BWV Standard view

[Sandisw]

Except for mine.

By design, owners that don't know about walking wouldn't even be able to run into the block... Unless they WERE WALKING, which means that they did know about it. An oxymoron or paradox.

And even if someone runs into it, that means that they are at the 11 month booking window for when they actually wanted to stay, which is exactly where they should be anyway!

Very few members would be effected in any way whatsoever. And every single one who was effected would be someone who was walking a reservation forward over several weeks. Probably a highly competitive room. Heck they could even only put it on highly competitive rooms and leave any rooms that aren't 100% booked at 11 months alone.

Again I would be for this and/or point reallocation like you suggested. I just want them do do something to show they are trying

They already have a process they could use for certain times of the year and that is the special seasons list.

They could change the rules for modifying reservations but can’t see the average owner wanting a system that allows some modifications to be made and others to require you to cancel first.

And that is what you are proposing. Certain reservations can only be moved forward 14 days without a cancel and rebook, while other reservations could be modified without that.

I think the majority of owners outside these boards value the level of flexibility to book, change, and cancel without penalties that we currently enjoy.

Just not sure this change would be well received.

 

[Tatebeck]

They already have a process they could use for certain times of the year and that is the special seasons list.

They can do is change the rules for modifying reservations but can’t see the average owner wanting a system that allows some modifications to be made and others to require you to cancel first.

And that is what you are proposing. Certain reservations can only be moved forward 14 days without a cancel and rebook, while other reservations could be modified without that.

I think the majority of owners outside these boards value the level of flexibility to book, change, and cancel without penalties that we currently enjoy.

Just not sure this change would be well received.

Hmm.

Like you said it would be only changing the modification rules not booking rules so it would still be FCFS. Is there something in the rules that won't allow them to change modification rules for some rooms and not others? I don't think I've seen anything like that.

I think the majority of owners outside of boards or groups like these don't really know what walking is or that it is actually affecting them. I think this change would benefit the vast majority of owners (whether they realize it or not), you just seem to feel the opposite I guess.

I could easily see them putting a rule like this at the 1 month mark at the very least. When making a new reservation, members are aware that the longest a reservation can be is for 30 days. So if you are walking a reservation over 30 days forward, I think everyone should be able to agree that they no longer have the rights to that room as it has been over 30 days since they secured it according to FCFS rules. My fix would just be a little more strict

 

[Sandisw]

Hmm.

Like you said it would be only changing the modification rules not booking rules so it would still be FCFS. Is there something in the rules that won't allow them to change modification rules for some rooms and not others? I don't think I've seen anything like that.

I think the majority of owners outside of boards or groups like these don't really know what walking is or that it is actually affecting them. I think this change would benefit the vast majority of owners (whether they realize it or not), you just seem to feel the opposite I guess.

I could easily see them putting a rule like this at the 1 month mark at the very least. When making a new reservation, members are aware that the longest a reservation can be is for 30 days. So if you are walking a reservation over 30 days forward, I think everyone should be able to agree that they no longer have the rights to that room as it has been over 30 days since they secured it according to FCFS rules. My fix would just be a little more strict

I don’t think having unique rules based on room type booking would be allowed because it is then making owners who want X have diffeeent rules than Y at the same home resort.

The current 30 day max doesn’t prevent the owner from shifting…your idea would.

Where I think people are on different sides of the fence here is that anything that penalizes an owner in some way for changing the start date of a trip is unlikely to be seen as a step forward for a lot of owners.

DVC has a duty to try to make adjustments to the program that will benefit owners collectively in response to supply and demand.

They can’t just make rules and changes because they want to. They can make the home resort period longer or shorter, then can change the time booking windows open and they can put in different rules for modifications, but they still need to be supported by the needs of the membership.
They need to be able to at least have what they believe is a plausible reason for impacting all owners.


Try to think outside the 11 month window and walking….if an owners books a room at 10 months, does that 14 day rule still apply? When does the system remove that restriction?

Those are all things that DVC would need to account for when making a change like you suggest.

DVC is much more likely to implement a program that is simple and clean and there is a high possibility that the modification rules would become cancel/rebook for all changes than trying to make rules differently in when one books and when one wants to modify.

 

[Tatebeck]

Try to think outside the 11 month window and walking….if an owners books a room at 10 months, does that 14 day rule still apply? When does the system remove that restriction?

I've answered this already. It only would apply to reservations that are made with dates beyond the 11 month window and are modified to a different start date beyond the 11 month window. There would be no restrictions on this reservation's modifications

Easy way to think about it, if the reservation wasn't being walked, it wouldn't apply

 

[Sandisw]

I've answered this already. It only would apply to reservations that are made with dates beyond the 11 month window and are modified to a different start date beyond the 11 month window. There would be no restrictions on this reservation's modifications

See, this is where you have lost me again…but regardless, it puts different rules in place for owners who would be forced to cancel and rebook and other owners who would be allowed to modify without risk of losing their original dates simply because they didn’t book at 11 months.

Good discussion but in the end, as I said, changing the point charts or a cancel/rebook for every reservation is IMO the only meaningful way it have an effect.

And I still have to believe that the majority of owners want consistent and easy rules. no matter what you are booking and when.

 

[zavandor]

Can you expand on how a virtual Que would slow down bots vs how the system works now?

I really know little about the technical side of a bot and how it gets the advantage.

I do not know how DVC bots operate never seen one, but this is how I would write it, if I was able and willing to:

A human has to "guess" when it's the right time to send the booking request to the DVC booking server. If the request arrives at 7:59 and 59 seconds, the server replies the request is outside the booking window (too early), if it arrives too late after 8:00, the room might be gone.
One has to guess if the DVC server is synchronised with a time server, if they can send the request one second early to account for latency etc etc

A bot wouldn't need to guess.
A bot would authenticate with the website and would start making search requests a few seconds before 8am, one every few milliseconds until the Disney server replies the booking window is open. It's brute force.

If instead Disney changes 8am to a system like the MM booking, every owner willing to book at 8am could enter a queue at 7:45 and enter their desired room. Then at 8am the server would allocate the rooms that have a conflict randomly among the people who want them. A bot could be one of them, but the bot represents a membership, so it still has the right to one booking. This way there is no way to buypass a fair random allocation among everyone who would like to book a room.

For example, 2 AKV studios are available at 11 months and 10 owners would like to book them. If among them there are 2 people with a bot, they'll most probably get the studios.
But if this lottery is implemented, all 10 owners can register their interest in a AKV studio, then at 8am 2 of them are let in to complete the reservation. The users with the bot have the same chances as everyone else (ok, they can stay in bed instead of waking up in the middle of the night if they leave in the west coast, I suppose)

Note: something like this is actually allowed by the POS. Originally, for a few years (very few, maybe 2 or 3) DVC registered interest for Christmas week and then allocated rooms by lottery. The POS allows DVC to implement a lottery system for high demand periods and rooms.

 

[Sandisw]

I do not know how DVC bots operate never seen one, but this is how I would write it, if I was able and willing to:

A human has to "guess" when it's the right time to send the booking request to the DVC booking server. If the request arrives at 7:59 and 59 seconds, the server replies the request is outside the booking window (too early), if it arrives too late after 8:00, the room might be gone.
One has to guess if the DVC server is synchronised with a time server, if they can send the request one second early to account for latency etc etc

A bot wouldn't need to guess.
A bot would authenticate with the website and would start making search requests a few seconds before 8am, one every few milliseconds until the Disney server replies the booking window is open. It's brute force.

If instead Disney changes 8am to a system like the MM booking, every owner willing to book at 8am could enter a queue at 7:45 and enter their desired room. Then at 8am the server would allocate the rooms that have a conflict randomly among the people who want them. A bot could be one of them, but the bot represents a membership, so it still has the right to one booking. This way there is no way to buypass a fair random allocation among everyone who would like to book a room.

For example, 2 AKV studios are available at 11 months and 10 owners would like to book them. If among them there are 2 people with a bot, they'll most probably get the studios.
But if this lottery is implemented, all 10 owners can register their interest in a AKV studio, then at 8am 2 of them are let in to complete the reservation. The users with the bot have the same chances as everyone else (ok, they can stay in bed instead of waking up in the middle of the night if they leave in the west coast, I suppose)

Note: something like this is actually allowed by the POS. Originally, for a few years (very few, maybe 2 or 3) DVC registered interest for Christmas week and then allocated rooms by lottery. The POS allows DVC to implement a lottery system for high demand periods and rooms.

The POS does have the seasons preference list but that procedure is clearly defined. I wonder if they are able to chsnge the rules of that system and replace it with a VQ system?

But, at least this helps me understand how it would be different in terms of a bot.

 

[drusba]

I am fairly certain that the complex reservation system being proposed will never be adopted. To begin with it would violate the current first come first serve rules for making reservations, which rules, in the multisite POS, provide that member/owners of a home resort must have the same reservation period, currently 11-months from date of arrival, and 7-months out for unowned DVC resorts. That 11/7 month period can be changed but it must always allow home resort owners to have the same period of time to make them, and the difference between home resort/other resort can never be less than 1-month. Thus, for example, the POS does not appear to allow for a rule that would give owners the right to reserve a home resort 11-months out if arriving the first of a month and other owners of the same resort to reserve 11 1/2 months out for mid-month start dates.

Thus, to adopt the rule being suggested would likely require an amendment to the POS, which, as being proposed, would be considered a material change from the existing POS rule, requiring the actual vote of the members to make the change.

Also, if DVC decides to change the rules, it could easily pass a rule that would mostly eliminate walking and no one could claim the changed rule was a material change to the POS or otherwise improper. That is because the rule it would adopt is the one that existed before June 2008, which allowed reservations to be made 11/7 months out from date of departure from a DVC Resort. In other words, if tens of thousands of members complained to DVC to change the rule to the one suggested in this post, DVC would more likely adopt the change to the old rule which it knows cannot be challenged.

 

[CarolMN]

, if tens of thousands of members complained to DVC to change the rule to the one suggested in this post, DVC would more likely adopt the change to the old rule which it knows cannot be challenged.

If they went back to that method, there would be many members with " holes" in their desired vacation. We'd be back to trying to book a vacation one day at a time. Chances of success getting those popular choices for several consecutive days are tiny.

Just a different (and less effective ) form of booking.

I'd rather they eliminate date modifications than go back to that. JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Tatebeck]

I am fairly certain that the complex reservation system being proposed will never be adopted. To begin with it would violate the current first come first serve rules for making reservations, which rules, in the multisite POS, provide that member/owners of a home resort must have the same reservation period, currently 11-months from date of arrival, and 7-months out for unowned DVC resorts. That 11/7 month period can be changed but it must always allow home resort owners to have the same period of time to make them, and the difference between home resort/other resort can never be less than 1-month. Thus, for example, the POS does not appear to allow for a rule that would give owners the right to reserve a home resort 11-months out if arriving the first of a month and other owners of the same resort to reserve 11 1/2 months out for mid-month start dates.

Thus, to adopt the rule being suggested would likely require an amendment to the POS, which, as being proposed, would be considered a material change from the existing POS rule, requiring the actual vote of the members to make the change.

Also, if DVC decides to change the rules, it could easily pass a rule that would mostly eliminate walking and no one could claim the changed rule was a material change to the POS or otherwise improper. That is because the rule it would adopt is the one that existed before June 2008, which allowed reservations to be made 11/7 months out from date of departure from a DVC Resort. In other words, if tens of thousands of members complained to DVC to change the rule to the one suggested in this post, DVC would more likely adopt the change to the old rule which it knows cannot be challenged.

There were a couple different things proposed in the last few pages so I am confused by your response. If you are talking about the idea I had then you definitely misunderstood it. It would make zero changes to new bookings and would still be first come first serve and 100% be consistent with the existing rules. It would only apply restrictions to modifications to reservations that include days beyond the 11 month window, as I described multiple times.

If you are referring to the other idea that I saw that was opening the whole month of reservations at the first of each month, then ignore this and carry on. I don't think that idea would work well either.

 

[Sandisw]

There were a couple different things proposed in the last few pages so I am confused by your response. If you are talking about the idea I had then you definitely misunderstood it. It would make zero changes to new bookings and would still be first come first serve and 100% be consistent with the existing rules. It would only apply restrictions to modifications to reservations that include days beyond the 11 month window, as I described multiple times.

If you are referring to the other idea that I saw that was opening the whole month of reservations at the first of each month, then ignore this and carry on. I don't think that idea would work well either.

Thought more about this and I think I have processed it and expand on why it can’t work.

Your basic premise is that a reservation can only be modified 14 days forward, or it must become a new booking, but only when the 11 month window is involved.

If that is it, then based on what was posted by drusba, it would appear it would no longer follow the FCFS.

Modifications of existing reservations are considered new reservations because they include something new…whether it be a new resort or new dates, new points, etc.

So, while the reservation number doesn’t change, the current rules give us the ability to book 11 plus 7 from check in date and therefore, any dates within that timeframe must be the same for any owner, whether it’s through the modification process or by starting new. The only way around that is to completely eliminate modifications and force all changes to be cancel and rebook.

As long as DVC keeps the plus 7 days from check in as the criteria for booking a room, then all owners, modifying or not, have to have the same rules as if someone as if it’s a new booking because all owners have to have the same FCFS opportunity when that 11 plus 7 opens for that date.

That’s why I think your idea would not work because you see the modification of an existing reservation as being different than a new for booking purposes when in fact, they aren’t when it comes to being entitled to 11 plus 7 from any given check in date.

 

[Tatebeck]

Modifications of existing reservations are considered new reservations because they include something new…whether it be a new resort or new dates, new points, etc.

So, while the reservation number doesn’t change, the current rules give us the ability to book 11 plus 7 from check in date and therefore, any dates within that timeframe must be the same for any owner, whether it’s through the modification process or by starting new. The only way around that is to completely eliminate modifications no matter way.

As long as DVC keeps the plus 7 days from check in as the criteria for booking a room, then all owners, modifying or not, have to have the same rules as if someone as if it’s a new booking because all owners have to have the same FCFS opportunity when that 11 plus 7 opens for that date.

That’s why I think your idea would not work because you see the modification of an existing reservation as being different than a new for booking purposes when in fact, they aren’t when it comes to being entitled to 11 plus 7 from any given check in date.

I still don't think you quite have it down.

I would say this bolded info is incorrect. A modification is not the same thing as a new reservation, by design. Otherwise they would be violating their own terms every time a reservation is walked.

Currently once a member has a popular room booked at/beyond the 11 month window, when they go into modify it and extend it as the window moves, the modifying/walking members are seeing options/availability on their modification that anyone else either modifying a different less desirable room type or making a new reservation do not have. They can see and add onto the room they are walking when no one else can

Otherwise, by your logic every walking modification would be a violation of their own terms.

Via modifying and walking, owners are getting access to dates further out than 11+7, clearly you should be able to see that. My proposed solution would not alter 11+7 booking at all. Only when they try to game the system to really make it 11 months+14 days or 11months +21 days or more.

And after thinking about it some more, my solution would technically adhere to FCFS 11+7 better than current bookings do, due to the fact that fewer rooms will be taken out of inventory ahead of time due to walkers that aren't actually looking to stay any of days during the current 11+7 window.

 

[Tatebeck]

I guess a different way of thinking about it would be like the system no longer including their pre booked room as a valid starting date in the systems modifying/booking inventory 7 to 14 days past the day they first booked it in the 11+7 window. Their availability would look like anyone else's.

Like when some dates got greyed out for people with reservations recently at BWV and AKV unexpectedly. It forced us to use those dates or drop them and try again

 

[Sandisw]

I would say this is incorrect. A modification is not the same thing as a new reservation, by design. Otherwise they would be violating their own terms every time a reservation is walked.

Currently once a member has a popular room booked at/beyond the 11 month window, when they go into modify it and extend it as the window moves, the modifying/walking members are seeing options/availability on their modification that anyone else either modifying a different less desirable room type or making a new reservation do not have. They can see and add onto the room they are walking when no one else can

Otherwise, by your logic every walking modification would be a violation of their own terms.

Via modifying and walking, owners are getting access to dates further out than 11+7, clearly you should be able to see that. My proposed solution would not alter 11+7 booking at all. Only when they try to game the system to really make it 11 months+14 days or 11months +21 days or more.

And after thinking about it some more, my solution would technically adhere to FCFS 11+7 better than current bookings do, due to the fact that fewer rooms will be taken out of inventory ahead of time due to walkers that aren't actually looking to stay any of days during the current 11+7 window.

It’s not because you are entitled to have 11 plus 7…all those 7 nights need to be thought of as the booking dates for 11 months.

If someone books Oct 1 to 8th, each one of those dates is considered an 11 month booking date because of rhe 11 plus 7 rule.

An owner who books October 1 to 8, doesn’t lose the right to access Oct 2 to 9 simple because they accessed the plus 7 the day before.

As long as the plus 7 rule exists, then the 11 month booking window is 7 nights not one.

Thats where I think people get confused because they are looking at people getting nights outside the 11 month window when in fact they are not because the window is actually 11 plus 7.

Your plan allows modifications to be treated as if one is booking new by allowing shifting by 14 days but then requires a cancel and rebook to adjust dates beyond day 14.

And that why I think it would violate the current rules of being able to book 11 months plus 7.

Things have to be consistent. So, we can either modify and move dates or we can’t.

Walking works because we currently have the ability to shift trips forward without losing what we already have booked.

To prevent that, you have to have cancel/rebook everything , eliminate the plus 7 and require day by day booking, or go back to day/day booking from check out.

Which, they changed because too many owners ended with missing days.

 

[Tatebeck]

It’s not because you are entitled to have 11 plus 7…all those 7 nights need to be thought of as the booking dates for 11 months.

If someone books Oct 1 to 8th, each one of those dates is considered an 11 month booking date because of rhe 11 plus 7 rule.

An owner who books October 1 to 8, doesn’t lose the right to access Oct 2 to 9 simple because they accessed the plus 7 the day before.

As long as the plus 7 rule exists, then the 11 month booking window is 7 nights not one.

Thats where I think people get confused because they are looking at people getting nights outside the 11 month window when in fact they are not because the window is actually 11 plus 7.

Your plan allows modifications to be treated a new for 14 days but then requires a cancel and rebook to adjust dates.

And why I think it would violate the current rules of being able to book 11 months plus 7.

Again, so close. It's not that they would HAVE to cancel and rebook. They could be allowed to modify to any room that shows up for everyone else doing their 11+7 booking. Their modification would show the exact same inventory as every one else modifying or making a new 11+7 booking

They just would not continue to have access to select their pre-booked room from 2 weeks earlier that is currently taken out of the online enventory as a starting date anymore. They would have to use it, extend it, or lose it, just not push the starting date forward anymore. Kind of like what unexpectedly happened with these BWV standard rooms recently, though those were unavailable for both check-in and out

 

[Sandisw]

Again, so close. It's not that they would HAVE to cancel and rebook. they could be allowed to modify to any room that shows up for everyone else doing their 11+7 booking. Their modification would show the exact same inventory as every one else modifying or making a new 11+7 booking

They just would not continue to have access to select their pre booked room that is currently taken out of the online enventory as a starting date anymore. They would have to use it or lose it, like what unexpectedly happened with these BWV standard rooms recently

I do get it but I think it’s a violation of the FCFS system as long as modifications in any form are allowed.

If you can’t move your dates without losing something you booked in the 11 plus 7 window, then it’s a cancel/ rebook situation.

And, nothing to stop DVC from implementing that.

But if I got October 3rd and 4th when I booked Oct 1st to 8th, those nights were not technically booked early because the booking rules are 11 plus 7.

You are suggesting that owners should lose access to them when they modify, which is a cancel/rebook…

It really is that plus 7 rule at play here and as long as that exists, without a cancel/rebook policy for changes, they have to consider an owner who has booked them as having booked them appropriately and allow them to change dates within that timeline.

Basically, whatever rules they choose, they have to choose consistent ones that apply in ever situation.

As suggested, walking can be stopped if you require day by day booking or make all changes in dates a cancel and rebook.

I can’t see either one of those being well received by the owners.

 

[Tatebeck]

I do get it but I think it’s a violation of the FCFS system as long as modifications in any form are allowed.

If you can’t move your dates without losing something you booked in the 11 plus 7 window, then it’s a chance/rebook situation.

If got October 3rd and 4th when I booked Oct 1st to 8th, those nights were not technically booked early because the booking rules are 11 plus 7.

You are suggesting that owners should lose access to them when they modify because they got them early but they didn’t because DVC has the plus 7 rule in place.

It really is that plus 7 rule at play here and as long as that exists, they have to consider an owner who has booked them as having booked them appropriately.

Again, not quite. If you booked October 1st-8th at the 11 month window for October 1st, you could modify any of those days freely. No problem at any time modifying to just a short stay on October 3rd-4th. You could drop from the beginning and/or end, extend up to 30 days, or push the starting date back up to 1 or 2 weeks later. In this case you could do anything the system normally allows up until the check in day is October 8th or 15th, depending on if you want to use 1 or 2 weeks as the restriction.

Say the restriction is 2 weeks. What could you do with that single room from that October 1st-8th reservation?

Using the exact same pre booked room you secured you could do things like:

• Keep October 1st-8th? yep
• October 3rd-4th by dropping some days from the beginning and end? yep
• October 1st-30th via extending? yep
• October 5th-12th via a few days walk? yep
• October 14th-November 13th via max walking and extending? yep

and example of what can't you do?

• October 16th-23rd via walking. The 15th and on would simply not show the currently booked room as available as a checkin day, but would show all other inventory that other members can currently book at 11+7

Again it's really not very restrictive at all and will can ONLY affect walkers of greater than 1-2 weeks by design. Every owner/member would have access to the exact same 11+7 new booking inventory at all times.

Basically the same thing that happened with the BWV standard recently or when you forget to walk and don't check until after bookings open and the room is taken by someone else. You use what you had or do something else. The room you had just doesn't show as available to have as an option anymore. But you still have the same booking/modifying availability as every other member trying to book at the 11+7 window

 

[Tatebeck]

It really is that plus 7 rule at play here and as long as that exists, without a cancel/rebook policy for changes, they have to consider an owner who has booked them as having booked them appropriately and allow them to change dates within that timeline.

Exactly. Which again is why my idea would only apply once you try to get a starting date that is 11+8 or 11+15 from the booking window on the original booking date. Any days booked within the 11+7 window at the time of booking would be free from any restrictions and freely changeable, unless you tried to walk the start date greater than 7 or 14 days forward into the future.

Basically via current rules + unlimited walking, you can have access to 11+unlimited as your booking window once you secure a room, provided you never forget to walk it, call to modify when it crosses use years, and you have points at that time in both years to do so. As an extreme example, if I was so inclined, I could book a room today, and walk it forward to a Christmas day 2040 reservation. That clearly goes far beyond the intent and spirit of the 11+7 booking window

As more and more people walk, it will push even more people to walk, as that is the only way to have the best shot at all of the rooms. And at some point if everyone is walking, it's just a bunch of wasted time and energy when the system could just take care of it. If we got a 5 second advantage for booking by quacking like Donald a bunch of us would do it, me included. Which would probably lead to the majority of members doing it if they want the best availability, and then we all fighting over the same thing, but with extra steps (and a lot of annoyed neighbors and confused dogs). At that points it's unnecessary and should be axed.

 

[tx911]

Exactly. Which again is why my idea would only apply once you try to get a starting date that is 11+8 or 11+15 from the booking window on the original booking date. Any days booked within the 11+7 window at the time of booking would be free from any restrictions and freely changeable, unless you tried to walk the start date greater than 7 or 14 days forward into the future.

Basically via current rules + unlimited walking, you can have access to 11+unlimited as your booking window once you secure a room, provided you never forget to walk it, call to modify when it crosses use years, and you have points at that time in both years to do so. As an extreme example, if I was so inclined, I could book a room today, and walk it forward to a Christmas day 2040 reservation. That clearly goes far beyond the intent and spirit of the 11+7 booking window

As more and more people walk, it will push even more people to walk, as that is the only way to have the best shot at all of the rooms. And at some point if everyone is walking, it's just a bunch of wasted time and energy when the system could just take care of it. If we got a 5 second advantage for booking by quacking like Donald a bunch of us would do it, me included. Which would probably lead to the majority of members doing it if they want the best availability, and then we all fighting over the same thing, but with extra steps (and a lot of annoyed neighbors and confused dogs). At that points it's unnecessary and should be axed.

I just want you to know that you are doing a good job explaining this plan, and I think it's pretty brilliant.

 

[Tatebeck]

I just want you to know that you are doing a good job explaining this plan, and I think it's pretty brilliant.

Thank you! I'm trying my best lol and I feel that it would actually work! I love finding solutions to weird problems.