BWV Standard view

[tx911]

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

Mission accomplished IMO. Now get to work on the commercial renting problem

 

[Tatebeck]

Mission accomplished IMO. Now get to work on the commercial renting problem

Oh trust me I've been thinking about it! But with so much subjectivity regarding it, unless Disney truly gives us a hard definition of what constitutes "commercial activity", I don't think there is much we can ask for besides a definition. Since they are the ones with all the info, it's just gonna be up to them to identify and punish members they feel are doing it more than allowed

Until then we just get to play the BWV standard, AKV club, and AKV value lotteries!

 

[Sandisw]

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.

All the ideas seem like they will work but as soon as you are making rules for modifications that are not consistent to all modifications then you are changing the nature of a FCFS system.

If I book Oct 1 to 8, and I can move it forward all the way to October 15th to 22nd but not to October 16th to 23rd, you have two different rules going on.

The whole FCFS rule applies no matter what and rules can’t be set up to apply differently for the same situation.

Switching dates is switching dates. The only way your process works is if it applies to all bookings.

DVC can’t make rules to prevent one specific type of modification just because people don’t like the outcome at certain times.

If what you are proposing is that any shift in dates, 11 month window or not more than 14 days in the future, requires a cancel and rebook, then that might mesh with the FCFS rule.

But it would have to apply to any and all reservations, not just ones that might be walked.

That’s what I mean by consistent. The biggest thing is DVC has to look at setting booking rules that make sense and ones that they can give a plausible reason as why it was needed to improve the system for the membership.

Having a cancel and rebook or modifications of dates no more than 14 days without a cancel would be hard to explain to the average owner as to why it’s better.


I know your idea is based only to stop or curb walking but the rules have to make sense for all situations. That’s what keeps it in line with the POS.

As I said, DVC has the ability to modify booking procedures but they can’t make rules that don’t apply across the board or aren’t grounded in an attempt to improve the ease in which we book.

If forget about walking for a moment. ask yourself if you think that there are a lot of DVC owners who would like to see a cancel/rebook or limits on being able to change dates of a reservation.

 

[Tatebeck]

All the ideas seem like they will work but as soon as you are making rules for modifications that are not consistent to all modifications then you are changing the nature of a FCFS system.

If I book Oct 1 to 8, and I can move it forward all the way to October 15th to 22nd but not to October 16th to 23rd, you have two different rules going on.

The whole FCFS rule applies no matter what and rules can’t be set up to apply differently for the same situation.

Switching dates is switching dates. The only way your process works is if it applies to all bookings.

DVC can’t make rules to prevent one specific type of modification just because people don’t like the outcome at certain times.

If what you are proposing is that any shift in dates, 11 month window or not more than 14 days in the future, requires a cancel and rebook, then that might mesh with the FCFS rule.

But it would have to apply to any and all reservations, not just ones that might be walked.

That’s what I mean by consistent. The biggest thing is DVC has to look at setting booking rules that make sense and ones that they can give a plausible reason as why it was needed to improve the system for the membership.

Having a cancel and rebook or modifications of dates no more than 14 days without a cancel would be hard to explain to the average owner as to why it’s better.


I know your idea is based only to stop or curb walking but the rules have to make sense for all situations. That’s what keeps it in line with the POS.

As I said, DVC has the ability to modify booking procedures but they can’t make rules that don’t apply across the board or aren’t grounded in an attempt to improve the ease in which we book.

If forget about walking for a moment. ask yourself if you think that there are a lot of DVC owners who would like to see a cancel/rebook or limits on being able to change dates of a reservation.

It's not changing the nature. It is just more strictly adhering to their own FCFS policy. Here is the policy from the home resort POS. I know, I've checked. Here's the section:

"5. First Come, First Served Reservations. Reservation requests for DVC Resorts are taken on a first come, first servedbasis. All Vacation Homes are reserved on a space-available basis. To request a reservation at their Home Resort, ClubMembers may call Member Services or make a reservation online via the DVC Website no earlier than eleven (11) months prior to the desired check in day for a reservation of up to seven (7) consecutive days after the desired check in day."

It specifically is using 11+7 your desired check in date, just like I am. If you change your desired check-in date, your 11+7 is no longer the same and they do not have to guarantee the room you had booked before, only the same inventory that everyone else has access to.

Technically according to their rules and regulations, if you change the check in date, as opposed to just extending it technically should be forced to make a new reservation. They have just been very lax on how the system is programmed. I am simply asking them to clean it up a bit and bring it closer to their own rules.

 

[Sandisw]

To add, by preventing owner A from extending a reservation that is booked, simply because they legally booked days within the 11 plus 7 window, based on set guidelines when Owner B can extend to grab that date is what makes it inconsistent.

Right now, walking works and is consistent for every owner. Every day we can book 11 plus 7 for all rooms still there.

If Owner A is stopped because they stated a booking sooner than someone else who started later in being able to extend, then it’s no longer treating each owner the same.

That’s why your system could work as along as it became the modification rule for all reservations.

 

[Tatebeck]

To add, by preventing owner A from extending a reservation that is booked, simply because they legally booked days within the 11 plus 7 window, based on set guidelines when Owner B can extend to grab that date is what makes it inconsistent.

Right now, walking works and is consistent for every owner. Every day we can book 11 plus 7 for all rooms still there.

If Owner A is stopped because they stated a booking sooner than someone else who started later in being able to extend, then it’s no longer treating each owner the same.

That’s why your system could work as along as it became the modification rule for all reservations.

Again, this system would NEVER prevent an owner from EXTENDING a reservation, that would be changing the check-out date. Same current rules would apply.

It would also still allow all members to book 11+7 for all rooms still there at the time of booking.

If you gaming the system and are trying to book further out than 11+7 for your desired check-in date, the FCFS as written do not apply yet and they do not have to guarantee any stock of rooms, just like when they pull rooms ahead of time for refurb, fixed weeks, etc.

Say there are only 2 rooms in a category, both being walked. If they have to take 1 of those rooms out of inventory for a refurb, one walk will be forcibly stopped and greyed out ahead of the 11+7 window. This is similar, taking a room out of inventory, even if temporary, ahead of the 11+7

 

[Sandisw]

It's not changing the nature. It is just more strictly adhering to their own FCFS policy. Here is the policy from the home resort POS. I know, I've checked.

"5. First Come, First Served Reservations. Reservation requests for DVC Resorts are taken on a first come, first servedbasis. All Vacation Homes are reserved on a space-available basis. To request a reservation at their Home Resort, ClubMembers may call Member Services or make a reservation online via the DVC Website no earlier than eleven (11) months prior to the desired check in day for a reservation of up to seven (7) consecutive days after the desired check in day."

It specifically is using 11+7 your desired check in date, just like I am. If you change your desired check-in date, your 11+7 is no longer the same.

Technically according to their rules and regulations, if you change the check in date, as opposed to just extending it technically should be forced to make a new reservation. They have just been very lax on how the system is programmed. I am simply asking them to clean it up a bit and bring it closer to their own rules.

The system has been set up, whether some realize that or not, that a modification of an existing reservation is treated as a new booking when the dates are moved forward.

When I change the dates of an existing booking, I am now booking 11 plus 7 just like every other owner.

The rules and the way the system currently works is following their own plus 7 rules.

ETA: I am using the worrd extending to mean moving the start date forward. Sorry about that

 

[Tatebeck]

The system has been set up, whether some realize that or not, that a modification of an existing reservation is treated as a new booking when the dates are moved forward.

When I change the dates of an existing booking, I am now booking 11 plus 7 just like every other owner.

The rules and the way the system currently works is following their own plus 7 rules.

It is NOT treated the EXACT same as a new booking because you can have access to a room that may not be available to any new booking member. If walking you get the extra room to choose from. The one you had booked, plus all the other rooms that new bookings can see.

3 does not equal 2

401 does not equal 400.

It is fundamentally different inventory being accessed

 

[Sandisw]

Another thought to help me think through your idea. I move my dates those 14 days…I can no longer shift my first date, right?

What prevents me from adding two more days so I know until I hafe a 9 day reservation, and then later on that day , drop my beginning days?

So, I move my trip from October 1st to October 15h, but now stopped from moving check in date forward. So, I just make it October 15th to 24th a few days later…

Now, I’ve extended, since shortening is allowed, I shorten that trip to be 17th to 24th. Wouldn’t it now reset my 14 days?

If can’t I just keep adding a few days at a time, and shortening as I go along?

 

[Sandisw]

It is NOT treated the EXACT same as a new booking because you can have access to a room that may not be available to any new booking member. If walking you get the extra room to choose from. The one you had booked, plus all the other rooms that new bookings can see.

3 does not equal 2

401 does not equal 400.

It is fundamentally different inventory being accessed

Why do you think we can swap holding points into existing reservations when we are within 60 days?

It’s because the system sees it as a new reservation with you already having that inventory selected.

That’s what I mean by it treating it as the same as a new booking. Behind the scenes when it views the room inventory.

So, if I have a room booked, yes, it’s blocked for you to book it, but when I open my reservation to modify it, it shows up as still available for booking because I am the one who has it.

 

[tx911]

To add, by preventing owner A from extending a reservation that is booked, simply because they legally booked days within the 11 plus 7 window, based on set guidelines when Owner B can extend to grab that date is what makes it inconsistent.

Right now, walking works and is consistent for every owner. Every day we can book 11 plus 7 for all rooms still there.

If Owner A is stopped because they stated a booking sooner than someone else who started later in being able to extend, then it’s no longer treating each owner the same.

That’s why your system could work as along as it became the modification rule for all reservations.

The system already favors some DVC members over others, because not everyone walks reservations, regardless of whether they are technically permitted to or not. This plan would put things on a much more level playing field.

 

[Sandisw]

Why do you think we can swap holding points into existing reservations when we are within 60 days?

It’s because the system sees it as a new reservation with you already having that inventory selected.

That’s what I mean by it treating it as the same as a new booking. Behind the scenes when it views the room inventory.

So, if I have a room booked, yes, it’s blocked for you to book it, but when I open my reservation to modify it, it shows up as still available for booking because I am the one who has it.

I applaud you for trying to come up with an idea that is specially geared toward walking.

But walking is an outcome of being allowed to have unlimited modifications with no penalties.

Owners frustrated by it can certainly ask DVC to implement stricter rules. It just needs to make sense for situations that have nothing to do with walking

 

[Tatebeck]

Another thought to help me think through your idea. I move my dates those 14 days…I can no longer shift my first date, right?

What prevents me from adding two more days so I know until I hafe a 9 day reservation, and then later on that day , drop my beginning days?

So, I move my trip from October 1st to October 15h, but now stopped from moving check in date forward. So, I just make it October 15th to 24th a few days later…

Now, I’ve extended, since shortening is allowed, I shorten that trip to be 17th to 24th. Wouldn’t it now reset my 14 days?

If can’t I just keep adding a few days at a time, and shortening as I go along?

Currently? Nothing in the system stops that. They would add it.

The 2 clicks you do to select a stay range? When you click the first day, then click the last day to select them? It wouldn't let the first click be on or after the 16th if it has the walked/pre-booked room selected vs one from other inventory. Like when a day is greyed out, it would lead you to waitlist instead

Extending from Oct 15th-24th would work, dropping the first couple days to make the starting day later than the 15th would no longer work if you booked it originally for October 1st. When you booked you were booking your desired check-in date of Oct 1st, now if you want a later desired check in date, they do not have to allow you to modify the old room and can make you book 11+7 for an October 16th desired check-in date with everyone else

 

[Sandisw]

The system already favors some DVC members over others, because not everyone walks reservations, regardless of whether they are technically permitted to or not. This plan would put things on a much more level playing field.

I guess that is where we disagree. If we all can do something and don’t, that’s the nature of fair.

While I personally would hate any rule changes that impact the flexibility we have to make and change trips…and I do not walk…did it a few times and realized I’d rather just use waitlist as stalk instead, I am confident that whatever DVC did would not be complicated to explain.

 

[tx911]

I applaud you for trying to come up with an idea that is specially geared toward walking.

But walking is an outcome of being allowed to have unlimited modifications with no penalties.

Owners frustrated by it can certainly ask DVC to implement stricter rules. It just needs to make sense for situations that have nothing to do with walking

His plan still allows unlimited modifications. The modification to move the initial check-in date more than 14 days into the future would simply require a brand new booking.

It's still being modified, just changing the way you are allowed to achieve that modification.

 

[tx911]

I guess that is where we disagree. If we all can do something and don’t, that’s the nature of fair.

While I personally would hate any rule changes that impact the flexibility we have to make and change trips…and I do not walk…did it a few times and realized I’d rather just use waitlist as stalk instead, I am confident that whatever DVC did would not be complicated to explain.

Yes, it would be a level playing field if all members walked. And it would be a level playing field if no one walked.

I prefer the latter.

 

[Tatebeck]

Why do you think we can swap holding points into existing reservations when we are within 60 days?

It’s because the system sees it as a new reservation with you already having that inventory selected.

That’s what I mean by it treating it as the same as a new booking. Behind the scenes when it views the room inventory.

So, if I have a room booked, yes, it’s blocked for you to book it, but when I open my reservation to modify it, it shows up as still available for booking because I am the one who has it.

Swapping holding points is completely different. If you got that reservation with normal 11+7 rules with or without walking involved, the dates are all now within 11 and 7 month windows and you cannot walk that reservation further forward into the 11+7 window anymore because it is way too close.

I was simply showing that currently their modification system is NOT the same as a new reservation, you technically have different inventory pools, which is why walking is a problem. If modifications were treated as TRUE new reservations as they are allowed with the rules and regulations, it would not reserve that extra room for you and you would have the EXACT same inventory as all other booking members when changing your desired check-in date.

I applaud you for trying to come up with an idea that is specially geared toward walking.

But walking is an outcome of being allowed to have unlimited modifications with no penalties.

Owners frustrated by it can certainly ask DVC to implement stricter rules. It just needs to make sense for situations that have nothing to do with walking

It does make sense. It more closely follows their own rules and regulations than their current reservation system does actually. If they wanted they could make it so you book 11+7 and then allow ZERO check-in date walking (extensions only) and make you make a new reservation every time your desired check-in date changes. That is what the rules and regulations allows. I am just asking for something in between so it is not so harsh.

 

[Sandisw]

Currently? Nothing in the system stops that. They would add it.

The 2 clicks you do to select a stay range? When you click the first day, then click the last day to select them? It wouldn't let the first click be on or after the 16th if it has the walked/pre-booked room selected vs one from other inventory. Like when a day is greyed out, it would lead you to waitlist instead

Extending from Oct 15th-24th would work, dropping the first couple days to make the starting day later than the 15th would no longer work if you booked it originally for October 1st. When you booked you were booking your desired check-in date of Oct 1st, now if you want a later desired check in date, they do not have to allow you to modify the old room and can make you book 11+7 for an October 16th desired check-in date with everyone else

Got it…IMO this is just way too complicated but as I said, applaud your efforts.

 

[tx911]

It's very clear that the system was designed for people to book the dates they want to stay up to 11 months in advance, and modify if needed if their plans change.

Walking is an exploitation of the ability to modify in order to gain an advantage for hard to book rooms, and it deserves to be harshly curtailed if it can't be eliminated entirely. I think we can all agree that the program would be improved if walking did not exist.

Unfortunately there is a natural tendency for some to exploit rules to gain an advantage over the majority.

 

[Sandisw]

Swapping holding points is completely different. If you got that reservation with normal 11+7 rules with or without walking involved, the dates are all now within 11 and 7 month windows and you cannot walk that reservation further forward into the 11+7 window anymore because it is way too close.

I was simply showing that modification by definition is not the same as a new reservation, you technically have different inventory pools, which is why walking is a problem. If modifications were treated as TRUE new reservations as they are allowed with the rules and regulations, it would not reserve that extra room for you and you would have the EXACT same inventory as all other booking members when changing your desired check-in date.

It does make sense. It more closely follows their own rules and regulations than their current reservation system does actually. If they wanted they could make it so you book 11+7 and then allow ZERO walking and make you make a new reservation every time your desired check-in date changes. That is what the rules and regulations allows. I am just asking for something in between so it is not so harsh.

The rules say you can book any room 11 months plus 7, yes, but the rules do not prohibit owners for modifying reservations they have already made to new dates as long as they are following the 11 plus 7.

So, the system is working as designed. In terms of holding, that works because the system is seeing your currently booked trip as new and lets you swap…even if those rooms are no longer available.

These have been great discussions and probably the biggest piece it highlights is that making booking rules with the sole purpose of preventing walking is not easy.

The simplist and best solution if owners really want things changed is cancel and rebook all, or day by day booking.