Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[BroganMc]

I agree that Disney does what's best for Disney. Lately, there is little regard for members. To think that these changes (like replacing glassware with Styrofoam) were made in our best interests is a bit naive, IMO. Many, many hotels all over the world sanitize their dishes every single day. Surely Disney is aware of this. It was a cost-cutting move and nothing else.

Not to be OT but isn't that glassware issue all settled now? SSR and OKW got dish cleaning units and put the mugs and glasses back in the studios. I know we had them over NYE, in the same unit we didn't have them in October.

And yes, I do think that was done for the health and well-being of members. Recent TV exposes found maids in Orlando were not cleaning them properly (using dirty towels in the bathroom to wipe down the dishes).

Paying for disposable cups and plates was not a cost effective move for the company. It just done to avoid a potential lawsuit if someone used a dirty cup and got sick.

The situation is resolved now. In large part because of the hue and cry from members.

On the whole I do think Disney tries to be responsive to guests and members. Sometimes they just come up with things that have unintended consequences. Then its up to members to question and let them know if another change is needed.

 

[BroganMc]

JMHO, but lets face it....it really is all about the dollar, pure and simple. Disney is a company, with a board of directors and shareholders (as has been previously stated). They have a responsibility to them to gain revenue how ever that may be. We are in just horrific economical times, and Disney is not immune to this. Get ready, the next income generating move.....extensions to the remaining 2042 resorts. This time, there may not be an "opt out".

If that does happen it may not be a terrible thing. (Well not having an "opt out" would but then I'm fairly confident there's precedent for members to fight that.) I know the main reason I never added on at BWV was due to the shorter contract length.

 

[LVSWL]

As a new owner at BLT, I think that this is really one of the saddest examples of what Disney has done. To go from the thrill of new ownership in a property that promises to be so unique and exciting to the disappointment and disillusionment when you realize that you will not be able to enjoy your investment the way that you had planned, for as long, maybe not this year is just horrible and heartbreaking and just plain wrong.
The saddest thing is that the people that Disney stuck it to the most are those of us that have been there with them, the oldies. That's just a guess on my part, but I would imagine that the majority of the sales from Sept 08 till now were existing members, and we are the ones who will be more upset, both by BLT and by our other contracts. And we were the ones who were out there planning our future trips with no idea that the rug was about to be pulled because we had our little books with the point charts in them. Fat lot of good they did.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

If that does happen it may not be a terrible thing. (Well not having an "opt out" would but then I'm fairly confident there's precedent for members to fight that.) I know the main reason I never added on at BWV was due to the shorter contract length.

Well this would certainly add a large amount of revenue in a short period of time.....and if they are starting with the points chart to "even things up" so to speak, I see the extensions very soon.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

As a new owner at BLT, I think that this is really one of the saddest examples of what Disney has done. To go from the thrill of new ownership in a property that promises to be so unique and exciting to the disappointment and disillusionment when you realize that you will not be able to enjoy your investment the way that you had planned, for as long, maybe not this year is just horrible and heartbreaking and just plain wrong.
The saddest thing is that the people that Disney stuck it to the most are those of us that have been there with them, the oldies. That's just a guess on my part, but I would imagine that the majority of the sales from Sept 08 till now were existing members, and we are the ones who will be more upset, both by BLT and by our other contracts. And we were the ones who were out there planning our future trips with no idea that the rug was about to be pulled because we had our little books with the point charts in them. Fat lot of good they did.

There have been several BLT owners that have called thier guides to see if they can add on a minimum of 25 pts.......so far, the guides have not gotten back to these posters. I am wondering if something is being worked out for the existing BLT owners.....

 

[Cmbar]

JMHO, but lets face it....it really is all about the dollar, pure and simple. Disney is a company, with a board of directors and shareholders (as has been previously stated). They have a responsibility to them to gain revenue how ever that may be. We are in just horrific economical times, and Disney is not immune to this. Get ready, the next income generating move.....extensions to the remaining 2042 resorts. This time, there may not be an "opt out".

What does this mean? When speaking to our guide a few weeks ago we discussed buying Boardwalk or Beach Club and he said he was pretty confident they would be offering an extension on those resorts. I didn't ask more, but I don't understand what it means to not have a "opt out". Was this done before? Thanks!

 

[Cmbar]

There have been several BLT owners that have called thier guides to see if they can add on a minimum of 25 pts.......so far, the guides have not gotten back to these posters. I am wondering if something is being worked out for the existing BLT owners.....

Spiceytat reported earlier today that his guide has already told them no. Also said that the Guide had asked for herself as well since she was a BLT owner. She wasn't happy either. We will see if enough BLT owners complain.

 

[Dean]

I finally made a chance to play with the numbers. Assuming 1992 (or any similar year) as the base year and assuming the points are based on the 2 BR for all lockoff's, I simply multiplied the number of points for each weekday and weekend for each season times the number of those days times the number of units in each cat at SSR. I got a difference of 0.000078 or 0.0078%. I used the numbers from the last multi site POS I had which I know are not complete but should be representative. I added in the 60 THV units. IF someone will give me the final breakdown of the number of units (2 BR dedicated, 2 BR L/O, GV), I will update the numbers and see if it changes. But since the 2 BR units went up a slightly number of points and the 3 BR down a slight number of points, I doubt it'll be any different unless he mix of the last two buildings was different for 2 BR vs 3 BR than previous phases. So a difference of under 0.01% would be about as perfect as it will be given this circumstance and a number that should stand up to any scrutiny if my calculations are accurate. If it were a drug study, we could get FDA approval on the first try.

 

[Chuck S]

What does this mean? When speaking to our guide a few weeks ago we discussed buying Boardwalk or Beach Club and he said he was pretty confident they would be offering an extension on those resorts. I didn't ask more, but I don't understand what it means to not have a "opt out". Was this done before? Thanks!

Basically, the OKW master lease with WDW Properties was extended by the OKW Condominium association. As such, legally, all "lease" contracts with owners were theoretically automatically extended because the "association" represents all the owners. Meaning we as owners, if we did not want the extension, had to re-deed our ownership interest to DVD/DVC to be effective on the original 2042 end date. If an owner did not opt out, and did not pay up-front for the extension, legally the "association" would put a lien against their ownership for the extension price. I agree it seemed like a strange procedure, but likely had to be done that way as we own a "deeded interest" in the leasehold, and the leasehold was extended. Sort of like the power of a regular homeowners association in many legal situations.

I'm pretty sure that if Disney/DVC extended the other resort leaseholds in a similar manner, a similar procedure would need to be followed, and a similar "opt-out" would have to be documented by folks not wanting to extend. A unilateral extension of a contract with a pre-defined end date would not stand up to a legal challenge. It was just a strange legal way of handling it.

OKW owners received a small subsidy/credit on their dues last year to compensate us for the inconvenience of having the new documents notarized. Notary fees in the UK, and perhaps in other countries, are much higher than here in the US, which typically are free at your bank, or a minimal charge. My understanding is that if the UK owners submitted a notary receipt, DVC was re-imbursing them for the cost.

 

[Tiger926]

I have read a bunch of this thread, but obviously not all of it as it's so big! Not sure if this has been mentioned, but we will be short about 30 points for our regular 12 night stay every summer (magic season). We, or should I say, my brilliant DH, suggested that we go back to Sea World. We like split stays, so now, we will do 5 days Sun - Thurs, Fri and Sat at a Sea World hotel, and then back to WDW for 5 days Sun - Thurs. This will save us points from our regular stay, but, it means 2 less days at WDW.

We refuse to add-on (we believe this was Disney's intention), refuse to borrrow too many points, and refuse to knock more than 1 day off of our stay (that's why we bought the points that we did), so we are going off-site. Not sure how Disney didn't think this would happen? They will now lose our spending money for those 2 days - less food, shopping and activities.

We discovered after studying the new charts, that anyone going between 8-12 days, will lose points in a 1 bed for sure. We totally understand that Disney had the right to do this, but the way in which they didn't communicate to members is very problematic. They are in essence, forcing people to spend less time there, or, go off-site. Not a brilliant move in our IMHO.

Tiger

 

[lugnut33]

I have read a bunch of this thread, but obviously not all of it as it's so big! Not sure if this has been mentioned, but we will be short about 30 points for our regular 12 night stay every summer (magic season). We, or should I say, my brilliant DH, suggested that we go back to Sea World. We like split stays, so now, we will do 5 days Sun - Thurs, Fri and Sat at a Sea World hotel, and then back to WDW for 5 days Sun - Thurs. This will save us points from our regular stay, but, it means 2 less days at WDW.

We refuse to add-on (we believe this was Disney's intention), refuse to borrrow too many points, and refuse to knock more than 1 day off of our stay (that's why we bought the points that we did), so we are going off-site. Not sure how Disney didn't think this would happen? They will now lose our spending money for those 2 days - less food, shopping and activities.

We discovered after studying the new charts, that anyone going between 8-12 days, will lose points in a 1 bed for sure. We totally understand that Disney had the right to do this, but the way in which they didn't communicate to members is very problematic. They are in essence, forcing people to spend less time there, or, go off-site. Not a brilliant move in our IMHO.

Tiger

Tiger,

Just like DVC had the right to re-allocate the points however they see fit, you also have the right as a customer to spend your money however you want. If that means spending those two days at Universal, or Sea World, or even Gatorland, then by all means do it. The best thing you can do to protest this is hurt them with your wallet.

BTW, I would totally recommend heading over to St. Peterburg Beach for thos two days. It's off season and there's lot of fun stuff to do there.

 

[jamstew]

Tiger,

Just like DVC had the right to re-allocate the points however they see fit, you also have the right as a customer to spend your money however you want. If that means spending those two days at Universal, or Sea World, or even Gatorland, then by all means do it. The best thing you can do to protest this is hurt them with your wallet.

BTW, I would totally recommend heading over to St. Peterburg Beach for thos two days. It's off season and there's lot of fun stuff to do there.

I love Pass-a-Grill, at the very tip of SPB on the south. No high rises, really laid back place. Personally, I'm spending a couple of days on Fort Myers Beach at the Pink Shell and the Edison Botanical Garden during my 2-week May WDW trip There's also a high-speed ferry out of Fort Myers that does day trips down to Key West which I did a couple of years ago. I wouldn't do it in September again and would probably spend the night next time, but it's a great side trip for not much money (assuming they still do it).

 

[tjkraz]

La2kw - interesting point and I totally agree - increasing the points so people will see the necessity to buy more.

Sorry but this approach still doesn't pass my sniff test. First, you have a portion of current membership who will benefit from the move. Those who use their points for full weeks will see little (if any) change.

Plus the overall value of DVC has taken a hit. To first-time customers who may have been interested in Sun-Thurs stays, DVC is no longer as good a value as it was a week ago. The reallocation has eliminated a portion of its market at the bottom of the income spectrum. This isn't just an issue they need to live with in the present--it's something that will negatively impact DVC for years to come.

And then you've got the obvious PR hit associated with this reallocation.

I don't see how anyone could think this DVC would use this as justification for selling a handful of small, one-time add-ons to existing members. It just doesn't add up.

Get ready, the next income generating move.....extensions to the remaining 2042 resorts. This time, there may not be an "opt out".

Seriously? Aren't people worked-up enough without pouring a little gasoline on the fire?

DVC had justification for the manner in which it handled the OKW extension. Simply put, they wanted to be able to make the offer available to all OKW owners. If they had marketed it as a separate contract, regional timeshare sales laws would have blocked a portion of OKW owners from taking advantage. For example, DVC can only sell points in one Canadian province (Ottawa, perhaps?) If the 15-year extension had been sold as a separate contract, owners in other Canadian provinces, some foreign countries and even some US states would not have been able to take advantage. Or they would have had to make their way to Florida or California to do it in person.

By structuring it as an extension of the ground lease with the opt-out clause, DVC was able to make the offer to all owners regardless of their state or country of residence.

Jim Lewis has already gone on record as saying that they realize the method used for OKW was not particularly member-friendly and would look at using a different approach if other resorts were extended. My suspicion is that it would be offered as a separate contract and many owners would be unable to extend unless they visit a DVC sales center.

Many members had been asking for OKW contract extensions for YEARS. I trust some of the other long-timers here will vouch for that. (Whether they liked DVC's final price or not is another matter.) A big part of making the offer viable (agreeing to keep the resort open another 15 years) was being able to attract a large percentage of current owners to extend. If DC had chosen an extension method which left them completely unable to contact a large portion of the resort's ownership, then the entire project looks less appealing.

So DVC ultimately went with the option that let them contact everyone--even though it required some ugly contract language and formal opt-outs from those who weren't interested.

Maybe they will offer extensions to others. Given the opposition to using the same method as OKW, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon. IMHO, if the extensions do materialize count on a large portion of owners being excluded...unless they want to take a trip to a DVC sales center.

 

[tidefan]

Looking at the new charts, one thing that strikes me as an advantage is that we try to maximize the weeks we are out (Spring Break, Summer, etc...) from work. That usually means going on a Saturday and coming back the next Saturday (7 Days). I'd like to maximize my time out so going out on Saturday and then coming back the next Sunday (8 days) would be better. The new charts encourage this:

Sat - Sun (8-days) @ SSR

Dream (very do-able since school is out in mid-May):

1-BDRM
2009: 275
2010: 266

Net change: -9

2-BDRM/THV
2009: 350
2010: 339

Net change: -11

Magic (for Summer)

1-BDRM
2009: 297
2010: 288

Net change: -9

2-BDRM/THV
2009: 384
2010: 377

Net change: -7

So, this may actually encourage us to add the 8th day to our stays.

A couple of other interesting things at SSR. 1 Bdrms down for 1-week stays in all seasons except Premier. 2 Bdrms up in some, down in others.

Also, looking back through the Product Understanding Agreement, one thing I didn't know was that there is a Monorail easement at SSR

I do feel for those with stays impacted. You guys definitely have my sympathy. Here's hoping for some relief, perhaps relaxed add-on rules (i.e. - 10 pt add-ons, etc.) and transfer rules that could really lessen the blow...

 

[ACDSNY]

Our trips are like Tidefan just reported, usually 7 - 8 nights so we are in the group that benefit from the change. That being said we're always in a state of borrowing. Hopefully our VGC add on will keep us from borrowing for a while.

 

[BroganMc]

I finally made a chance to play with the numbers. Assuming 1992 (or any similar year) as the base year and assuming the points are based on the 2 BR for all lockoff's, I simply multiplied the number of points for each weekday and weekend for each season times the number of those days times the number of units in each cat at SSR. I got a difference of 0.000078 or 0.0078%. I used the numbers from the last multi site POS I had which I know are not complete but should be representative. I added in the 60 THV units. IF someone will give me the final breakdown of the number of units (2 BR dedicated, 2 BR L/O, GV), I will update the numbers and see if it changes. But since the 2 BR units went up a slightly number of points and the 3 BR down a slight number of points, I doubt it'll be any different unless he mix of the last two buildings was different for 2 BR vs 3 BR than previous phases. So a difference of under 0.01% would be about as perfect as it will be given this circumstance and a number that should stand up to any scrutiny if my calculations are accurate. If it were a drug study, we could get FDA approval on the first try.

The figures I have for SSR unit configurations are:

435 studios
435 1bedrooms
360 dedicated 2bedrooms
60 THV
36 Grand Villas

The net difference I showed were points going up in studios, 1bedrooms and THVs. They went down in dedicated 2bedrooms and Grand Villas.

Are those the figures you're looking for?

 

[Dean]

The figures I have for SSR unit configurations are:

435 studios
435 1bedrooms
360 dedicated 2bedrooms
60 THV
36 Grand Villas

The net difference I showed were points going up in studios, 1bedrooms and THVs. They went down in dedicated 2bedrooms and Grand Villas.

Are those the figures you're looking for?

Thanks, I'll update my numbers tonight if nothing happens. You do know only the 2 BR and 3 BR are counted as the studio and 1 BR lockoff's don't enter into the official counts.

It also matters which year you chose, as even a different year where weekends fall into different seasons will shift the numbers much more than the negligible variance I'm seeing so far. Heaven forbid you actually chose a leap year or a year that has an extra weekend day in it compare to weekdays. I chose 1992 because that's likely the year they used for OKW and therefore they would want to be consistent. The specifics would work for each year but would vary slightly year to year.

 

[Tiger926]

Lugnut33 - Thanks for the suggestion. Not sure how close St. Pete's beach is though, with 2 young children, this might not be feasible. We will start at WDW, go to Sea World and then end back at WDW, so not sure if St. Pete's can fit in between that? I'll talk to hubby.

I'm not good with numbers (I'm an English teacher - LOL!), so please bear with me:

If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or 12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights? My hubby did quick calculations and said around 8 days, but based on above-mentioned scenarios, I think these people might be ok? Of course, I know it depends upon season and room type too. We are July people in a 1 bed, if that helps.

Tiger

 

[tedhowe]

If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or 12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights? My hubby did quick calculations and said around 8 days, but based on above-mentioned scenarios, I think these people might be ok? Of course, I know it depends upon season and room type too. We are July people in a 1 bed, if that helps.

Tiger

I haven't done the math, but I would think with the nature of the change, a 9 night stay arriving on Friday and departing on the following sunday would benefit the most (i.e. 4 weekend nights and 5 weekday nights) - that would have the most net positive effect from the reallocation.

 

[tjkraz]

If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or 12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights?

Seven days is typically a breakeven point. For the most part, the weekly points either remained unchanged or were altered by single-digits (+ or -).

If you stayed 8 or 9 nights starting on a Friday or Saturday and ending on the following Friday or Saturday, your total costs will go down. There would also be some shorter stay trips which have gone down if they include weekends. Monday - Saturday trips, Tuesday - Saturday and others have gone down.

Those who completely avoided weekends will undoubtedly pay more. Those who were used to spending points on the weekends may need more or less points for the same trip depending upon the exact makeup.