Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[epcotwanderer]

I understand the Sun-Thurs people being upset. And a 30 point increase does seem high to me. But another way to look at it is those who stay more weekend days who have been gouged for points for years in the past are finally getting a break with a more even allocation of points during the week. It's still higher on the weekends but not double, which was just nuts IMHO.

Thank you for seeing this! I think the new point charts will create a better balance. I always get gouged for my long weekends (Sun-Thurs uses too much vacation time). It's nice to see that I'm not being penalized for that now!! I'm psyched to finally have a break on Fri/Sat nights.

 

[tjkraz]

No, that's not accurate. They can't change the total points for all units at the reort - so you need to add up the total points needed to reserve all of the studios, 1BRs, 2BRs and GVs. They can then modiify the room types based on seasons anyway they want as long as the total points are not changed.

Thus, they could balance the total points at SSR by rasing the 1BR points by 10,000 for the year and lowering the GV points by 10,000 and they would still be in balance without making any other changes. In reality, there are millions of points available to balance the system.

Are you sure about that, Doc?

I'll explain why I ask. My SSR deed lists my ownership rights as "An undivided 0.3284% interest in Unit 1B of Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort..." Later on it does reference the 150 vacation points, but with the caveat that the points are defined "for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose."

So my question is this: Wouldn't alterations to the point charts which span multiple room sizes have a trickle-down impact on my ownership and thus be prohibited? In other words, let's assume that a Two Bedroom Villa represents 20,000 points and that I own .3294%. If DVC changes the charts such that the 2B is now 22,000 points, I no longer own .3294%.

Wouldn't that fact alone keep them from rebalancing across multiple units?

Tim

 

[MikeyNS]

It's kind of a bummer for us.. we purchased a small 25pt BWV contract so that we could stay in the off season for the 5 days by banking and borrowing, leaving our main one alone for a year. It was supposed to work well, but now we can't.
Needless to say that small contract will be on the resale market very soon as it's become useless to us. You win some, you lose some!

 

[tjkraz]

I'm guessing they are coming up with another PR statement to tell us that "we" requested this change.

This made me laugh out loud.

Is there REALLY any doubt that members (and potential members) HAVE asked for a weekend reduction repeatedly over the years?

Look at all of the replies on this thread alone from people who are happy with the change. To be honest, those numbers surprise me a bit. I figured reactions would be about 99% against this move--at least in terms of the people who were willing to speak up and voice their opinions. Instead there are quite a few people saying "it's about time!"

Did people requesting lower weekend points understand that it would mean higher weekdays? Some yes, others no.

Would it pass a majority vote if members were asked to voice an opinion? Probably not. But in a case like this DVC has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the whole--not to just allow majority rule. Heck, if members were given their way I bet we could get a majority to vote in favor of charts that charged 1 point per night for weekdays and hundreds for the weekends.

I don't see member requests as being the single driving force behind this change. But I think it's ridiculous to act as if nobody has ever openly requested lower weekend points.

 

[Scott]

Thank you for seeing this! I think the new point charts will create a better balance. I always get gouged for my long weekends (Sun-Thurs uses too much vacation time). It's nice to see that I'm not being penalized for that now!! I'm psyched to finally have a break on Fri/Sat nights.

How does this change create better balance? If the problem is an excess of sun-thursday travelers, how does this change improve that? That is, how will an increase in sun-thursday points make it easier for these members to take more weekend trips? It seems to me that it will simply take a night away from their trips and give an extra night (friday or sunday) to the current weekend travelers. I'm a 6 night traveler usually, but I have to say I always appreciated the mid-week point structure as my preference is to avoid weekend crowds at the parks. I think if we heard the logic behind the move, it would be easier to accept.

 

[photobob]

Any possibility that they posted those charts to gauge reaction?

 

[wdwaholic2]

When I was buying my points in 2005 I specifically asked my guide if the points would increase. She stated "absolutley not" the only changes are if holidays change from year to year.

I asked again when I did a small add on just last year and again I was reassured this would not happen.

I bought my points knowing I would need so many for Sun-Thurs stays and now, I don't have enough.

I'm very disappointed with Disney right now and I'm very upset that I encouraged people to buy and told them I was told points wouldn't go up.

 

[RobDoc]

Are you sure about that, Doc?

I'll explain why I ask. My SSR deed lists my ownership rights as "An undivided 0.3284% interest in Unit 1B of Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort..." Later on it does reference the 150 vacation points, but with the caveat that the points are defined "for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose."

So my question is this: Wouldn't alterations to the point charts which span multiple room sizes have a trickle-down impact on my ownership and thus be prohibited? In other words, let's assume that a Two Bedroom Villa represents 20,000 points and that I own .3294%. If DVC changes the charts such that the 2B is now 22,000 points, I no longer own .3294%.

Wouldn't that fact alone keep them from rebalancing across multiple units?

Tim

If you owned a % of a single villa, that might be true, but a "Unit 1B" is not a single villa - it is a group of villas which would include at least several different villas if not some from all types. At OKW a "unit" is an entire building (and not all buildings have GVs), but it is different at other resorts - some have even posted room groupings by "unit" for AKV. This is the reason that "The total points at the resort" cannot change, but the points may be reallocated - even to the extent of a "maximum reallocation" where every night would be the same. Again, I don't think any DVC member owns a portion of a single villa.

This is how it has been explained to me by several from DVC in conversations over the years.

 

[DeeCee735]

My guess would be that's not accurate. Actually weekly points can go up. What can't change is a UNIT for the entire year. With a few units that are 3 BR, all other units I'm aware of are a collection of multiple rooms. But if a single unit was a 2 BR lockoff, they could lower the studio and raise the 1 BR and still be within the rules. Or they could raise this week and lower next week if they wanted.

Can anyone confirm this? It is my understanding that the points per week, per unit cannot go up, i.e. if a studio is 100 points (using this for example only), for a full week at any one resort, it cannot go higher than 100 for that week even though the points for the days that make up the week may be changed, i.e. sun - thurs raised, friday and saturday decreased.

Am I wrong? Where in the contract does it explain this?

I can't imagine weekly points can be raised. Meaning in 10 years a 100 point contract (again, using for example only) that got someone an accomodation for a full week, is now 160 points????? How can that be? Forcing people to sell or buy more? Other timeshares a week is a week forever, I can't imagine DVC can just increase at will over the years making any one contract unusable without buying more or borrowing??

If that's the case, selling my smaller contracts makes a whole lot of sense...

 

[KLR-wlv]

Buying Dean's "10% cushion" would still do no good at Vero - the points for Beach cottages in all seasons and a 2 br in premier season (probably others - didn't check) sun - thursday went up EXACTLY 20% - the amount allowed in the contract - which makes me suspect they aren't finished adjusting. I have a feeling that screws many a people up who bought for Beach cottage rentals since I doubt too many planned to stay weekends and spend 200 points. So my Vero points have been devalued by 20% - for 2010. Maybe another 20% in 2011. It makes any kind of planning impossible. Unless I just buy 700 points to have "just in case". WHatever problems are with Marriott - you get 7 days in a 2 bedroom that you can count on forever.

 

[starbox]

One thing lower weekend points does is make paying members cash much less attractive. Under the "old chart" - a weekend stay was cheaper paying cash than using points if you figured 10pp. With the new chart - the cash and point price are about equal (assumming 10$ per point).isn

My question is - won't this hurt DVC??? I always assummed getting member cash prices from me for the weekend (250+ per room and no housekeeping) was good for Disney. I stayed longer at the resort, paid them (in addition to my MF and DVC cost) additional cash for a room (and more than the discount they were probably offering CRO guests).

While I won't be likely to book weekend trips on points (the weekend is still too expensive) - I won't be paying Disney the extra 500$ per vacation I was paying for an extra weekend stay. Those two nights used to give me enough points for 5 weekday nights and it was worth the $$$$.

 

[Scott]

Any possibility that they posted those charts to gauge reaction?

Boy, they certainly didn't take public relations into consideration if that is the case! If they wanted a civil reaction perhaps that could have posted it on the member site as a proposed change, and then asked for feedback. Personally, I am one who will not be affected much by the change since I take 6 night trips, however, I still feel a bit disenchanted by the severity of the change and especially how it is being handled. I suppose I can't help but think "what's next?" (The minimum stay requirement would be a body blow). Above all else, I think DVC members need to figure out how to have a stronger voice in these decisions that "improve member services." There seems to be a disconnect between recent changes and the actual experience of the majority of DVC members.

 

[jekjones1558]

How does this change create better balance? If the problem is an excess of sun-thursday travelers, how does this change improve that? That is, how will an increase in sun-thursday points make it easier for these members to take more weekend trips? It seems to me that it will simply take a night away from their trips and give an extra night (friday or sunday) to the current weekend travelers. I'm a 6 night traveler usually, but I have to say I always appreciated the mid-week point structure as my preference is to avoid weekend crowds at the parks. I think if we heard the logic behind the move, it would be easier to accept.

Disney's responsibility is not to make things better for any individual DVC member but to try to balance demand for rooms. Currently that is not happening. The changes may not entice all current Sun.-Fri. vacationers to occasionally go on a weekend, but it will get some to do so. We currently stay at least a week but NEVER include 2 weekends. Now we will be much more likely to disregard the issue of weekday/weekend costs.
I hope that a side benefit for those who only book weekdays will be that demand for those days will ease up just a bit, making availability better at 7 months and during high demand times.

 

[paults]

IMO these charts were posted (by mistake) to see what kind of reaction they would get from us.
Legal or not , it would not be a good move DVC. IMHO

My add-on will now go to MOTEL 8 AND THEIR NEW TIMESHARE IN ORLANDO.
Where I will be able to stay a month on 28 to 31 pts, depending on the month. (that's only 1 pt a day) can't beat that. And I will just go to Universal and Sea World

Now if these pts do change then I think DVC should give us members something like
1-- another $100 discount on AP's (total of $200 discount)
2-- 2 My way tickets for the price of one(any combo)
3-- US BWV'ers want the ATTIC back

DISNEY I KNOW YOU'RE READING, you're us into a corner and I do believe that you will lose some long time members with all these changes you're making.
You are making it harder and harder to believe in the MAGIC anymore

 

[epcotwanderer]

Is there REALLY any doubt that members (and potential members) HAVE asked for a weekend reduction repeatedly over the years?

Look at all of the replies on this thread alone from people who are happy with the change. To be honest, those numbers surprise me a bit. I figured reactions would be about 99% against this move--at least in terms of the people who were willing to speak up and voice their opinions. Instead there are quite a few people saying "it's about time!"

Did people requesting lower weekend points understand that it would mean higher weekdays? Some yes, others no.

Would it pass a majority vote if members were asked to voice an opinion? Probably not. But in a case like this DVC has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the whole--not to just allow majority rule. Heck, if members were given their way I bet we could get a majority to vote in favor of charts that charged 1 point per night for weekdays and hundreds for the weekends.

I don't see member requests as being the single driving force behind this change. But I think it's ridiculous to act as if nobody has ever openly requested lower weekend points.

I agree. Why should I pay 49 points for a weekend stay (Fri-Mon) when during the week it is 27 (Sun-Wed)? I think that is way out of whack. I know we all bought but I am happy that it will be more equitable for every night stay now. I think if it were put to a vote the new charts would pass. This is only the second time in EIGHTEEN YEARS this has happened. It's about time!!!

 

[RobDoc]

Can anyone confirm this? It is my understanding that the points per week, per unit cannot go up, i.e. if a studio is 100 points (using this for example only), for a full week at any one resort, it cannot go higher than 100 for that week even though the points for the days that make up the week may be changed, i.e. sun - thurs raised, friday and saturday decreased.

Am I wrong? Where in the contract does it explain this?

I can't imagine weekly points can be raised. Meaning in 10 years a 100 point contract (again, using for example only) that got someone an accomodation for a full week, is now 160 points????? How can that be? Forcing people to sell or buy more? Other timeshares a week is a week forever, I can't imagine DVC can just increase at will over the years making any one contract unusable without buying more or borrowing??

If that's the case, selling my smaller contracts makes a whole lot of sense...

Yes, a week may be raised as long as something else is lowered - even another type of villa. A "Unit" is not a single villa, it is a group of villas. At OKW is is an entire building, but is different at the other resorts. It is not just one villa though.

If it now costs 160 for 7 nights at OKW in a 1BR during Adventure Season (16 pts weeknites/40 points weekends). The new charts apparently show that that same week in 2010 will be 159 points (19 weekdays/32 weekends) - so a net drop, which means that some other week (or villa type) has been raised to keep the system in balance. For those who used to stay 5 nights - the change went from 80 points in 2009 to 95 points in 2010. There are similar situations - some will benefiit, some will not - at each resort (including BLT which has not even opened).

the total points at the resort cannot change, but DVC can juggle that total thru throughout the resort to keep it balanced. No members own a specific type of villa oor specific week - the flexibility of DVC - but DVC can and has changed the way those points work.

The issue is that we have all found how the current system worked for our specific situation and have made plans based on that system - even knowing that DVC could change the system (but trusting they would not). We are all now faced with the need to figure out how to best use the new system with our current ownership - and either add more points, sell points or keep what we have.

 

[tjkraz]

If you owned a % of a single villa, that might be true, but a "Unit 1B" is not a single villa - it is a group of villas which would include at least several different villas if not some from all types. At OKW a "unit" is an entire building (and not all buildings have GVs), but it is different at other resorts - some have even posted room groupings by "unit" for AKV. This is the reason that "The total points at the resort" cannot change, but the points may be reallocated - even to the extent of a "maximum reallocation" where every night would be the same. Again, I don't think any DVC member owns a portion of a single villa.

This is how it has been explained to me by several from DVC in conversations over the years.

I understand that a unit is a group of rooms. But since units appear to often be random groupings of physical rooms, crossing those boundaries from one room size to another would appear to be exceedingly difficult. As you said, some OKW units have Grand Villas and others do not. It seems like it would be impossible to blend (for example) a global increase in Grand Villa point costs across all of the OKW units and still have those deeded ownership percentages be equal.

I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just trying to make sense of this aspect of it. According to the deed the number of points I own is almost an incidental figure. It's a unit of measure to simplify our lives.

What I really (legally) own is .3284% of a physical building. And if the points are shuffled across multiple room sizes, my 150 points would almost certainly no longer equate to the .3284%. Ignoring the entire issue of how far points go, changing the ownership percentage seems like the equivalent of selling someone 5 acres of land and later saying "oh, well you only have 4 1/2 acres now." I'm not grasping how that is possible.

If I owned a fixed percentage of "Saratoga Springs Resort", then it would make more sense that the points could be shuffled however they wish. But the existence of the legal units makes this less clear.

 

[RobDoc]

...
What I really (legally) own is .3284% of a physical building. And if the points are shuffled across multiple room sizes, my 150 points would almost certainly no longer equate to the .3284%. Ignoring the entire issue of how far points go, changing the ownership percentage seems like the equivalent of selling someone 5 acres of land and later saying "oh, well you only have 4 1/2 acres now." I'm not grasping how that is possible.
...

Yes, but you can use your ownership to reserve any type of villa at that resort, you are not restricted to any single type of room and you may never stay in your "Unit 1B". My understanding of the % of ownership is that for legal reasons we had to own a portion of a specific physical entity. We could not own a % of SSR since no members have ownership of the public areas at the resort - we own only the accommodations and that is represented by that (small) %.

In that building are Studios, 1BRs, 2BRs and GVs and your "Unit 1B" may include portions of each of those types of villas.

Your 150 points have never represented any specific villa or date - they have no monetary value (as defined in the POS). Those points may presently have more "value" when used for a Studio in Adventure Season than they do if used for a GV at Christmas - and that "value" may have changed in the opposite direction for 2010 (I have not looked at the SSR chart - only using that as an example).

 

[december14disney]

Is there REALLY any doubt that members (and potential members) HAVE asked for a weekend reduction repeatedly over the years?

Look at all of the replies on this thread alone from people who are happy with the change. To be honest, those numbers surprise me a bit. I figured reactions would be about 99% against this move--at least in terms of the people who were willing to speak up and voice their opinions. Instead there are quite a few people saying "it's about time!"

Did people requesting lower weekend points understand that it would mean higher weekdays? Some yes, others no.

Would it pass a majority vote if members were asked to voice an opinion? Probably not. But in a case like this DVC has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the whole--not to just allow majority rule. Heck, if members were given their way I bet we could get a majority to vote in favor of charts that charged 1 point per night for weekdays and hundreds for the weekends.

I don't see member requests as being the single driving force behind this change. But I think it's ridiculous to act as if nobody has ever openly requested lower weekend points.

Sure. Ill agree. I even thought weekends were too high. But the "change" that really bothers me is that I own at AKV and Savanna view rooms had an increase across the board where the "balance" was bringing down the points in value studios. No one asked for that change.

 

[pakhowe]

Again, I am mostly disapointed with the timing of these changes. This will increase the cost of our first vacation home by about 50 points. I believe DVC would open itself up to possible litigation if these new charts were to take affect.

I know our guide told us to look at the charts decide what time of year and days of week we would be traveling and purchase points based on that. We were informed that the point distribution could change, but the changes would be very small and this just gave DVC the flexibility to adjust for when holidays such as Easter and Thanksgiving fell. We are then told that if we do not make the purchase by the end of our stay we will not get the incentives (the stick which accompanies the carrot).

It is true the contract allows for these types of point redistributions. However, there is more to contract law than the contract itself. Sales practices and information relayed by representives can impact a contract. Particuarly if trends can be demonstrated. Just by reading this thread, I see many purchasers were given the same misinformation at the time of sale that I was.

For me, I would find this much more acceptable if adequate notice were given prior to the change taking affect. There is no way DVC didn't have this in the works when I made my purchase.

It is understood that DVC is for people who can plan their vacations well ahead of time. The information to plan them should be provided well ahaed of time.