel it, I don't get those one time points put into my available pool online for me to use for online booking. They can only be applied to a reservation.

Sorry you didn't have the points available, but that doesn't mean that someone who did have the points available should be penalized.

I did have the points available. They were tied up with another reservation, which was to be canceled to free up the points, but I did have the points available. Whether my points were "free" or holding another room shouldn't matter, IMO.

They could've also been on the same waitlist as you for that BCV room - they also could have been BCV owners who couldn't book that room before the 7 month mark.

Like me? I'm a BCV owner who couldn't book that room before the 7 month mark.

I personally don't think that Disney is capable of coming up with a system that would match waitlists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

They are.

As Bill has said, the whitelist is a convienance to us, and I have learned to do the dirty work to get what I want. Wait list is a tricky thing when it comes to "fair".

I agree it's tricky, but for those of us that don't have time to do the "dirty work", I would think the wait list would be an equitable mechanism for holding a place in line. Apparently it isn't. Some (those who can spend every day checking the website and calling MS) benefit from that, those of us who don't have that kind of discretionary time do not. I can live with that, but it's certainly not equitable.

Bottom line is that paying to make the waitlist system match the individual's idea of "fair" is not in the best interests of the membership as a whole.

You might be right, Carol. But I find a fundamental flaw with a system that allows for people to snatch rooms from those who are waiting. I guess there's no easy fix.

Just a thought, there may have been people on the wait list for 8, 9 or 10 months. They would have been ahead of you. Oct is a very high demand time for the EPCOT resorts.
I don't mean to say there isn't a problem with the wait list/CM handling of the list, but looking for another possibility of what may have happened.

I'm a BCV owner who checked bi-weekly for a month leading up to the 7 month mark and the room was available every time. It was gone the morning my 7 month window opened. I didn't call until around 10, my mistake, I had a meeting. So in theory, I should be "first" for that night but I don't know how that works (transparency?), so who knows. All I know is that I've waited 3 months now for one night.

I guess the consensus is that there's no problem with a lack of transparency. I admit that part of my skepticism is tied to Disney's antiquated approach to anything involving the internet.

 

[cvjw]

I am also a BCV owner who didn't decide to book her Food and Wine trip until the 8 month mark. Guess what? I too, had to waitlist part of my stay. I would have been above anyone who waitlisted at the 7 month mark. Part of my waitlist was filled by MS, and part of it was filled by me checking availability online and booking it myself. Bottom line, I got my reservation, but I could have "taken" the room from you since I had the points available in my account and could book the room myself online and not have to wait to call MS.

 

[Snurk71]

Also, it would take very little tweaking to allow for the program that finds the matches to run concurrent to the open online booking window, and hold inventory for any resort with a certain percentage of rooms booked. In other words, if a 1BR at BCV is cancelled and the computer notices that it's the only 1BR available for that night/period why not hold the room immediately assuming there is a WL to fill instead of leaving it dangling for hours and hours?

I assume you don't work in tech/programming. The logic for a good matching routine would likely be pretty complicated, and the live call of that routine would probably be very teaching on the system. That live routine would have to run on every transaction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

 

[mjc2003]

I am also a BCV owner who didn't decide to book her Food and Wine trip until the 8 month mark. Guess what? I too, had to waitlist part of my stay. I would have been above anyone who waitlisted at the 7 month mark. Part of my waitlist was filled by MS, and part of it was filled by me checking availability online and booking it myself. Bottom line, I got my reservation, but I could have "taken" the room from you since I had the points available in my account and could book the room myself online and not have to wait to call MS.

Not sure I get your point. Am I supposed to be congratulating you on getting your reservation, or thanking you for not taking the room from me?

I assume you don't work in tech/programming. The logic for a good matching routine would likely be pretty complicated, and the live call of that routine would probably be very teaching on the system. That live routine would have to run on every transaction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

I don't. Thanks for clarifying. Let me ask you this, when you say "That live routine would have to run on every transaction", would it be less complex if it only ran on a small percentage of transactions? Because in reality, there's no reason to hold every transaction and match it against a theoretical waitlist because if there is plenty of availability, there won't be a waitlist. So would it be easier to have it only hold and match if it was when availability was less than 3-5%?

Just curious, thanks for any insight.

 

[spruce]

Why not hold every cancelation until X o'clock after ms is closed, put them in for wait list only then immediately run the wait list against this new inventory for matches on a daily basis. Then release anything left to full inventory.

 

[Lil' Grumpy]

in principle i think it is a great system , the whole dvc concept.

it is in the "practice" that causing many of the problems.

most of the threads i am responding to are topics i spent 3 hours
asking our first guide. did not want us to get into many of the
things i seen posted here. just by chance, our guide was out
for over 3mos & the "office" didn't even know it. and we were
already experienced in the ways of doing a wdw vacation. these
factors had a major impact on expectations & redirected me
toward leaning the real dvc , not the one they are selling.

then we had a major problems right out of the gate ,even though
we called & got thru right when they "opened".

instead of being upset with our guide---it made me suspected the
guides are used as a smoke screen for an upper management
group/s that are not very disney oriented.

fyi~where did i get this idea...our first guide- i never thought he lied
or was ever misleading. he own dvc & other timeshares. he spoke
how he used it & mentioned his family. to this day , i feel he answered
our questions in good faith. so even though we went thru difficulties-
and he was out nearly a year, & though we were assigned 3 different
guides, we told them we wanted him back. but only after a short
return , he changed career.

so right out of the gate,we were placed on the dreaded wait list...
not the typical one but with priority. funny thing happened, the
dis boards were keeping track of the new rooms being released.
over & over we were being overlooked. so i "armed" myself
with knowledge---funny how that work where we got our room.

with today techs , there no reason to expect anything less.
there should be an effective wist list that is fair for all members.
and there are many other issues that they should be addressing.

from all the trends i keep reading here, especially those repeating
over & over....dvc owners need a separate quality assurance
group that looks out for the owners. for example , preventing
any dvc owner perk being used by non-owners. that should
include any wait lists by a renter. no renter should be able to
book outside the owner's home resort--to open up those
rooms for other owners, & increase owners' chances for their
wait list to come true.

what i see coming is a major scandal with a large group of
people being cheated by a scam. see?-for ex., claiming to
a renter that they have no revs., because they had to pull
their points in case they can get them the wait list for
the room they really want. ( esp. if they distance themselves
thru a false rci trade in ). plus the current dvc policy not
speaking with renters may give them the time to "rent"
out one revs to a whole group.

any ways, hope it works out for you. but i think this is a
good subject for owners to consider. thanks for seeking input.

 

[mjc2003]

Why not hold every cancelation until X o'clock after ms is closed, put them in for wait list only then immediately run the wait list against this new inventory for matches on a daily basis. Then release anything left to full inventory.

Seems simple enough. Even if they held every cancelation only in booking categories that are more than, say, 90% booked (Presuming that there won't be wait lists if a booking category is wide open)?

Of course I get that there's no simple solution, but I don't really like that people can pick off rooms that others have been waiting months for. And yes, I get that I too can go online and grab the room, or call MS, and that my waitlist doesn't mean I can't be proactive, but really, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose?

 

[LisaS]

I agree it's tricky, but for those of us that don't have time to do the "dirty work", I would think the wait list would be an equitable mechanism for holding a place in line. Apparently it isn't. Some (those who can spend every day checking the website and calling MS) benefit from that, those of us who don't have that kind of discretionary time do not. I can live with that, but it's certainly not equitable.

The booking system as a whole isn't equitable since it favors those who can jump online at 8am or call MS right at 9am for hard to get reservations. Some members cannot book at that time of day due to their jobs. You also have members on the west coast or in Hawaii or in other countries who have to get up in the middle of the night to book.

I'm a BCV owner who checked bi-weekly for a month leading up to the 7 month mark and the room was available every time. It was gone the morning my 7 month window opened. I didn't call until around 10, my mistake, I had a meeting. So in theory, I should be "first" for that night but I don't know how that works (transparency?), so who knows. All I know is that I've waited 3 months now for one night.

There might have been others on the WL ahead of you who needed more than just that night and whose WL finally filled when the rest of their nights became available at the 7-month window as people switched their reservation to a non-home resort.

I guess the consensus is that there's no problem with a lack of transparency. I admit that part of my skepticism is tied to Disney's antiquated approach to anything involving the internet.

I agree it would be nice to know every detail. The bottom line for members is that the wait list can be a convenience if you can't or don't want to call MS/check online all the time to see if your dates have opened up but you might lose out to those who can and do. It's like the original "online booking" which just sent an email to MS with your reservation details. It offered convenience but wasn't going to get you that hard-to-get reservation.

 

[LisaS]

Why not hold every cancelation until X o'clock after ms is closed, put them in for wait list only then immediately run the wait list against this new inventory for matches on a daily basis. Then release anything left to full inventory.

What happens then is that you go online to book something and see no availability for some of your nights. The nights are in fact available, they are just being held until the WL process is run. I happen to go online after the WL process runs and those nights are released and I get them instead of you. You could set up a WL yourself but it will only fill if all of the nights you need are available. If that doesn't happen, the nights are released for someone else to book. If you had been able to see that some of your nights were actually available, you could have booked them yourself and then set up a WL for the rest of the nights you need.

ETA: The game would change to one where we get up in the middle of the night to check availability right after the WL process has run and the "held" nights are released. Then people will complain that they can't be online at 2am to get the jump on everyone else.

 

[mjc2003]

What happens then is that you go online to book something and see no availability for some of your nights. The nights are in fact available, they are just being held until the WL process is run. I happen to go online after the WL process runs and those nights are released and I get them instead of you. You could set up a WL yourself but it will only fill if all of the nights you need are available. If that doesn't happen, the nights are released for someone else to book. If you had been able to see that some of your nights were actually available, you could have booked them yourself and then set up a WL for the rest of the nights you need.

ETA: The game would change to one where we get up in the middle of the night to check availability right after the WL process has run and the "held" nights are released. Then people will complain that they can't be online at 2am to get the jump on everyone else.

This is why I would think it wouldn't be necessary if availability wasn't an issue. There's no need to hold every SSR cancelation for a week when the resort is 30% booked. BUT, if a BCV 2BR becomes available for one night right now in October (the resort is basically booked solid for every night) you can presume that there are people wait listed for that room/night. So give them priority. Only "hold" cancelations if occupancy is basically at its max. You don't have to hold every cancelation.
So in my scenario, those up in the middle of the night are probably wasting their time b/c 99% of the time the 1-2 rooms held that day (that meet the criteria) are going to somebody on the WL.

My issue is that I can't spend all day online, or on the phone with MS. There are entire weeks when I basically can't check. So I would like to think my wait list is holding a place in line for me. In reality, it's not. I get it, the system isn't perfect and never will be. My initial issue with the wait lists, the reason I started this thread, is that I feel like there's a lack of transparency as to how they even work. There are threads on here daily asking about how WL's work, and many responses to the effect of "that's anybody's guess!" I find that odd.

Suffice to say, I don't have all the answers. But I still contend that the system doesn't work as well as it could.

 

[disneynutz]

Disney is far from perfect despite what some people think. Anything published tends to become a legal guarantee, that's why Disney doesn't give specifics on most of their stuff. They publish how the wait list is suppose to work, an CM screws up and someone doesn't get what they want and people get upset. Their stand is keep us in the dark and they have less to deal with.

DVC is just a job to them and they have so much more to deal with other than wait lists. The reality is, if you don't get your wait list you probably will still vacation at Disney.

Bill

 

[LisaS]

This is why I would think it wouldn't be necessary if availability wasn't an issue. There's no need to hold every SSR cancelation for a week when the resort is 30% booked. BUT, if a BCV 2BR becomes available for one night right now in October (the resort is basically booked solid for every night) you can presume that there are people wait listed for that room/night. So give them priority. Only "hold" cancelations if occupancy is basically at its max. You don't have to hold every cancelation. So in my scenario, those up in the middle of the night are probably wasting their time b/c 99% of the time the 1-2 rooms held that day (that meet the criteria) are going to somebody on the WL.

But the nights only go to someone on the WL if their WL can be fulfilled in its entirety. There could still be prime nights released even if several WLs need those nights but also need other nights. If I was on the WL for more than one night, I would want to be online at the release time to see if any of my nights show up, grab what I can and then change my WL for just the one or two nights I still need. If anything, a scheme like this makes it easier for someone to fill their own WL a night at a time because they will know EXACTLY when they need to be online to have the best chance at grabbing stray nights instead of having to check online throughout the day, hoping to get lucky.

My issue is that I can't spend all day online, or on the phone with MS. There are entire weeks when I basically can't check. So I would like to think my wait list is holding a place in line for me. In reality, it's not. I get it, the system isn't perfect and never will be. My initial issue with the wait lists, the reason I started this thread, is that I feel like there's a lack of transparency as to how they even work. There are threads on here daily asking about how WL's work, and many responses to the effect of "that's anybody's guess!" I find that odd.

Suffice to say, I don't have all the answers. But I still contend that the system doesn't work as well as it could.

This thread has produced some great discussion so I'm glad you started it. I used to view the WL as a flawed process that works out for some members some of the time. In the past I have thought about how they could re-engineer the WL to fix those flaws and came to the same conclusion as others that developing the software required would not be as easy as it might seem and that there could be unintended consequences.

As a result of this discussion, I see it in a different light now. It is a convenience and gives you priority over others below you on the WL who need the same or more nights than you do. It does not necessarily give you priority over those booking in real time. While not entirely fair to those on the WL, it is what it is and not likely to change so you need to plan accordingly.

 

[spruce]

Good points were made, the game would change for checking online booking but wait listers would get first crack. There's always been a strategy of some sort or another for everything disney. I didn't think about sniping days to fulfill a longer wait list but this opens one up to the risk of split stays.

 

[iluvthsgam]

I assume you don't work in tech/programming. The logic for a good matching routine would likely be pretty complicated, and the live call of that routine would probably be very teaching on the system. That live routine would have to run on every transaction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

Just because developing the software would be complicated does not mean it could not be done. The question on this issue really comes down to what was already said: the system is not perfect and Disney has made the decision to not want to spend the money to make it better because it works okay (in their eyes) as it is now.

Of course Disney could spend some money to hire a good software development team who could create a system where the WL's are filled as rooms are cancelled. It would not be that hard. And in a perfect world this is how it should be done. Just look at the software that runs the stock market handling millions of transactions every day. So it is not because it is too difficult or complicated it is simply that Disney does not want to spend the money on the developers that it would take to do it correctly.

In that vein, I would love to see more availability when searching online than just 3 or 4 other choices. I would love to be able to put my dates in and just click a button that says "show all available" - every room, every category, every resort (think the ITA Software matrix app). Can this be done? Of course. Either Disney restricted the ability to do this for some reason - or they did not want to spend the $$ on resources to make this possible.

 

[Missyrose]

Just because developing the software would be complicated does not mean it could not be done. The question on this issue really comes down to what was already said: the system is not perfect and Disney has made the decision to not want to spend the money to make it better because it works okay (in their eyes) as it is now.

Of course Disney could spend some money to hire a good software development team who could create a system where the WL's are filled as rooms are cancelled. It would not be that hard. And in a perfect world this is how it should be done. Just look at the software that runs the stock market handling millions of transactions every day. So it is not because it is too difficult or complicated it is simply that Disney does not want to spend the money on the developers that it would take to do it correctly.

In that vein, I would love to see more availability when searching online than just 3 or 4 other choices. I would love to be able to put my dates in and just click a button that says "show all available" - every room, every category, every resort (think the ITA Software matrix app). Can this be done? Of course. Either Disney restricted the ability to do this for some reason - or they did not want to spend the $$ on resources to make this possible.

The reason they don't allow for more options in search results is because the search puts a hold on the rooms the search returns for you.

 

[iluvthsgam]

As a follow up - has anyone noticed lately that sometimes the online system does not return any "alternative options" - when I search over New Years Eve - it only returns my resort I picked and none others.

Some other dates I am looking for in August, sometimes it gives me 1 or 2 other options and sometimes 3. I thought they always returned 3.

 

[Breyean]

The reason they don't allow for more options in search results is because the search puts a hold on the rooms the search returns for you.

Are you sure? I thought the hold was put on the room only after you made your selection from the ones that pop up from your search.

It makes a lot more sense if the hold is only on the room after you pick it rather than for the 4 or 5 options that pop up each time you search.

I say that because you only get the notice on the screen about how they will hold THAT ROOM for up to 60 minutes while you book it, or only 20 minutes if you don't actively change screens to complete the booking process, until after you click to actually book one of the options.

 

[luckyman_apd]

At this point after following and reading this I've come to this conclusion....
Life isn't fair, deal with it. Not to be rude but there are flaws/problems that exist with every scenario listed. OP is upset they aren't getting the room they want. I understand that. But the system is what it is. Before online, I could NEVER call MS at 9 am for work. I'd never get what I want. If I lived on the west coast, I'd be annoyed Id have to get up at 5 am just to book at the first window. A system this large is inevitably inequitable for some. There is no way to make it work perfectly for all members. I view the wait list as a convenience for those who can't/won't stalk the website. It is expressly written that wait lists are not guaranteed.

My only advice is if you see the room available, attempt to book it online. Whether you have the points or not, the system will hold the room for up to 20 minutes. You can extend that time by letting the room go and grabbing it again as soon as it reappears (usually within 20 seconds) until you can get to a phone to call MS. I've held a room for almost 40 minutes once until I got a chance to make a call.

 

[luckyman_apd]

As a follow up - has anyone noticed lately that sometimes the online system does not return any "alternative options" - when I search over New Years Eve - it only returns my resort I picked and none others.

Some other dates I am looking for in August, sometimes it gives me 1 or 2 other options and sometimes 3. I thought they always returned 3.

I would love a system where if you looking for a studio at say BLT and its all full, it wouldn't show me VWL just because its close to BLT, but would show me all resorts with an open studio. Sometimes you have to search a few times if you are booking on short notice or a hard to book time.