BLT Hostility

[DebbieB]

It's called "fireworks without seething masses of humanity surrounding you"

<snip>

so - if I stay at BLT on points and have a friend staying with me, could I get my friend into the lounge or just me? Just askin.

I think that lounge is going to be very crowded if there's so much interest in it. If people are up at the windows, how will everyone else see?

There has been no announcement as to how access will be given, so no one knows the answer to the question. It's all speculation.

 

[TDC Nala]

I think that lounge is going to be very crowded if there's so much interest in it. If people are up at the windows, how will everyone else see?

That's why I don't think I'd be going unless they do end up taking reservations - at least I wouldn't try to go at fireworks time.

 

[DVCGeek]

so - if I stay at BLT on points and have a friend staying with me, could I get my friend into the lounge or just me? Just askin.

My wife isn't a DVC member, just me- in a similar vein could she come to the lounge since we are in the same room? Hope so, or she'll be at me if I went up without her! We'll see what happens- we are going the Sunday after Thanksgiving and again at the end of Jan/early Feb...

 

[jade1]

I think that lounge is going to be very crowded if there's so much interest in it. If people are up at the windows, how will everyone else see?

Yep, and since the MK view rooms are right below it-there is no reason to leave the room balcony with the same view.

 

[keishashadow]

It's called "fireworks without seething masses of humanity surrounding you"

so - if I stay at BLT on points and have a friend staying with me, could I get my friend into the lounge or just me? Just askin.

when i last talked to guide, he said the plan was was for the member & whoever (# of guests listed on ressie)

I think that lounge is going to be very crowded if there's so much interest in it. If people are up at the windows, how will everyone else see?

There has been no announcement as to how access will be given, so no one knows the answer to the question. It's all speculation.

or unofficial, educated guess? didn't anybody else ask their guide this Q? as i said, i asked a couple of times...on the basis that u can ask the same Q twice & get two different answers lol

My wife isn't a DVC member, just me- in a similar vein could she come to the lounge since we are in the same room? Hope so, or she'll be at me if I went up without her! We'll see what happens- we are going the Sunday after Thanksgiving and again at the end of Jan/early Feb...

i would certainly hope so if u have a confirmed ressie

there's a large % of rooms w/o a MK view, upon reflection do believe the only fair way to decide which onsite guests do get to utilize the lounge is a reservation system, then stand-by after a certain time, factoring no-shows...all u lucky owners let us know

 

[d-r]

My nature probably but to me the FIRST question to be answered is the philosophical question, if it fails that test, the rest should not be a consideration. From a practical standpoint you'd have to look at each location individually and then group not only Pool hoppers but also pool crashers to find out the real impact. IF it weren't an issue at all there'd be no reason to block access to any location and no reason to have blackout dates. The additional problems are several. Disney in general and DVC specifically is prone to ignoring issues until pushed by circumstances to act as in the reallocation issue. They are also good at not having the information needed to evaluated such an issue, the reality is that overall they really don't know how much of an issue it is other than by anecdotal reports from lifeguards and managers at the various resorts. Helpful but hardly enough to make long term decisions on. Given DVC's track record, I don't think we can make the statement that no action means no problem, actually quite the contrary in most situations.

As for AKL, the issue has never been a about bout pool crowding, it's less desirable to PH to than might OKW be per your example, but presumably about an extra volume of those viewing the animals. I have no problem with the restrictions, it's the one way restriction that is inappropriate in my book. Regardless, given the overall situation and the selective limitations in place, I think PH should be eliminated completely.

when they first made akl, they were worried about 1/2 of osceola county showing up to see the free zoo, so you probably remember they were really uptight about ppl visiting the resort. the no pool hopping thing at akl, iirc, was there before the dvc opened there, I think it was there when akl first opened, so I think you are right about that. I always liked the akl pool better than okw fwiw, but you are right.

I just figure if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why keep someone at okw from driving over to ssr and eating and swimmimg, or vice versa, if they want to, just because they can't go to sab? if the springs pool gets too crowded fix it then, but don't take away something someone might enjoy just for the point of it.

 

[Dean]

I just figure if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why keep someone at okw from driving over to ssr and eating and swimmimg, or vice versa, if they want to, just because they can't go to sab? if the springs pool gets too crowded fix it then, but don't take away something someone might enjoy just for the point of it.

That's where we differ, IMO it is broken as it currently sits.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

That's where we differ, IMO it is broken as it currently sits.

Color me confused. I thought a few pages back you were agreeing with the idea that there just aren't enough legal DVC pool-hoppers to matter, so it was just a theoretical debate. Now you think the system is broken? Can you clarify.

PS - So I finally broke down and checked. From what I see, 90% of this "hostility" is coming from one poster who (1) has a long track record of making provocative posts for the sake of being provocative and (2) is a child.

 

[Dean]

Color me confused. I thought a few pages back you were agreeing with the idea that there just aren't enough legal DVC pool-hoppers to matter, so it was just a theoretical debate. Now you think the system is broken? Can you clarify.

PS - So I finally broke down and checked. From what I see, 90% of this "hostility" is coming from one poster who (1) has a long track record of making provocative posts for the sake of being provocative and (2) is a child.

As I said, IMO the first test is the philosophical one. If it fails that test, and it does IMO, that the rest is moot. It's not a theoretic discussion to me but a philosophical one first and foremost. From a practicality standpoint however, we really don't know and as I said earlier, I doubt DVC does either. We only have limited anecdotal evidence of how crowded different pools are at various times, vague impressions of how much PH goes on and the issue of whether we expect DVC to do the right thing. In this case I would not feel their lack of action is good support that there is not a problem for 2 reasons. First, I don't believe they have good data and second, they have shown an unwillingness over the years to make changes though the last couple of years has shown SOME reversal in that trend.

 

[d-r]

I am not trying to be argumentative, but seriously, why does the philosophical point end at ph and not for booking non-home resorts? I just used wlv and akl points to go to vero last weekend. the vero owners pay more dues per point than those wlv points. why should they subsidize my beach weekend? Isn't it the same philosophical point - the access isn't all or nothing, like ph, but it is different access in terms of who pays for what. Why should I pay dues on my bcv points so that someone can stay at bcv with points from another resort, since they never paid dues to subsidize sab? etc.

Again, I hope I am not coming across as argumentative, I'm just saying.

 

[Dean]

I am not trying to be argumentative, but seriously, why does the philosophical point end at ph and not for booking non-home resorts? I just used wlv and akl points to go to vero last weekend. the vero owners pay more dues per point than those wlv points. why should they subsidize my beach weekend? Isn't it the same philosophical point - the access isn't all or nothing, like ph, but it is different access in terms of who pays for what. Why should I pay dues on my bcv points so that someone can stay at bcv with points from another resort, since they never paid dues to subsidize sab? etc.

Again, I hope I am not coming across as argumentative, I'm just saying.

Let me be clear, it's not PH in general that's the issue, if that were the case, I'd agree with your comparison. It's the one way PH that's the issue in my book. Your analogy would only be accurate if you were allowed to book another resort at 7 months but owners at that resort were technically prohibited (not just by availability) from booking at your resort under the same rules. IF PH were restricted simply by capacity as are reservations, I'd not have a philosophical problem. I know one could argue that in effect that is what's happening but it really is not.

IF you wanted to ignore the philosophical issue and discuss PH simply on the practical one's, I can do that as well. My limited statements previously that you referred to were more in line with the flow of PH traffic from likely the most sought after to one of the least sough after pools. I think we'd have to discuss resort by resort to discuss the actual impact and as I said before, you really have to combine pool crashers with pool hoppers to get a true picture and when you do that you will likely find that the total impact to OKW and SSR is more in line with the rest.

 

[d-r]

my analogy is that we pay different dues.

I'll say it another way. Let's say I use bcv points to stay at ssr. somebody else uses ssr points to stay at bcv. philosophically, I should be able to ph to sab, but they shouldn't be able to use it, since some of my dues for those bcv points subsidized sab, and the ssr points did not. vice versa for the springs.


To me that is where the philosophical one-way argument leads, not just all-or-nothing, but ultimately who pays for what.


The 7-month window would be valid if we all paid the same dues into a common pot, we do not. Thus it is philosophically uneven. And just fractional uneven is as uneven as all-or-nothing.

 

[Sammie]

my analogy is that we pay different dues.

I'll say it another way. Let's say I use bcv points to stay at ssr. somebody else uses ssr points to stay at bcv. philosophically, I should be able to ph to sab, but they shouldn't be able to use it, since some of my dues for those bcv points subsidized sab, and the ssr points did not. vice versa for the springs.


To me that is where the philosophical one-way argument leads, not just all-or-nothing, but ultimately who pays for what.


The 7-month window would be valid if we all paid the same dues into a common pot, we do not. Thus it is philosophically uneven. And just fractional uneven is as uneven as all-or-nothing.

Then do you agree that pool hopping to nonDVC resorts such as the Polynesian and Grand Floridian is not fair based on the fact DVC members pay absolutely nothing there.

 

[TagsMissy]

Wow! I had a bit of a hiatus and this posting has taken off... hostility was maybe a strong word but I was tired when I posted... maybe more animosity? And I agree now in reading more it does appear to be a small group but I still couldn't understand why but being so new to the DVC world (LOL I haven't even taken my first DVC vacation yet) I didn't know if it was the norm with each new DVC location.

I do wish we would get more information on the lounge -- it is set to open in approx 2.5 mos so you'd figure those in charge would know by now but then again this is Disney LOL

I am glad this conversation has pretty much been polite -- good thoughtful debate and communication is always a good thing

 

[yitbos96bb]

I've been wondering this myself. I can't remember if there was this type of emotion when VWL, BCV or AKV opened ... anyone?

Does VWL have its own pool?

BCV pretty much shares all the amenities and doesn't have a stellar pool of its own like the main resort.

AKV opened as part of the hotel, with Kidani to be built... so its a bit different.

This is probably the first like this where all this dedicated stuff is opened at an old resort...

But it is strang the hostility.

 

[Kickapoo Joie Juice]

Wow! I had a bit of a hiatus and this posting has taken off... hostility was maybe a strong word but I was tired when I posted... maybe more animosity? And I agree now in reading more it does appear to be a small group but I still couldn't understand why but being so new to the DVC world (LOL I haven't even taken my first DVC vacation yet) I didn't know if it was the norm with each new DVC location.

I do wish we would get more information on the lounge -- it is set to open in approx 2.5 mos so you'd figure those in charge would know by now but then again this is Disney LOL

I am glad this conversation has pretty much been polite -- good thoughtful debate and communication is always a good thing

I don't think it's the norm, but if it keeps up they're going to have to make Maleficient the mascot of BLT.

We never pool hop, but I'm not willing to give up that perk (hey, I paid for it, even if I don't use it) unless they offer a comparative perk that I do find useful.

 

[yitbos96bb]

No, they don't - although California Grill is restricted to persons eating there.

Actually, Yes they do have a viewing area... its on the 4th floor. Its just not as good as Cali Grill or the BLT areas are.

 

[thelionqueen]

I don't think it's the norm, but if it keeps up they're going to have to make Maleficient the mascot of BLT.

We never pool hop, but I'm not willing to give up that perk (hey, I paid for it, even if I don't use it) unless they offer a comparative perk that I do find useful.

I love Maleficient and I love BLT...hmmm

 

[yitbos96bb]

I don't think it's the norm, but if it keeps up they're going to have to make Maleficient the mascot of BLT.

We never pool hop, but I'm not willing to give up that perk (hey, I paid for it, even if I don't use it) unless they offer a comparative perk that I do find useful.

You didn't PAY for Pool Hopping. You PAID for a DVC membership. Pool Hopping is a perk that hasn't been around for the life of DVC, is not "included" as part of the price and can be revoked at any time.

 

[Dean]

my analogy is that we pay different dues.

I'll say it another way. Let's say I use bcv points to stay at ssr. somebody else uses ssr points to stay at bcv. philosophically, I should be able to ph to sab, but they shouldn't be able to use it, since some of my dues for those bcv points subsidized sab, and the ssr points did not. vice versa for the springs.


To me that is where the philosophical one-way argument leads, not just all-or-nothing, but ultimately who pays for what.


The 7-month window would be valid if we all paid the same dues into a common pot, we do not. Thus it is philosophically uneven. And just fractional uneven is as uneven as all-or-nothing.

I wouldn't look at it that way. Once you trade out you give up the right to that time, hence the use of the word trade. IF DVC allowed day use, as many timeshares do, it would be a different story. If you trade out you should be allowed access to where you're staying and to the same non residence properties that all other owners do who are staying on points at the same time. It's not the restriction I have an issue with, it's the one way aspects that are the issue to me. IMO, what is paid has nothing to do with it just like there is no adjustment for any of the club related options based on dues, price or points owned. How about if DVC only allowed those that owned more than say 500 points to PH, it would be just as fair as the current system we're discussing and is really the same philosophy used for a different group.