Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[jarestel]

I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate? Did Disney release information indicating how this change would be a net benefit for the overall membership?

No, they did not release any such information. Which makes any conclusions one draws on either side of the issue strictly conjecture. If we choose to believe that DVC made this decision with the knowledge that it would be detrimental to the majority of it's members, then quite frankly, why would either of us want to belong to a club like that.

On the other hand, it makes sense from a logical perspective that the change was implemented to benefit members as a whole. Believing otherwise would make us seem like chumps for continuing to do business with an entity we have deemed untrustworthy.

 

[Dean]

This does not make any sense at all that the points were out of whack for so long.
BCV came on line in 2002. They could have sold BCV with a different points schedule. There were no pre-existing members who would have been upset by it.
SSR came on line in 2004. They could have sold SSR with a different points schedule.

Same goes for AKV and BLT. So what was the basis for the previous points schedules?

Why they waited so long is a fair question. My info suggests it's been out of balance since about 1999 but with the ending of the free passes they didn't want to make any changes. Also they were so shell shocked after the reaction they got from the 1996 change which cost some snowbirds a whole week or more BTW. 2001-2002 was when it likely should have happened. My guess, and it's simply a guess, is there was a combo of factors. Mild worsening of the issue due to smaller contracts, more people complaining related to availability due to the 7 day reservation rule and more people vacationing closer to hope complaining about weekend costs.

Dean,

Are you sure you're not employed by Disney???

LOL, I'm sure. For most things I'm usually taking them or at least aspects of the system, to task. But I am a very practical person and I go into timeshares considering the worst case scenarios and planning for most things that could hurt me personally. I did this with DVC and the others I own. Of course taken to the absolute end point, no one would buy timeshares if they assumed only the worst. DVC is still a good product, there has been NO change there. What has changed is that it is no longer right for a small subset of owners or potential owners. Other than some questionable timing issues, DVC has done nothing wrong.

I would like to thank those that (I think) defended me and my honor.

Rational and unemotional? Umm, last time I checked he still doesn't feel anybody should be unhappy with losing value in their membership. It was all the buyers fault for not padding their points purchase by 20% or more.

That's not quite what I said. What I said was I didn't think you could be unhappy with DVC for doing what they are obligated and have the right to do. You can simply be unhappy if you want and it seems a lot of people have chosen to do so.

 

[TSMIII]

But those "extra" points of yours have to come from somewhere. If you keep your current holdings and take fewer trips, then you are freeing up weekdays for other people which would not have been available under the old charts.

Meanwhile someone who uses points for weekend stays will find their points go further.
Or DVC will be more attractive to people who favor the more reasonably-priced weekends.

However you slide it, the weekday nights now have capacity to absorb a larger number of all DVC points that have been issued.

This will be us.

Due to airfare costs we seek to maximize our # of days on vacation since we typically only take one "flying" vacation per year. Thus far that has meant a minimum of 7 days and a desire to stay longer.

With weekend points now lower it will be more cost effective than it was previously for us to add days on to either the beginning or end of our 7 day stays.

 

[jarestel]

But, but, but...if the change doesn't alter the booking patterns, what is accomplished? As a Sun-Thurs traveler, I'll still stay Sun-Thurs, spend the extra points, and continue to avoid weekends. So the cost has gone up for me and down for the weekender (which is fair), but the weekender still doesn't get my week nights. Don't know if this will be typical or not, but I guess time will tell. In my case and probably many others, the week night points didn't go up enough to warrant my spending less days, and the weekends didn't go down enough to interest me in staying longer.

Suppose this is not the final adjustment if booking patterns remain essentially the same. It's not beyond the realm of possibility (anymore) that further reallocations will occur in the coming years until the goal is, in fact accomplished. (This is entirely a what-if & suppose scenario)

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

You may well be correct, but it's also something you could cautiously file under the heading of "be careful what you wish for..."

Bear with me for a moment. Let's assume that BLT would actually get a reprieve from the 2010 increases. That sets up the following scenario:

In my mind it's not about a reprieve but that fact that buyers were shown a point chart that is already out of date and now people may need a few more points to accomplish the stay they were purchasing for.
I wouldn't ask for a reprieve but rather a chance to have the proper number of points. Of course, that's still a guess for the future but at least you wouldn't already be short before it even opened and you wouldn't be required to purchase an additional 100 pts (or even 25 pts if they decided to make an exception for a short time).

 

[Disneyjamie]

Subscribing

 

[Lexxiefern]

I know I am probably in the minority here, but this adjustment will probably work well for us. We take about 3 weekend trips per year (thurs - mon) and so we will save a few points. My January 8 night trip will cost me a few more however. Really this doesn't impact me much.

 

[Dean]

I'm not so sure folks are going to like it when reality sets in. The rules say 2 WL's per membership per UY. So, what if you have the same UY and multiple home resorts? You are not allowed to have more than 2 WLs going? Hardly seems fair.

It depends on how they implement it, has anyone gotten additional info from DVC? Is each resort counted as a separate WL? Certainly adds value to separate master contracts.

This really is horrible. What a joke. Now as I'm looking more at it, it really hurts those who were able really stretch their points with Sun through Thursday stays.

I think that was their intent. Not to hurt people but to decrease the stretching of points for weekdays and encourage more weekend usage by both longer stays and weekend stays. Some will cont S-F, we likely will for part of our trips. If we do, we'll likely spend more points which will leave us less to spend later. That frees up space for someone else who might not have been able to get what they wanted otherwise.

All points systems I know of where stays shorter than a full week are an option weight them for weekends vs weekdays. They all vary with as little as a 1.5 to 1 rations up to some with a 5 to 1 ratio. In addition other systems sometime do things like requiring full week stays for higher demand times or allowing shorter reservations at a later date than 7 days or more.

 

[toocherie]

In my mind it's not about a reprieve but that fact that buyers were shown a point chart that is already out of date and now people may need a few more points to accomplish the stay they were purchasing for.
I wouldn't ask for a reprieve but rather a chance to have the proper number of points. Of course, that's still a guess for the future but at least you wouldn't already be short before it even opened and you wouldn't be required to purchase an additional 100 pts (or even 25 pts if they decided to make an exception for a short time).

Personally, I would have no problem (and think it would be fair) for DVC to allow those members who bought in the past few months at BLT or Kidani to add on a few points (even less than 25 frankly) to their original contracts in order to satisfy a shortfall, since I'm sure if they bought 200 points and now need 215 to satisfy their anticipated vacation need they would have bought the 215 to begin with. But, as Dean has previously suggested, I would also think given what has happened that those members might be well advised to "pad" their purchase in anticipation that there may be future adjustments.

 

[tjkraz]

In my mind it's not about a reprieve but that fact that buyers were shown a point chart that is already out of date and now people may need a few more points to accomplish the stay they were purchasing for.
I wouldn't ask for a reprieve but rather a chance to have the proper number of points. Of course, that's still a guess for the future but at least you wouldn't already be short before it even opened and you wouldn't be required to purchase an additional 100 pts (or even 25 pts if they decided to make an exception for a short time).

I understand the dissatisfaction over the way this was released. And I've stated multiple times that I agree BLT owners were not treated properly here.

But setting that commentary aside, this would very much be a reprieve. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the point charts have been skewed for quite a few years now. BLT will be no different. And if BLT were to be the only resort to keep its 2009 chart for another year or two, the imbalance could be even worse. As I demonstrated it would be much cheaper to move to BCV, BWV, AKV Savanna or any other DVC resort/class on the weekends and still save points. IMO, it's not too far-fetched for BLT to be a virtual ghost town on those weekends, with only the die-hards that refuse to move sticking it out.

And then when the inevitable reallocation for BLT did occur, you may be paying even MORE on the weekdays.

You may see it as an opportunity to set the charts correctly for BLT, but know that the values would ultimately be skewed by the existence of cheaper options at other resorts. And BLT owners would ultimately pay the price for the data being skewed.

 

[flyerron]

When we bought it ws made clear that DVC could change the point structure from year to year. But the total points per year cannot be changed. It seems that DVC is trying to even out the days of stay. Apparnetly there has been lopsided usage Sun-Thurs. This makes the weekend stays a bit more attractive at certain times. Change is most often viewed negatively at first but actually this may work out well as time goes on. Then again maybe not. I would bank on changes again in a few years.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Originally Posted by tjkraz
But those "extra" points of yours have to come from somewhere. If you keep your current holdings and take fewer trips, then you are freeing up weekdays for other people which would not have been available under the old charts.

But was there some other issue besides ? I have NEVER had an issue getting OKW (weekday or weekend) for them to put me in a 30 point deficit ? OKW rarely books up solid except busy seasons (and I'm not even counting summer because we've been able to book there 30-40 days out during summer months). So I can't imagine people at OKW were unable to get weekdays ?

And besides.....dh and I worked out how we can maximize our 150 points there during the week every year.
Night 1: 2 studios = 24 points
Nights 2-3 : 1 bedroom = 52 points
Nights 4-5 : 2 bedroom = 72 points

This will be 148 (plus extra housekeeping costs for DVC that they ordinarily wouldn't have incurred with us). I'll probably use the extra 2 points towards AKV where I am also coming up short----but much less so---for week days.

Maria

 

[Dean]

I have NEVER had an issue getting OKW (weekday or weekend) for them to put me in a 30 point deficit ? OKW rarely books up solid except busy seasons (and I'm not even counting summer because we've been able to book there 30-40 days out during summer months). So I can't imagine people at OKW were unable to get weekdays ?

For a sold out resort it should end up booking pretty solid most of the year. So if there is excess inventory, that is a major problem and one that should be addressed by all means possible. It means there are excess points some where. DVC has addressed it somewhat by using a disproportionate amount of excess points (exchanges and the like) at SSR and OKW along with cash rental inventory slanted to those 2 resorts. The problem is there is only so much they can do. It's possible we'll see re-allocation that's disproportionate to certain resorts just for this reason. I wonder what the percentage of points are owned and lost due to this issue, it's got to be substantial across the membership.

 

[tjkraz]

But was there some other issue besides ? I have NEVER had an issue getting OKW (weekday or weekend) for them to put me in a 30 point deficit ? OKW rarely books up solid except busy seasons (and I'm not even counting summer because we've been able to book there 30-40 days out during summer months). So I can't imagine people at OKW were unable to get weekdays ?

Assuming 100% weekday occupancy is probably not the best approach. But even if it's 90% weekday and 70% weekend on average, it shows that the points are skewed.

DVC is legally obligated to adjust for historical trends. So I guess we have to take it for granted that these adjustments are commensurate with member bookings in recent years.

If these changes do not correspond to demand shifts, then DVC is breaching its fiduciary responsibility to members and violating Florida law. I doubt any of us have evidence to suggest that is the case.

 

[ashbradnmom]

Subscribing

Sammie....the above statement fits my situation to a "T".
I am one of the Sun-Thurs crowd. We have a total of 250 points now between OKW and AKV.

But, we have always utilized the Sun-Thurs both due to lower points, as well as the fact that I have owned an offsite timeshare since 1994 and I MUST check-in and out on a weekend so we have always added time to our vacation by tagging on days with DVC Sun thru Thurs. I have had no choice or flexibility with my offsite timeshare. And I knew this at the time of siging. Occasionally we have booked weekends with DVC (but I can count on one hand the number of times)......

But by DVC inducting this allocation....sure, the weekends went down, but the weeknights went up. So there is no way I can ever work around the fact that I am coming up short 30 points every year. And lower weekend points will not encourage me to stay on weekends any more than before the allocation. Because I will always be able to stretch out my points by using weeknights.....it's just harder to do that now. I just wonder if we will see a big increase in the booking of studios and 1 bedrooms vs the 2 bedrooms from the Sun thru Thurs crowd in an attempt to retain the same length of vacation. People like me trying to recoup the lost points ? I wonder if this new allocation will make people downsize on a large scale. Only time will tell. I honestly don't think I'm the only Sun-Thurs person thinking about this & I'm sure I'm not the only Sun-Thurs DVC'er who has no plans to stay weekends simply because they dropped the points. This clearly benefits the weekend crowd the most. And there seems to be alot of them coming forward here so I don't get how there could be so much availability on the weekends considering so many here that state they stay over weekends, that DVC was pushed in the direction it took ?


bookwormd....very well written and thought-out post.......

Sorry about the bold type Disneyjamie and any others I have offended. I've been on these boards for 8 years and have thousands of posts and done this quite often. You are the first person in all that time to ever say anything to me. I never thought it was an issue.

not to disrespect you but i do believe you stated earlier that you could only go over spring break because of your kids school schedule. but you are talking about adding sun-thur at disney after your other week. i dont get it. i am just a little confused

 

[baj0505]

No, they did not release any such information. Which makes any conclusions one draws on either side of the issue strictly conjecture. If we choose to believe that DVC made this decision with the knowledge that it would be detrimental to the majority of it's members, then quite frankly, why would either of us want to belong to a club like that.

On the other hand, it makes sense from a logical perspective that the change was implemented to benefit members as a whole. Believing otherwise would make us seem like chumps for continuing to do business with an entity we have deemed untrustworthy.

Thanks, my sole purpose in asking was to be sure I hadn't overlooked or not received some information. The fact that so far they have chosen not to provide prior notice to these changes nor make any additional information available showing how it benefits the majority of the members is enough reason for my DH to question continuing to do business with such an entity.

 

[toocherie]

Thanks, my sole purpose in asking was to be sure I hadn't overlooked or not received some information. The fact that so far they have chosen not to provide prior notice to these changes nor make any additional information available showing how it benefits the majority of the members is enough reason for my DH to question continuing to do business with such an entity.

Here's a question for those of you who know the contracts better than I do--do we as members have the right to request the 'back-up' which supports the point chart changes? (i.e., the occupancy rates for the various resorts showing the disparity between weekdays and weekends)? I would assume Disney would not like to give out that info as being proprietary but am wondering if we have the right to get it.

 

[dis-happy]

It depends on how they implement it, has anyone gotten additional info from DVC? Is each resort counted as a separate WL? Certainly adds value to separate master contracts.

What do you think about the reallocation in conjuction with the new waitlist? One person has already been told no w/l if there is an existing reservation. Not sure if that is true information or not (MS has been known to give out incorrect information before). But if that is the case, there is going to be one heck of a game of chicken at the 7 month window for those wishing to stay someplace besides their home resort.

Say even half of the previous Sun-Thurs. people continue their travel pattern (it will still maximize point usage), those same stays are using up more points, and at some point extra nights will be opening up as a result. Combined with the new restrictions on the W/L and I think the end result is more rooms open for booking after 7 months. I still wonder if an intended consequence of these two new combined "member enhancements" is to aid the sales team, that the incentives which include developer points are going to go way up and that there needs to be a way to use them (nothing says "Welcome Home" like no room at the inn you've just been promised).

Just trying to see why it behooves DVC to make these two changes at the same time and it seems there should be a logicistical connection.

 

[baj0505]

Here's a question for those of you who know the contracts better than I do--do we as members have the right to request the 'back-up' which supports the point chart changes? (i.e., the occupancy rates for the various resorts showing the disparity between weekdays and weekends)? I would assume Disney would not like to give out that info as being proprietary but am wondering if we have the right to get it.

Well, I don't know if DH had the right to ask when he sent his email this morning. But along with stating his dissatisfaction of not being notified of the change when we attended presentations 3 months ago and made it very clear we are Sun-Fri stayers. He asked for the reason they did not send advance notification to members or notify guides, he also asked for their rational in making the changes. If the response comes back 'none of your business' I'm afraid I best start learning to like Harry Potter, Jaws, and the Hulk.

 

[toocherie]

What do you think about the reallocation in conjuction with the new waitlist? One person has already been told no w/l if there is an existing reservation.

Has it been confirmed that this is the policy? Because how do they (MS) not know that you aren't booking a room (or trying to, by using the waitlist) for someone else (friends/family). Maybe you are staying at SSR but want your Mom to stay at BWV at the same time.

I am still pondering this waitlist change--not sure what it really means for me since I usually book at 11 months and get what I've wanted anyway.