Current owners: Do you feel that renters are impacting resort availability?

[Sandisw]

If the cancel and rebook is for lead name change only, how much would you be affected?

Me? Potenitally because I book a lot of rooms at 11 months because I don’t know what I will need and who is going. Many end up canceled, but some get the names changed. And, I always book with me when I book hard to get to make sure the system doesn’t lock me out and I lose it.

Happened once when changing a name and so I change later to ensure the room especially when booking early December.

DVC used to go with the booking from check out, which had its own issues. But, as mentioned, keeping owner as lead guest is possible for many rooms…especially now that most studios sleep 5, including those at BWV SV which is one of the highest demand rentals out there.

This is why I am not in favor of any changes to modification rules that can impact owners who are not renting, or walking.

 

[Chuck S]

The lead guest counts towards room capacity, so you are negating a family of 4 for a lot rentals. It wouldn’t solve everything, but it wouldn’t harm much, either.

Most studios and one bedrooms at WDW now sleep 5, except OKW studios and value studios.

 

[Tatebeck]

They could find a bunch of the most egregious offenders pretty easily if they wanted to. Disney could search through all the members and see who bought a bunch of points and has never checked into a reservation themselves. Members who bought thousands of points a number of years ago, yet have never actually checked into a reservation themselves would be a pretty safe place to start investigating lol.

Say someone bought 2000 cheap points 5 years ago across 4 use year memberships, but have rented out every point using cheap studios during popular times, but stayed under 20 per membership? Very suspicious even though technically doing less than what Disney said would trigger an investigation.

It shouldn't even be per membership, it should be per household. Splitting up into different use years or under different family members makes it too easy to spread the rentals out. And Disney doesn't have specifically what constitutes commercial renting in the POS for all the older resorts, they can choose to look at anyone at any time if they really wanted to, they just used the 20 rentals as an example I believe

 

[Sandisw]

They could find a bunch of the most egregious offenders pretty easily if they wanted to. Disney could search through all the members and see who bought a bunch of points and has never checked into a reservation themselves. Members who bought thousands of points a number of years ago, yet have never actually checked into a reservation themselves would be a pretty safe place to start investigating lol.

Say someone bought 2000 cheap points 5 years ago across 4 use year memberships, but have rented out every point using cheap studios during popular times, but stayed under 20 per membership? Very suspicious even though technically doing less than what Disney said would trigger an investigation.

It shouldn't even be per membership, it should be per household. Splitting up into different use years or under different family members makes it too easy to spread the rentals out. And Disney doesn't have specifically what constitutes commercial renting in the POS for all the older resorts, they can choose to look at anyone at any time if they really wanted to, they just used the 20 rentals as an example I believe

I believe that the 20 rentals was put into something official. I think the fact that DVD has updated the wording in the POS for CFW to include more specific language that mentions patterns, use of third party sites, etc. leads me to believe the know they need that to be explicit stated.

That could be why it was done like that and why they may believe that they can’t apply it retroactively to that degree.

Now, one change that they could institute that may be a better measure, to address what you said, is having the % across all memberships vs number of reservations.

I could see that working…for example, let’s say 25% of all points need to be used by an owner over the course of every 2 years…allows for family and friends that are not rentals? It also allows for those who may not use yearly just one year.

Triggers the review of what you mention above? The only problem is they’d have to try and write a program in such a way that can capture that? I am sure it is possible…but there would still be a way around it for the savy renter.

 

[Chuck S]

They could find a bunch of the most egregious offenders pretty easily if they wanted to. Disney could search through all the members and see who bought a bunch of points and has never checked into a reservation themselves. Members who bought thousands of points a number of years ago, yet have never actually checked into a reservation themselves would be a pretty safe place to start investigating lol.

Say someone bought 2000 cheap points 5 years ago across 4 use year memberships, but have rented out every point using cheap studios during popular times, but stayed under 20 per membership? Very suspicious even though technically doing less than what Disney said would trigger an investigation.

It shouldn't even be per membership, it should be per household. Splitting up into different use years or under different family members makes it too easy to spread the rentals out. And Disney doesn't have specifically what constitutes commercial renting in the POS for all the older resorts, they can choose to look at anyone at any time if they really wanted to, they just used the 20 rentals as an example I believe

SInce it would require additional cast members for detailed investigations, I think I'd rather see those cast members manning the phone lines.

 

[Chuck S]

I believe that the 20 rentals was put into something official. I think the fact that DVD has updated the wording in the POS for CFW to include more specific language that mentions patterns, use of third party sites, etc. leads me to believe the know they need that to be explicit stated.

That could be why it was done like that and why they may believe that they can’t apply it retroactively to that degree.

Now, one change that they could institute that may be a better measure, to address what you said, is having the % across all memberships vs number of reservations.

I could see that working…for example, let’s say 25% of all points need to be used by an owner over the course of every 2 years…allows for family and friends that are not rentals? It also allows for those who may not use yearly just one year.

Triggers the review of what you mention above? The only problem is they’d have to try and write a program in such a way that can capture that? I am sure it is possible…but there would still be a way around it for the savy renter.

I don't like that idea. There are times I travel with a group and I need multiple reservations, using 70% to 75% of my points, banking and borrowing, for rooms where I am not an occupant, but we are all traveling together, even though I am not blood or marriage related to the rest of that large group, who is related to each other by blood or marriage.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't like that idea. There are times I travel with a group and I need multiple reservations, using 70% to 75% of my points, banking and borrowing, for rooms where I am not an occupant, but we are all traveling together, even though I am not blood or marriage related to the rest of that large group, who is related to each other by blood or marriage.

Not my favorite but that is why I said over a 2 year period…should have added rolling…to at least show that an owner is going?

Maybe add that if the owner is traveling at the same time then all rooms count as part of owners use. Thst would make sense.

 

[sndral]

Agreed - there are legitimate reasons why people may need to change a reservation by a day here and there. Forcing a cancel and rebook to add or remove a day would take away flexibility. We booked 8 nights for 10/2024 at BCV - decided a few weeks ago to add a night and did so via modifying our reservation. It would, in my opinion, be incredibly punitive and/or draconian if the system had forced us to cancel and rebook the entire trip, thus risking us losing the room entirely.

In that case you could have booked the extra night & then called MS to merge it with the existing reservation.

IMO the only way to stop almost all renting is to:

• Make every change of lead guest be a cancel & rebook.
• Upgrade the waitlist software to check the waitlist before every booking

If every change was a cancel and rebook and the waitlist software upgraded, walking would also be virtually eliminated as well.

I doubt very few of us would welcome those changes. I know I would not

Neither of those changes would bother me at all since I’ve never changed the lead guest.
I actually like the idea of making the waitlist more robust, I’ve never had a waitlist come through - although I have picked up days I’d waitlisted via stalking.
Quite some time ago Disney took steps on the cash side to curtail what I’d call hoarding of days - folks would book more days than they planned to use & then as they firmed up their plans they’d call & cancel the extra days. Disney started requiring them to cancel & rebook the whole reservation rather than allowing them to prune a few days from it which often resulted in the loss of the discount they’d booked under, so at least on the cash side Disney has used a more sweeping policy of change = cancel & rebook.

 

[keishashadow]

My stance will always be based on what is currently in the rules…and if DVC sees less than 20 reservations per year that appear to be rentals as a non issue, then I am okay with that.

For better or worse, I often find myself more of a contrarian. However, when it comes to DVC, I realize it’s their sandbox, they make the rules.

Love my DVC, warts and all. Doesn’t mean I won’t express my thots on it here when it comes up in discussion that is hopefully constructive in some sense.
Not sure if DVC still has readers or not to assess the waters.

 

[mort1331]

Can we all just agree that the increase of rentals sites is all because of Walt, and trying to follow in his footsteps.
He was the one who came up with the idea of multiple companies LLCs to purchase WDW, so we are just doing the same on a smaller scale.
Long live M.T.LOT

 

[lowlight]

Can we all just agree that the increase of rentals sites is all because of Walt

It’s Walt’s world, we just play in it.

 

[Pinnochio]

yes, yes, yes!

 

[xdan0920]

"Do renters impact availability?"

:Forum member posts literally hundreds of active reservations for rent on just one website:

"No, I don't think renters have much of an impact."

BLAZING DVC RENTAL STORE HEADER ADVERTISMENT.

 

[Alexander]

It’s Walt’s world, we just play in it.

Love this! So true!

 

[RickNJane]

Wow this was a lively thread! We have been DVC owners since 96 at BWV and things have changed a lot in that time. We have since added on at BLT and VDH. We almost never have a problem with finding space 11 months out. Of course we do not like crowds so generally go during "quieter times". We also prefer 1 bedroom over other room types so that is easier as well. We have rented points before but only because of life getting in the way of vacation! Better to get something for them.

I do have a problem with spec rentals and brokers using bots or other tools. I hate it when people game the system to our disadvantage. (applies generally and not just here). To mangle an old phrase If they make it cheat proof then the world will just make better cheaters.

Maybe we should go back to having to call in and the 11 months was the checkout time. I live on the west coast and remember lots of times where I would make a 1 day reservation and then get up early every morning for 2 weeks to extend it.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

Going to chime in here and kinda speak out of both sides of my mouth now that I have a little more experience with booking hard to get rooms.

I'm 100% on the side that believes there IS a lot of commercial renting activity that goes unchecked AND that activity does indeed affect availability for the every day DVC owner. Even if popular rooms would still be hard to get without the commercial renters, at least those rooms would be going to those (DVC owners) that wanted them for personal trips instead of those (non-DVC owners) that pay the rental companies for those rooms. And it's almost a certainty that software is used to help those commercial renters gain an unfair advantage. It would behoove DVC to look into it.

That being said...

I was just able to stalk a whole week in an AKV Kilimanjaro Club Level during one of the busiest holiday weeks next year. I was on every day and yes some days took longer than others but availability showed up each day. I also had a waitlist come through for a value room during another holiday break in the fall. I mean...I now see it can be done. I'm sure the spec renters and commercial renters have a majority of those rooms but I was able to score them for a personal vacation. So I guess it's not to the point of futility where the renters are making it absolutely impossible...just really difficult and time consuming.

Which then swings my thoughts back the other way when I think about how there is a large percentage of DVC owners that absolutely would not or cannot go through the rigmarole I went through to book the Club Level for a week. It took a lot of patience and dedication and avoiding my duties at work! It shouldn't be that hard but like some have pointed out those rooms would go quickly anyway...but how quickly? I started each day off with zero availability and refreshed non stop (a slight exaggeration) until I finally saw a room pop up. Assuming ZERO spec and commercial renters would there be availability for 5 minutes...an hour...the whole day...a few days? That's the question when it comes to how commercial renting affects availability.

Oh and I can definitely attest to Commercial renters affecting me personally because although I am absolutely going on that trip...don't think for a second the thought didn't cross my mind to rent that week for what I assume would be a decent chunk of change and then book the Swan or Dolphin and pocket the difference. I'm not...I'm very excited and grateful to get a chance at club level...but because of commercial renting I actually thought about it.

Until Disney decides to clamp down on commercial renters, I guess this is the system we have to work under.

 

[DL1WDW2]

Maybe DVC likes us to blame the commercial renting market for difficulty booking .
But I wonder if Disney Vacation Club is oversold …maybe a combo.
Currently my biggest concern with my membership and trying to book at 11/7 months ….
No way will me son or daughter want to inherit this ! Haha
It makes me not want to buy anymore points . Altho a fixed guaranteed week would be nice .

 

[Nappy1380]

Maybe DVC likes us to blame the commercial renting market for difficulty booking .
But I wonder if Disney Vacation Club is oversold …maybe a combo.
Currently my biggest concern with my membership and trying to book at 11/7 months ….
No way will me son or daughter want to inherit this ! Haha
It makes me not want to buy anymore points . Altho a fixed guaranteed week would be nice .

This. The availability of points/inventory is a set number and only breakage, which seems to rarely happen given the lack of availability, causes tightening of the market within 60 days.

The real culprits are the things the stuff points into the system such as Cascade Cabins and Bungalows. where they are rarely utilized however the points in are in circulation and competing for other rooms. The two bedroom penthouses in the new poly tower will most likely make things even worse IMO.

 

[Sandisw]

Going to chime in here and kinda speak out of both sides of my mouth now that I have a little more experience with booking hard to get rooms.

I'm 100% on the side that believes there IS a lot of commercial renting activity that goes unchecked AND that activity does indeed affect availability for the every day DVC owner. Even if popular rooms would still be hard to get without the commercial renters, at least those rooms would be going to those (DVC owners) that wanted them for personal trips instead of those (non-DVC owners) that pay the rental companies for those rooms. And it's almost a certainty that software is used to help those commercial renters gain an unfair advantage. It would behoove DVC to look into it.

That being said...

I was just able to stalk a whole week in an AKV Kilimanjaro Club Level during one of the busiest holiday weeks next year. I was on every day and yes some days took longer than others but availability showed up each day. I also had a waitlist come through for a value room during another holiday break in the fall. I mean...I now see it can be done. I'm sure the spec renters and commercial renters have a majority of those rooms but I was able to score them for a personal vacation. So I guess it's not to the point of futility where the renters are making it absolutely impossible...just really difficult and time consuming.

Which then swings my thoughts back the other way when I think about how there is a large percentage of DVC owners that absolutely would not or cannot go through the rigmarole I went through to book the Club Level for a week. It took a lot of patience and dedication and avoiding my duties at work! It shouldn't be that hard but like some have pointed out those rooms would go quickly anyway...but how quickly? I started each day off with zero availability and refreshed non stop (a slight exaggeration) until I finally saw a room pop up. Assuming ZERO spec and commercial renters would there be availability for 5 minutes...an hour...the whole day...a few days? That's the question when it comes to how commercial renting affects availability.

Oh and I can definitely attest to Commercial renters affecting me personally because although I am absolutely going on that trip...don't think for a second the thought didn't cross my mind to rent that week for what I assume would be a decent chunk of change and then book the Swan or Dolphin and pocket the difference. I'm not...I'm very excited and grateful to get a chance at club level...but because of commercial renting I actually thought about it.

Until Disney decides to clamp down on commercial renters, I guess this is the system we have to work under.

Here is a question to ponder. If you decided to rent your room that you worked hard to get because of its demand, how would you define that?

 

[Chuck S]

This. The availability of points/inventory is a set number and only breakage, which seems to rarely happen given the lack of availability, causes tightening of the market within 60 days.

The real culprits are the things the stuff points into the system such as Cascade Cabins and Bungalows. where they are rarely utilized however the points in are in circulation and competing for other rooms. The two bedroom penthouses in the new poly tower will most likely make things even worse IMO.

THIS...along with many smaller contracts.

For instance say that a resort has a "premium" room that takes 2000 points per week. No one really wants to stay in it for those high points. Now say the same resort has 10 studios at 100 points per week. for 1000 studio points per week total.

Now that would bring the total resort to 156,000 points per year. And say that points sell in 100 point contracts, that is 1,560 members looking to secure 520 studio weeks per year, and 2/3 of the members could not get a week in the studio at all that year. If that same resort had 200 point contracts for a minimum, it would cut those 1.560 members down to 780 members looking for those 520 studio weeks, so 1/2 the members could not get a studio week that year. If it sold in 300 point contract iincrements, that would be 520 members looking to book the 520 studio weeks per year, so basically everyone could get a studio once per year, plus have 200 additional points to use at other resorts that year.

Now this example is obviously exaggerated, but you can see how small contracts would quickly deplete availability.