Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[WilsonFlyer]

Disney has been selling add-ons of 25 points - how do they expect people to use them? I think the smaller add-ons are MEANT for B&B and I don't see how someone using those points once every 3 years - points they paid for and are paying dues for "hurts" any other member? THis is a point system. One that is sold on flexibility of different size units/different times of year. I just don't see how that is a detriment to anyone else's enjoyment of their purchase. That is the system disney has been selling - and if it wasn't - they wouldn't allow any purchases smaller than a week's worth of points - which - granted - seems to be their aim with the recent changes - but they should start a DVC2 for the newer resorts then if that is their goal.

DVC has never intended for anyone to "get in" for less than the minimum buy-in they require for new owners.

The resale market and add-ons at less than the recommended buy-in size created the after-market availability of such deeds. It is real estate and it's mine to sell if Disney doesn't want to buy it back through ROFR. I don't think anyone would reasonably expect DVC to buy back all after-market contracts at < the required buy-in size for new members (but maybe they should but that's another topic for another thread).

I'm sorry if you interpreted what I said as I feel adversely affected by the way some are using B&B. I do not feel that way at all. I simply said that if someone had a small contract and couldn't use it to their own advantage anymore, I didn't have any sympathy for them (and I don't).

 

[Chuck S]

Disney has been selling add-ons of 25 points - how do they expect people to use them? I think the smaller add-ons are MEANT for B&B and I don't see how someone using those points once every 3 years - points they paid for and are paying dues for "hurts" any other member? THis is a point system. One that is sold on flexibility of different size units/different times of year. I just don't see how that is a detriment to anyone else's enjoyment of their purchase. That is the system disney has been selling - and if it wasn't - they wouldn't allow any purchases smaller than a week's worth of points - which - granted - seems to be their aim with the recent changes - but they should start a DVC2 for the newer resorts then if that is their goal.

I agree Disney has been selling small add-ons at non-home resorts, and I think that also is part of the problem that has led to the re-allocation.

Many factors, including lower initial buy-in requirements, low add-ons at non-home resorts, and savvy renters wanting only Sun to Thurs stays have all contributed. The system likely could have absorbed the effects of one of two of these, but the sum total effect has necessitated the need for a re-allocation to balance demand.

And I think we are seeing evidence of that with the changing rules, like the 100 point minimum add-ons. I really wouldn't be surprised to see that rule modified to allow owners at BLT add-on 25+ points, but owners at other resorts would need to buy at least 100. I also wouldn't be surprised to see that type of rule go system wide, even at the older resorts.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

Right now demand is such that people are on the phone at 9am exactly 11 months out in order to (virtually) guarantee a room for early-December. Switching resorts at 7 months is practically impossible because ALL of the resorts are often booked-up before the 7-month window arrives.

Raising the costs a few points per night is NOT going to lead to vacancies. It means that the rooms may fill up slower, or that members will have to use a greater share of their ownership in order to visit during that period.

The purpose of the charts is to balance demand...pure and simple. The periods which folks generally consider to be undesirable should be priced the lowest to encourage visits. September is a prime example. September deserves to be in the lowest season. Schools are just returning to session...hurricane season...nasty weather. We NEED the low points in September to encourage folks to use their points for those dates.

Early-December is the polar opposite. You could easily argue for moving those dates all the way up to Dream season--if not Magic season. I don't have access to DVC's reservation information but it sure seems like there is greater demand for early-December reservations than there is for the middle of the summer (June, July, August) which are in Magic season.

Raising the points would immediately impact demand so I don't think it would actually be proper to move early-December to Magic season. But I think a 1 or 2 category increase is more than warranted.

Here is my speculation about changes in Season, based on nothing but personal booking experience and reports on these Baords:

Early Dec moves up 2 to Dream Season and is replaced by late August moving down 2 to Adventure. There are 2 more days in late Aug than early Dec, so I see Jan 1 & 2 also making the move with early Dec for balance.

October moves up 1 to Dream and May moves down 1 to Choice.

With the 20% limitation (which I think DVC thinks is real), there needs to be a further interim adjustment to points before this Season swapping can be accomplished. An early Dec weekday studio at OKW can only go up 1 point to 10 points and it is likely that Dream Season will require it to be at 12.

Just my guesses -- Suzanne

 

[tjkraz]

Disney has been selling add-ons of 25 points - how do they expect people to use them?

Smaller add-ons were probably intended for people whose vacation needs had changed since the initial purchase. For example if the family grew and folks needed to move up from a One Bedroom to a Two Bedroom, they could acquire the additional points. Or if people were forced to vacation during a more expensive season. Or if they wanted to extend their trips by an extra night per year.

Perhaps DVC should have mandated a minimum ownership to buy a new Home. Perhaps they will in the near future.

 

[tjkraz]

Here is my speculation about changes in Season, based on nothing but personal booking experience and reports on these Baords:

Early Dec moves up 2 to Dream Season and is replaced by late August moving down 2 to Adventure. There are 2 more days in late Aug than early Dec, so I see Jan 1 & 2 also making the move with early Dec for balance.

October moves up 1 to Dream and May move s down 1 to Choice.

With the 20% limitation (which I think DVC thinks is real), there needs to be a further interim adjustment to points before this Season swapping can be accomplished. An early Dec weekday studio at OKW can only go up 1 point to 10 points and it is likely that Dream Season will require it to be at 12.

Just my guesses -- Suzanne

Sound guesses. I would agree with all of those.

 

[Cmbar]

It is really no different--in my mind--from your favorite restaurant that raises the price on your favorite dish--not the value it was before--but if they raise the price and you love the dish will you never ever go there again?

The only problem is that most were told that the points wouldn't change....(hence the "prices wouldn't change") I know it was in the fine print somewhere that it could change, but a large majority of people were told (and believed) that the points would only changed based on dates and seasons. It was not made clear to us in our many presentations that the points per accomodation would change. In fact on our DCL just 2 months ago in Nov at the presentations the Guide asked someone to look up how much it would cost in points to stay in a 1 bedroom, AKV. Savanah view on a Sunday in November ... etc. Then when I answered him (and got a free DCL bag!!) he said that would never change for the life of the contract. He said it could only change based on the Holiday season changes. So while in small print it is legally there that Disney can "raise their prices" it really clearly wasn't what was represented to most DVC people.

We wanted to buy BLT 160 point minimum, but now that I look at the new chart for a resort that hasn't even opened up yet, it appears I will need 170 points to do the same vacation. Luckily we haven't bought yet, but if I had I would have been furious. It seems what used to be the minimum for a 160 purchase (say a one bedroom for six days at BCV in Dream season) is now 170 points. So I feel like while I might want to go back for my favorite food at the Restaraunt, it feels more like I have to go back to that Restaraunt because I have committed a great deal of money to continue to go to that Restaraunt, but now I can't buy my favorite dish anymore. Yes I will still probably go, but I really think this is unfair to people who bought the minimum that Disney was recommending and saying that we could get those accomodations for the life of our contract. And to top it off they did this after the minimum add on was upped.

 

[bobbiwoz]

We have been buyers of small add ons, primarily at VWL. We began with 50 which was our first direct add on and now own 200 points there. The smaller addons were easier for us to afford at a time. We have accumulated these over a period of 5 years.

I truly hope that DVC offers some help to BLT owners and if it means that they allow current owners smaller add ons for a limited time, at BLT, I would be happy for them.

Bobbi

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I agree Disney has been selling small add-ons at non-home resorts, and I think that also is part of the problem that has led to the re-allocation.

Many factors, including lower intial buy-in requirements, low add-ons at non-home resorts, and savvy renters wanting only Sun to Thurs stays have all contributed. The system likely could have absorbed the effects of one of two of these, but the sum total effect has necessitated the need for a re-allocation to balance demand.

And I think we are seeing evidence of that with the changing rules, like the 100 point minimum add-ons. I really wouldn't be surprised to see that rule modified to allow owners at BLT add-on 25+ points, but owners at other resorts would need to buy at least 100. I also wouln't be surprised to see that type of rule go system wide, even at the older resorts.

I agree, Chuck and I expressed this to my Guide during our December visit. My suggestion was similar to, if not exactly the same as yours.

Simple.

Home resort: add-ons of 25, 50+ allowed
Non-Home resorts: Add-ons of only 100+ allowed

I could even argue that add-ons for non-home resorts be set to the minimum buy-in to DVC at the time. I wouldn't like it but it would make sense.

They're almost certainly going to have to allow 25 point add-ons to current BLT owners given the changes to the charts for 2010. Surely.

The bolded above seems like a logical answer to the problem to me. It fixes the problem for everyone concerned (DVC and owners) IMHO.

 

[DeeCee735]

I think alot of people will be dumping their smaller add on contracts that are not at the resort where most of their points are at. I'm thinking it's better to get rid of the 50 points we have at AKV and buy 50 at BWV since BW is where we own most of our points. Even with the decrease in weekend points, they are still more than weekday points, and now with increased weekday points, adding a weekend night regardless of it's points being dropped still make it more. There's no way around paying more for a stay, so I don't see us getting the use out of 50 points they way I hoped, and I don't see adding on more at AKV, because we'd really only add another 25 to 50, and it's certainly not worth it now. Just MHO

 

[DeeCee735]

I agree, Chuck and I expressed this to my Guide during our December visit. My suggestion was similar to, if not exactly the same as yours.

Simple.

Home resort: add-ons of 25, 50+ allowed
Non-Home resorts: Add-ons of only 100+ allowed

I could even argue that add-ons for non-home resorts be set to the minimum buy-in to DVC at the time. I wouldn't like it but it would make sense.

They're almost certainly going to have to allow 25 point add-ons to current BLT owners given the changes to the charts for 2010. Surely.

The bolded above seems like a logical answer to the problem to me. It fixes the problem for everyone concerned (DVC and owners) IMHO.

According to my guide, No they don't have to and they aren't going to. Their take, according to my guide, is that with the banking and borrowing options it would take years for the member to have a problem staying where they want when they want if it's just a few points difference. I did ask if they would allow small add on's and that was the answer I got.

 

[KLR-wlv]

I think alot of people will be dumping their smaller add on contracts that are not at the resort where most of their points are at. I'm thinking it's better to get rid of the 50 points we have at AKV and buy 50 at BWV since BW is where we own most of our points. Even with the decrease in weekend points, they are still more than weekday points, and now with increased weekday points, adding a weekend night regardless of it's points being dropped still make it more. There's no way around paying more for a stay, so I don't see us getting the use out of 50 points they way I hoped, and I don't see adding on more at AKV, because we'd really only add another 25 to 50, and it's certainly not worth it now. Just MHO

That is true: we have 285 points and this reallocation effects us negatively. We have 150 WL points and I added 135 points at VB - specifically to get a BC every other year. I had a 35 point cushion for Thanksgiving stays - I am now short 10 points since they increased the BC in every season the maximum 20%. I had planned a family reunion for my parents 50 anniversary next summer that I can no longer do. I MIGHT add on another 40 points there to cover the difference - but I do not trust that they won't continue to fidget with the points - so I am not going to play that game of adding on a few more thousand every couple of years. It seems the only way you are safe is to buy enough for a week - which for a beach cottage would be ridiculously expensive. And my 2 bedroom WL reservation for 2010 which I had enough point for is now out of range (35 more points for the week) due to borrowing for 2 nights in nov 09. Had I known - I wouldn't have done those 2 nights this year. So even with 285 points - this has eliminated two planned trips in 2010.

 

[Kmango]

According to my guide, No they don't have to and they aren't going to. Their take, according to my guide, is that with the banking and borrowing options it would take years for the member to have a problem staying where they want when they want if it's just a few points difference. I did ask if they would allow small add on's and that was the answer I got.

We recently added-on at BLT (180 pts for a week EOY MK View in Adventure) and AKV (135 pts for a week EOY Sav View in Adventure). Those stays have now gone up 1 and 2 points respectively. So we'll borrow a point or two a year, maybe lose a day one year (which happens naturally sometimes anyway) and cope. Buying an extra 5 or 10 points would really be overkill. However, it seems like they should do a temporary return to the 25pt minimum add-on for BLT owners only, so that people with a much larger shortfall can remedy it.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

According to my guide, No they don't have to and they aren't going to. Their take, according to my guide, is that with the banking and borrowing options it would take years for the member to have a problem staying where they want when they want if it's just a few points difference. I did ask if they would allow small add on's and that was the answer I got.

Interesting. I think there's going to be a lot more pressure on them to do this for AKV (who don't currently have the minimum 100 point add-on, I know) and BLT owners than they may have anticipated.

They're going to have to do something to pacify us BLT owners and my bet is that they've planned to do this all along. "Look. We're doing this to help you all!"

We shall see. I'll be VERY surprised if you don't see part of my add-on plan implemented (the 25 exception for BLT owners) and probably the whole thing before it's all over. I still say it is the fair and obvious solution.

As I told my guide in December (we bought at BLT in Oct when the rules were the same for everybody, intending even then, to add-on 25-50 points when we got the note paid off), it's not fair that BLT owners live under a different set of rules than owners at other resorts but that's another topic for another thread, I guess. I don't care what the game is but we should all have to play by the same rules or it isn't a fair fight.

 

[pakhowe]

I think it is a little presumptive to state dvc's intended use of banking and borrowing based upon what ones' guide told them. If we have learned anything from this thread, it is that some guides will twist the truth if it suits their sale. Although we purchased enough points for our annual vacaton plans, our guide absolutely covered the use of banking and borrowing for the purpose of vacationing every two or three years, which would have required the purchase of fewer points.

I don't believe a condescending attitude towards people who purchased in this manner (which is well within the rules) is appropriate.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I think it is a little presumptive to state dvc's intended use of banking and borrowing based upon what ones' guide told them. If we have learned anything from this thread, it is that some guides will twist the truth if it suits their sale. Although we purchased enough points for our annual vacaton plans, our guide absolutely covered the use of banking and borrowing for the purpose of vacationing every two or three years, which would have required the purchase of fewer points.

I don't believe a condescending attitude towards people who purchased in this manner (which is well within the rules) is appropriate.

So you think it's condescending to remind people that bought 50 points with the expressed intention of banking and borrowing for a visit exactly every 3 years to remind them that's what they bought for and to not feel any sympathy that they cannot do that anymore? Really?

I really hope I haven't offended anybody that tender-hearted. (OK, maybe that was a little condescending. LOL) I haven't even begun being condescending yet.

 

[tjkraz]

We shall see. I'll be VERY surprised if you don't see part of my add-on plan implemented (the 25 exception for BLT owners) and probably the whole thing before it's all over. I still say it is the fair and obvious solution.

I will be, too. DVC tends to be customer-friendly when it comes to sales issues. Witness the Developer's Points retroactively given to folks who bought BLT 2 months before that incentive was introduced.

They may not allow sub-100 pt add ons to everyone, but it would be reasonable to allow those who already bought at BLT to add a few more points.

 

[KLR-wlv]

I have 285 - and it's screwed up future reservations.

A 50 point contract for a couple with no kids would get 5 nights in a studio in some seasons. Or if they want to take friends - bank and borrow. How is that purchase - which is a per point dollar amount tied to the same maintenance fees per point - offensive to some? I have more than 50 points because we're a family of 5 - but 50 points would be sufficient for some members. And this effects members with 50 points - or with close to 300 like me. I like 5-6 night vacations. I don't really want to spend more than 6 nights at disney...

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I think it is a little presumptive to state dvc's intended use of banking and borrowing based upon what ones' guide told them. If we have learned anything from this thread, it is that some guides will twist the truth if it suits their sale. Although we purchased enough points for our annual vacaton plans, our guide absolutely covered the use of banking and borrowing for the purpose of vacationing every two or three years, which would have required the purchase of fewer points.

I don't believe a condescending attitude towards people who purchased in this manner (which is well within the rules) is appropriate.

Then we just agree to disagree. We have to both concede that neither of us knows, nor will we ever know, What DVC's intentions were with respect to banking and borrowing when the rule was put in place.

My belief is that is was so members could save during the rainy season and borrow during the sunny season.

I don't believe the system was ever put in place with the expressed intention of affording someone the opportunity to buy 1/3 of a year's points to bank and borrow to use exactly that number of points every 3 years. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Can it be used that way? Certainly. But when it doesn't work anymore, I think it's safe to say that wasn't what DVC designed it into the system for but that's just my opinion.

 

[WolfpackFan]

DVC has never intended for anyone to "get in" for less than the minimum buy-in they require for new owners.

I just love the way you keep speaking for DVC. Are you sure you're from Eastern NC (my home)? You sure don't seem very friendly.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I have 285 - and it's screwed up future reservations.

A 50 point contract for a couple with no kids would get 5 nights in a studio in some seasons. Or if they want to take friends - bank and borrow. How is that purchase - which is a per point dollar amount tied to the dame maintenance fees per point - offensive to some? I have more than 50 points because we're a family of 5 - but 50 points would be sufficient for some members. And this effects members with 50 points - or with close to 300 like me. I like 5-6 night vacations. I don't really want to spend more than 6 nights at disney...

The system was never designed to work for anyone that buys in at less than the minimum purchase level required by DVC (currently 160?). That's why they have a minimum buy-in requirement.

People shouldn't get mad when they can't work the system anymore when they didn't buy in at the recommended minimum levels. That's all I've ever said.