Disney seems to be full everywhere during the week

[Dean]

Like most legal requirements, "too far off" is up to interpretation. If Disney has a direct or indirect monetary reason to reallocate they will.

They do it to benefit Disney, not the owners. For each point decrease that benefits an owner, a different owner will have to eat the increase.

Bill

Certainly it's up to their interpretation. I'll give them more credit than to think they'll only do it for their benefit, otherwise I wouldn't be a member. Obviously it's a wash for them other than to do as required by the legal documents and the pay they get for management. They'll share the info if you go in person to head management with an appointment, at least for any resort that one personally owns at. I doubt they will for any that one doesn't own because well, you and I don't have a legal say in those resorts.

 

[disneynutz]

Certainly it's up to their interpretation. I'll give them more credit than to think they'll only do it for their benefit, otherwise I wouldn't be a member. Obviously it's a wash for them other than to do as required by the legal documents and the pay they get for management. They'll share the info if you go in person to head management with an appointment, at least for any resort that one personally owns at. I doubt they will for any that one doesn't own because well, you and I don't have a legal say in those resorts.

I don't have that much faith in companies, most put their needs first either making mistakes or other, (Wells Fargo, Enron, Mortgage Failures, Aulani). THV's required low points to book and the guides repeated over and over to buyers about what a great deal they were, as soon as they sold out, DVC raised the point requirements.

If a reallocation isn't to their benefit then why bother, what legal authority monitors and enforces the terms of the POS, none that I know of?

Bill

 

[Dean]

I don't have that much faith in companies, most put their needs first either making mistakes or other, (Wells Fargo, Enron, Mortgage Failures, Aulani). THV's required low points to book and the guides repeated over and over to buyers about what a great deal they were, as soon as they sold out, DVC raised the point requirements.

If a reallocation isn't to their benefit then why bother, what legal authority monitors and enforces the terms of the POS, none that I know of?

Bill

A reallocation doesn't hurt them or help them other than to do their job appropriately. I'm not THAT cynical. As I noted, I wouldn't play if I felt that way and while I sometimes shake my head at the decisions they make, it's out of amazement rather than suspicion.

 

[Matty B13]

I'm sure all those people at Wells Fargo thought what they were doing was perfectly legal and moral too.......

 

[Dean]

I'm sure all those people at Wells Fargo thought what they were doing was perfectly legal and moral too.......

True, they could all be a bunch of crooks. However, IMO, once one has decide to play in their playground, you'd put a certain amount of trust into them. It's always good to be watchful and diligent but if I thought they weren't somewhat trustworthy, I wouldn't belong, PERIOD. And anyone who thinks they're dishonest, which is what's being said, shouldn't below/own long term. If they do, they'd lost a certain amount of right to complain about such issues.

 

[Matty B13]

True, they could all be a bunch of crooks. However, IMO, once one has decide to play in their playground, you'd put a certain amount of trust into them. It's always good to be watchful and diligent but if I thought they weren't somewhat trustworthy, I wouldn't belong, PERIOD. And anyone who thinks they're dishonest, which is what's being said, shouldn't below/own long term. If they do, they'd lost a certain amount of right to complain about such issues.

Management thinking it is "THEIR" playground was one of the big problems at Wells Fargo, and not the customers and shareholders company. They thought they could do no wrong, and have now trashed what up to a month ago was a very well respected company for short term gains in stock price to increase their wealth. I hope that Disney and DVC take note of this, along with all the other companies in this country.

 

[crisi]

A reallocation doesn't hurt them or help them other than to do their job appropriately. I'm not THAT cynical. As I noted, I wouldn't play if I felt that way and while I sometimes shake my head at the decisions they make, it's out of amazement rather than suspicion.

It does hurt them. It is work to reallocate points. It requires analysis and discussion. Then there are system changes and publication changes. There is the risk that someone makes a mistake and the points aren't reallocated correctly (i.e. something as stupid as a data entry error) but the bigger risk is that the fiddling creates an inefficiency somewhere else and then they have to tweak again. They take a membership satisfaction hit as well.

 

[Dean]

Management thinking it is "THEIR" playground was one of the big problems at Wells Fargo, and not the customers and shareholders company. They thought they could do no wrong, and have now trashed what up to a month ago was a very well respected company for short term gains in stock price to increase their wealth. I hope that Disney and DVC take note of this, along with all the other companies in this country.

I tend to think most companies and most people are relatively good overall. But as I said, if I thought this way about DVC, I wouldn't own and couldn't see why anyone did that felt this way.

It does hurt them. It is work to reallocate points. It requires analysis and discussion. Then there are system changes and publication changes. There is the risk that someone makes a mistake and the points aren't reallocated correctly (i.e. something as stupid as a data entry error) but the bigger risk is that the fiddling creates an inefficiency somewhere else and then they have to tweak again. They take a membership satisfaction hit as well.

But they get paid to do that and it's required under the POS in certain circumstances. Plus, if done correctly and in the right situation, it will likely generate less complaints and phone calls thus rendering advantage. Overall I think it's neutral but my reference was to Bill's idea that Disney/DVD would only do this if they had a selfish reason to do so and I absolutely disagree with that premise.

 

[UFDisChick]

Hi, I am a newbie to posting and wasn't sure where to post this question but I'm hoping someone can help (or direct me to an appropriate thread We are trying to get Dec 30 and Dec 31st for 9 of us.....we will take any resort at this point. We are on 4 waitlists (my brother is a DVC member too)....SSR (2 waitlists) AKL and BLT. I was able to snag a studio at Kidani for the two nights but obviously we need another room (at least 1 BRV or larger) to work for our party. I have been stalking the RAT and a 2 BR lake view at BLT just came available, but for only the night of the 30th. Should I grab it in hopes that the 31st will also come up at some point? If this were to happen could they merge the 2 nights into one reservation? I don't want to change any of the waitlists and have to go down to the bottom of the list again. Any strategies or suggestions would be much appreciated!!!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Hi, I am a newbie to posting and wasn't sure where to post this question but I'm hoping someone can help (or direct me to an appropriate thread We are trying to get Dec 30 and Dec 31st for 9 of us.....we will take any resort at this point. We are on 4 waitlists (my brother is a DVC member too)....SSR (2 waitlists) AKL and BLT. I was able to snag a studio at Kidani for the two nights but obviously we need another room (at least 1 BRV or larger) to work for our party. I have been stalking the RAT and a 2 BR lake view at BLT just came available, but for only the night of the 30th. Should I grab it in hopes that the 31st will also come up at some point? If this were to happen could they merge the 2 nights into one reservation? I don't want to change any of the waitlists and have to go down to the bottom of the list again. Any strategies or suggestions would be much appreciated!!!

Yes, book the BLT night. If you get the second night in the exact same room type the two can be combined.

 

[UFDisChick]

Yes, book the BLT night. If you get the second night in the exact same room type the two can be combined.

Thanks Kat....I went ahead and grabbed it. Do you think I should change the waitlist I have for the 30th and 31st to just the 31st now? I have been on the waitlist for the two nights for about a month and a half....I know if I change to just the 31st I will go to the bottom of the list for that night. What do you think?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thanks Kat....I went ahead and grabbed it. Do you think I should change the waitlist I have for the 30th and 31st to just the 31st now? I have been on the waitlist for the two nights for about a month and a half....I know if I change to just the 31st I will go to the bottom of the list for that night. What do you think?

Yes, I'd likely choose to do that. It will drop you back but it's still easier to get 1 night vs 2.

 

[Minniesgal]

People buying an off site resort now wanting to book at WDW.
People buying a less expensive resort like SSR intending to always book other resorts.
People buying a resort and deciding that they like other resorts better.
Renting, owners allowed points to be forfeited in the past, now they are booking.
Disney increasing events all year long.
More people wanting a Disney vacation.

Bill

I kinda wonder if the opposite isn't having an effect also.

We bought VGF because we love the resort and heard it would be impossible at 7 months so we only ever use those at VGF at 11 months.

We bought AKV and love it and tend to book AKV at 11 months.

We also bought VGC to use those points there

So us with our points we never create a 7 month booking opportunity as unless something goes way wrong we use them all at 11 months on home resort. We don't trade out so we don't create the option of trading in.

As newer resorts get more and more expensive it seems mad that buyers would pay a fortune for new resort points then trade them out to SSR or OKW where they could have bought resale for half that so I see a generation of buyers who buy and mostly always stay at home resort leaving less open at 7 months.

I think we are in a way seeing the consequences of buy where you want to stay.

 

[Dean]

I kinda wonder if the opposite isn't having an effect also.

We bought VGF because we love the resort and heard it would be impossible at 7 months so we only ever use those at VGF at 11 months.

We bought AKV and love it and tend to book AKV at 11 months.

We also bought VGC to use those points there

So us with our points we never create a 7 month booking opportunity as unless something goes way wrong we use them all at 11 months on home resort. We don't trade out so we don't create the option of trading in.

As newer resorts get more and more expensive it seems mad that buyers would pay a fortune for new resort points then trade them out to SSR or OKW where they could have bought resale for half that so I see a generation of buyers who buy and mostly always stay at home resort leaving less open at 7 months.

I think we are in a way seeing the consequences of buy where you want to stay.

IMO non of the issues Bill mentioned really move the needle currently, only SSR has been a big mover historically. The points at off site resorts were always more about WDW at the 7 month window than anything else, no change there. The SSR points already exist in the system and are already being used more at the 7 month window than the other WDW resorts, no change there recently. Historically members have always figured out really what they want after the fact, that's one of the reasons I'm anti new members buying the high end options. I doubt this is any different than historically, if anything, it may be better. Spreading out demand can only help overall but might hurt a given person or situation. I don't think lost points was ever a big issue for DVC but it has happened some and will cont to to so, I doubt it's much different but it could have changed a little as there are other options available now that easier than years ago. What should happen is that higher demand properties will be more difficult at 7 months. Those that own at a high end resort (that's their preference and should be if they bought there), will go on the wait list for other high end options but keep what they have if they don't match. The issue is that volume doesn't help or hurt. It's really a system that can be made worse but not really better unless the demand of SSR is increased significantly and I don't think Disney Springs or the booking category change will effect this enough to matter. The points from one 2 BR at SSR likely has as more effect on the system in terms of the 7 month window as the entire VGF resort has/will. My view is that in the absence of massive high end volume and without addition of another low demand option, we have what we have with minor variations based on maintenance and the like. I do agree there has been a trick down effect pushing those that historically have waited back all the way to their 11 month window (and beyond) in some cases and I believe that's mostly due to the affect of SSR points on the system, that should have played itself out by now. The other issue is we'll likely see some shift over time as demand rises and falls for a given time, with or without a reallocation. In the end it really doesn't matter what the average is or the overall demand, it's how it affects your or I that we'll all care about.

 

[Matty B13]

I kinda wonder if the opposite isn't having an effect also.

We bought VGF because we love the resort and heard it would be impossible at 7 months so we only ever use those at VGF at 11 months.

We bought AKV and love it and tend to book AKV at 11 months.

We also bought VGC to use those points there

So us with our points we never create a 7 month booking opportunity as unless something goes way wrong we use them all at 11 months on home resort. We don't trade out so we don't create the option of trading in.

As newer resorts get more and more expensive it seems mad that buyers would pay a fortune for new resort points then trade them out to SSR or OKW where they could have bought resale for half that so I see a generation of buyers who buy and mostly always stay at home resort leaving less open at 7 months.

I think we are in a way seeing the consequences of buy where you want to stay.

We are in the same boat mostly because we have to plan our vacations at 11 months with kids in school now, and wanting to be on the monorail. AKV seems like a no brained to add on to the end of a WDW vacation with small kids to enjoy at the resort and Animal Kingdom only really being a half day until they get older.

 

[mj2vacation]

Yea, Aulani where they subsidized dues for

I don't have that much faith in companies, most put their needs first either making mistakes or other, (Wells Fargo, Enron, Mortgage Failures, Aulani). THV's required low points to book and the guides repeated over and over to buyers about what a great deal they were, as soon as they sold out, DVC raised the point requirements.

If a reallocation isn't to their benefit then why bother, what legal authority monitors and enforces the terms of the POS, none that I know of?

Bill

with Aulani, they are subsidizing dues for anyone who bought before x day.. every purchaser received an offer to get a FULL refund of all expenses.... how does that relate to Enron exactly?

As a former cm, I can throw many stones at DIS and DVC, but your aim is WAY off.

 

[disneynutz]

Yea, Aulani where they subsidized dues for

with Aulani, they are subsidizing dues for anyone who bought before x day.. every purchaser received an offer to get a FULL refund of all expenses.... how does that relate to Enron exactly?

As a former cm, I can throw many stones at DIS and DVC, but your aim is WAY off.

The fact that the Aulani issue occurred at all should make people keep their eyes open, yes three Disney executives were fired and existing owners received a refund or subsidized dues. Was it an error or did people push the numbers too far to look good?

Bill

 

[Matty B13]

I'll just say this, I'm 42 years old and have seen countless scandals perpetrated bye high level executives all in the name of "Profits" (greed). I'm sure not one of these executives start their day thinking that that they are going to do something dishonest to take people's money, but it still keeps on happening in this country. It seems to be a culture that has infected business executives that "shareholder" value is the only thing that matters when making a decision now a days. What is "Moral" to the average American and what is "Moral" to high level executives are two completely different thing now. The latest example is the CEO of Wells Fargo's complete lack of real shame about what he and his executives did, which was establish a high pressure sales system that rewarded out-right fraud. I believe he should be brought up on RICO charges for what he created. This could very easily happen at Disney or any other company and isn't a pessimistic view, to many examples of it happening, but a real one. Unfortunately it takes the subpoena power of state and federal officials to found out if a business is being dishonest, that the average person doesn't have access to. The average person isn't a "dope" if they fall for one of these complex scandals setup bye dishonest people, just unfortunate. Being an owner, stockholder, of S&P 500 index funds, which includes Wells Fargo I am very upset by the recent scandal and complete lack of real accountablity.

Rant over!!! I'll get off my soapbox........

 

[Dean]

I'll just say this, I'm 42 years old and have seen countless scandals perpetrated bye high level executives all in the name of "Profits" (greed). I'm sure not one of these executives start their day thinking that that they are going to do something dishonest to take people's money, but it still keeps on happening in this country. It seems to be a culture that has infected business executives that "shareholder" value is the only thing that matters when making a decision now a days. What is "Moral" to the average American and what is "Moral" to high level executives are two completely different thing now. The latest example is the CEO of Wells Fargo's complete lack of real shame about what he and his executives did, which was establish a high pressure sales system that rewarded out-right fraud. I believe he should be brought up on RICO charges for what he created. This could very easily happen at Disney or any other company and isn't a pessimistic view, to many examples of it happening, but a real one. Unfortunately it takes the subpoena power of state and federal officials to found out if a business is being dishonest, that the average person doesn't have access to. The average person isn't a "dope" if they fall for one of these complex scandals setup bye dishonest people, just unfortunate. Being an owner, stockholder, of S&P 500 index funds, which includes Wells Fargo I am very upset by the recent scandal and complete lack of real accountablity.

Rant over!!! I'll get off my soapbox........

I'm not sure any of that is really applicable here if you continue to be a member. Could it happen, sure as it could at any company, church, etc. But DVC is a voluntary membership, unlike the government, so for anyone that felt this way about DVC, they really shouldn't be a member. Otherwise it'd be like owning Wells Fargo while this was going on and having knowledge it was happening but continuing to own.

 

[Matty B13]

I'm not sure any of that is really applicable here if you continue to be a member. Could it happen, sure as it could at any company, church, etc. But DVC is a voluntary membership, unlike the government, so for anyone that felt this way about DVC, they really shouldn't be a member. Otherwise it'd be like owning Wells Fargo while this was going on and having knowledge it was happening but continuing to own.

Actually Dean, I feel completely the opposite way, it might be voluntary but "owners" and shareholders should demand better of these executives. Anyone with a 401k is affected by these decisions, and now that pensions are pretty much gone in this country, a 401k is the only instrument to save for your retirement besides a bed mattress.

The point is that executives only worried about boosting a company's quarterly stock price isn't looking long turn to increase the real value of a company. Warren Buffet talks a lot about this. If Disney loses their costumer base to short sighted decisions it could costs DVC owners more in the long run because we are locked in for 50 years and will have to pay for the up keeep.

But, I'm really glad that I found Disboards and members like yourself that have a great knowledge of the DVC system and are keeping a close watch on the mouse.