Can I seperate my 2BR

[Sammie]

Well, as mentioned, I was not allowed, and it was checked with a supervisor, so its not consistent by any means.

You are correct, sadly with humans consistency is not always guaranteed.

 

[Dean]

I believe that I interpreted your use of the word deserving correctly but apparently my response did not reflect that. I have no concern about the who would be getting the room beyond the fact that they would have been looking for a room after the other person who has it booked. Considering that, it then seems appropriate to me that someone who booked first would retain the priority on that room even in a different configuration if DVC allows a split. But I think I differ in thought from you in that I do not think it's a given that if a 2BR lockoff goes back into inventory that it will positively go to someone waitlisted for a 2BR lockoff. I believe there are strong possibilities that if there are waitlists for a studio or 1BR that people on those lists are also prospects to receive the room(s) released based on the dates they each went on their respective waitlists.

I don't have any issues if the requirements are a complete cancel and attempt to rebook because the owner has the option to keep the room even if it's more than they need. But theoretically I still don't agree that a person on a waitlist is automatically more deserving of that room (or part of it) because of several things - My belief that the room has the potential to be split on the waitlist to a studio and a 1BR, the fact that an owner can have up to 2 waitlists meaning they have not been restricted to one single room type like the original booking and lastly that they would be booking later than the original person.

If waitlists were restricted to those who have no existing reservation instead of including those who wish to replace a reservation I might have a different opinion but that is not the criteria to waitlist.

There remains the potential for abuse so I still remain unclear if this is an enhancement though.

As I stated up front, this is my position based on philosophy and I realize it's not popular with the DIS group. In part, my position is that it's the only way to be completely consistent at least as much as a company like Disney seems to be able to. It also leads to abuses such as the walking which would seem reason enough to think it's a problem. I think there needs to be some penalty/risk for changing be it financial or risk of losing a reservation, if not both. Something to keep people (or at least decrease significantly) from playing games holding one thing they may not use. Is it a big deal for me, no, I'll learn the rules and adapt to them using them to my advantage as will others.

 

[Sandisw]

You are correct, sadly with humans consistency is not always guaranteed.

That is true...I guess my whole thought though, is that when someone can book something as a 2 bedroom and then later change the inventory for the resort by making that 2 bedroom into a 1 bedroom and a studio, those 2 bedrooms will be harder to get.

For example, say (and this is simple math, I know), there are 20 2 bedrooms, 20 studios, and 20 1 bedrooms for a night. A member goes online to book and there are no 1 bedrooms for all the nights they need, but there is a 2 bedroom lock off available. If they have the extra points, they book the 2 bedroom and then later on, ask that it be changed to a 1 bedroom.

It changes the original inventory to do this...and instead of having 20 2 bedrooms, there are now only 19 but 21 units of the other.

Granted, when someone books with the intention of needing the 2 bedroom but finds things change, I get they want to save the points and if they can't split, they keep it, but at least then it remains what it was initially reserved as, regardless of wait list and who would or would not be getting the room.

IMO, if there is no availability for a night in either the 1 bedroom or studio, then the member should be expected to waitlist the night or keep the 2 bedroom.

 

[mjc2003]

I think there needs to be some penalty/risk for changing be it financial or risk of losing a reservation, if not both. Something to keep people (or at least decrease significantly) from playing games holding one thing they may not use. Is it a big deal for me, no, I'll learn the rules and adapt to them using them to my advantage as will others.

I'm not sure too many people would play games within this context. For what gain? You can't try to rent out one unit and use the other, if you do you're effectively vacationing with strangers. If your "game" would be to cancel one when you decide what you need without committing the same number of points as booking the units separately, then yes, it's less points, but by a negligible number. So the only people playing this "game" would be those with more than 278 points but less than 308 (The BCV cost for a lockoff vs 1br/studio booked separately.)
I can be naive, so if there's a game to be played maybe I'm missing it?


As for both losing the reservation AND a financial penalty, well then you're basically saying it's not allowed since nobody would bother splitting if that was the case. If I call MS and ask to split and they tell me it's going to cost me the entire reservation and a $200 penalty, I'll just say 'thanks' and won't split.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

That is true...I guess my whole thought though, is that when someone can book something as a 2 bedroom and then later change the inventory for the resort by making that 2 bedroom into a 1 bedroom and a studio, those 2 bedrooms will be harder to get.

I know this thought is following what is expressed as fact - that DVC allocates a certain number of lock offs to be booked as 2BR's but what I have seen more than once with the online booking is that if there are studios and 1BR's available then there are 2BR lockoffs. And if either a studio or a 1BR is not available then the lock off is not available either. In that case there isn't any defined inventory being changed and DVC is currently allowing the bookings to define how a lock-off will end up being reserved.

 

[Sandisw]

I know this thought is following what is expressed as fact - that DVC allocates a certain number of lock offs to be booked as 2BR's but what I have seen more than once with the online booking is that if there are studios and 1BR's available then there are 2BR lockoffs. And if either a studio or a 1BR is not available then the lock off is not available either. In that case there isn't any defined inventory being changed and DVC is currently allowing the bookings to define how a lock-off will end up being reserved.

And, I have seen just the opposite... for my August trip, I was trying to change back to a 2 bedroom at BWV, since my DD decided to come, and I could get a 1 bedroom or a studio in a garden/pool view for all three nights, if booked separately, but it only showed the 2 bedroom available two of the three nights.

Now, what I should have done, was call MS to see if they would book them for me as a 2 bedroom, but I did not...in the future I might...but, from inventory online, it was not available, when the others were...maybe it was a glitch.

But, if in fact, the inventory is tied together and if one of the parts is sold out, that would make the 2 bedroom unavailable, then splitting would be okay.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

As I stated up front, this is my position based on philosophy and I realize it's not popular with the DIS group. In part, my position is that it's the only way to be completely consistent at least as much as a company like Disney seems to be able to. It also leads to abuses such as the walking which would seem reason enough to think it's a problem. I think there needs to be some penalty/risk for changing be it financial or risk of losing a reservation, if not both. Something to keep people (or at least decrease significantly) from playing games holding one thing they may not use. Is it a big deal for me, no, I'll learn the rules and adapt to them using them to my advantage as will others.

I believe we are referring to 2 different things so apparently I'm not expressing myself well.

And, I have seen just the opposite... for my August trip, I was trying to change back to a 2 bedroom at BWV, since my DD decided to come, and I could get a 1 bedroom or a studio in a garden/pool view for all three nights, if booked separately, but it only showed the 2 bedroom available two of the three nights.

Now, what I should have done, was call MS to see if they would book them for me as a 2 bedroom, but I did not...in the future I might...but, from inventory online, it was not available, when the others were...maybe it was a glitch.

But, if in fact, the inventory is tied together and if one of the parts is sold out, that would make the 2 bedroom unavailable, then splitting would be okay.

BWV is the one location that I have thought might have to be different because it is only lockoffs although I've seen what I described in both the Boardwalk view category and the standard view category when we had a group that was not firm in numbers last January and I was watching inventory. It's more obvious to see at the offsite locations since you don't get other options. VGC inventory in particular is what made me question it because it will show you different room sizes all at once. Since that time I've noted it at WDW properties too and it could be coincidence although it's been quite a few if that's true.

 

[Dean]

I'm not sure too many people would play games within this context. For what gain? You can't try to rent out one unit and use the other, if you do you're effectively vacationing with strangers. If your "game" would be to cancel one when you decide what you need without committing the same number of points as booking the units separately, then yes, it's less points, but by a negligible number. So the only people playing this "game" would be those with more than 278 points but less than 308 (The BCV cost for a lockoff vs 1br/studio booked separately.)
I can be naive, so if there's a game to be played maybe I'm missing it?

Walking a reservation is one current and glaring example ongoing currently, reserving a 2 BR lockoff tying up the room for later options is another potential one. One can do that now but you have to commit your points for multiple options assuming you have enough.

As for both losing the reservation AND a financial penalty, well then you're basically saying it's not allowed since nobody would bother splitting if that was the case. If I call MS and ask to split and they tell me it's going to cost me the entire reservation and a $200 penalty, I'll just say 'thanks' and won't split.

That's an extreme example but the goal would be to significantly decrease the willingness to cancel and change.

I believe we are referring to 2 different things so apparently I'm not expressing myself well.

Then I'm not sure as I though we were discussing. My thoughts are in regards to changing a reservation vs canceling and rebooking, I think all changes affecting dates or unit should be the later 100% of the time.

 

[bandjbaine]

My head hurts reading this post but kudos to you all. I have learned so much here and get the most of my dvc due to these posts!

 

[LisaS]

My head hurts reading this post but kudos to you all. I have learned so much here and get the most of my dvc due to these posts!

When MS offered to let you split the 2BR for one night, had you asked to split it for the two nights but they offered to do so for only one night, or did you ask to split it for just one night? I am confused by your earlier post and it would be helpful to know the answer to this question.

 

[bandjbaine]

I req just to drop down to one be for the last nt only

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Then I'm not sure as I though we were discussing. My thoughts are in regards to changing a reservation vs canceling and rebooking, I think all changes affecting dates or unit should be the later 100% of the time.

For my part I was thinking only of the 2BR lockoff so that's where I felt we were commenting on 2 slightly different things. But that was only on my end in viewing it as different from a dedicated 2BR or any smaller unit - but that is how I see the lockoff. I'd believe it was designed so that DVC did not run the risk of designing the wrong number of certain sized accommodations and so to provide flexibility for the membership. I do see that designed flexibility as extending all the way to splitting later if the member has the desire - and as a plus for other members looking for an accommodation of the size the member has released by doing the split. But that's based on my view that it is not inherently a 2BR but that it is 2 accommodations that are no more than a guaranteed connecting room option (that I also think should probably be equal to the point requirements for a 1BR and studio but BWV makes that especially difficult).

Of course I do understand the view that it is the same as any accommodation which is much cleaner.

From the abuse standpoint I understand and some sort of penalty would be the way to go. From the use point I do not see a benefit to be punishing to ownership usage because of abusers but of course things cannot (or should not) go on a case by case decision.

In other timeshares is it possible for the owners to split a lockoff so that they could rent out part - and have the rented side be independent unlike Disney where it would be keyed the same?

 

[Dean]

In other timeshares is it possible for the owners to split a lockoff so that they could rent out part - and have the rented side be independent unlike Disney where it would be keyed the same?

It depends, most you could not that I am aware of and I'm not aware of any where you could cancel part without canceling all but that doesn't mean there aren't other examples. With the other timeshares I deal with, the only one you could actually split the 2 BR without a cancelation and rebooking that I am aware of is Marriott on the older weeks type only, not with points reservations. There you'd have to actually reserve a 2 BR L/O up front. The difference is that they don't have L/O units they dedicate as 2 BR units as DVC has historically done.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It depends, most you could not that I am aware of and I'm not aware of any where you could cancel part without canceling all but that doesn't mean there aren't other examples. With the other timeshares I deal with, the only one you could actually split the 2 BR without a cancelation and rebooking that I am aware of is Marriott on the older weeks type only, not with points reservations. There you'd have to actually reserve a 2 BR L/O up front. The difference is that they don't have L/O units they dedicate as 2 BR units as DVC has historically done.

Thanks for that info.

 

[bandjbaine]

So as a final conclusion. I called back today and the cast member I got said again I was allowed to drop the one night from a 2BR to a 1BR. It would be a seperate reservation, we would have to check out/check in for the last night and were not guaranteed the same room ( but could make the request). They were able to make the transaction and it did not effect anything else.
All seemed to go off without a hitch. Yeah!