Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[DisneyWalker44]

Honestly, for most owners, signing over the deed to Disney (and we had 4 deeds) took about 20 minutes at your local bank.

Not to rehash this too much, but the cost to non-extenders isn't just the time and trouble of filling out the paperwork. It's what I believe to be meaningfully increased future maintenance costs.

 

[drakethib]

Just wondering there have been a bunch of people complaining about this (myself included), how many have actually contacted DVC through any means (phone, email, fax) regarding this?

Has there been any response?

 

[sgtdisney]

Just found this thread after a long hiatus from the DIS, and had to comment. I, like some of the others posting here have been long time members since 1992. This isn't the first point re-allocation, I am sure it will not be the last. As may others have eloquently stated, Disney has the legal right to do this. The only thing you can count on is what was legally filed with the Orange County recorder. As with any other legally binding agreement, that is what is guaranteed.

That being said, I can understand, and empathize with the people who are upset. There have been a number of changes to the DVC that I fell in love with 17 years ago that have changed my perception of the product. I'm still happy to be a member, yes. However, I always reserve the right to sell the membership when it becomes something that no longer suits my needs, and honestly I sometimes find myself wondering if I should.

We live a fair distance from Orlando and these changes probably will not affect our usage too much. That being said it does, obviously affect some others very adversely. I feel bad for that. I know there were many times when I was livid about a change but it was one that didn't matter to some, or even to many, but it still mattered to me. I can say with 100% conviction, that all things being equal, we would not buy the membership today, that we did 17 years ago.

Face it everyone, Disney, as wonderful as it even still is, is not what it was in the past. The magic is still there, certainly. The place has a special magic about it, just being there. But, in retrospect, it isn't as magical as it once was. Maybe it was inevitable, or unavoidable. The world isn't the same world it was in the late 60s when they were building Disney World. It isn't even the same as it was when the DVC was created in late 1991. It could be greed partially, it could just be the only way that this company could have survived. With Walt, it was all about show, damn the profits, the show was of paramount importance. That worked then. Would it have worked now, in the economy we have now and for the past 20 years, maybe, maybe not. We'll never know.

What I do know is the 'show' part of Disney has been long suffering. Ripping out long favorite rides (20K Under the sea) and leaving empty fields in their place or leaving show buildings vacant and unattended in Epcot would never have happened 25 years ago. I can remember going to Disney when you would NEVER see a bulb out on main street and the parks were cleaner. These things change, maybe they had to to allow the company to survive in these changing times.

Anyway, off my soapbox, I guess I am just waxing poetic about how the changes have taken just a little shine off the magic for me over the past decade and 1/2. Just keep in mind DVC is a business, they need to turn a profit to succeed. The rules can and will change up until the letter of the contract, you can count on that. It is a personal decision as to whether the product still holds value for the member or not, and only the member can decide that. For now, we're still members and will enjoy our contract as it is. I just can't help sometimes feeling a little circumspect when thinking about the things that I really enjoyed about the magic of Disney World, even the way the company treated the members in the beginning, and how things are today.

 

[dizney4us]

They guarantee that you can reserve a day but not what day or that it's one you want. The only time the studio or 1 BR options would come into play is when there are dedicated units of those sizes. And yes they can potentially shift points from one unit size to another.

I have no problem with it but do find it funny. A quote about a "woman scorned" comes to mind. It's funny to me that people are so upset over something that is spelled out in the paperwork we all agreed to. I doubt DVC would do anything unless you hung around for an extended period for that purpose. IMO DVC ownership isn't any worse, or any better, overall than it was a week, month or year ago other than as the changes affects one's personal situation.

What is the selling feature of DVC now? Hedging off inflation by paying huge sums of money up front for a point chart that can change seems very foolish. I realize we all should have read all the documents, but we basically just trusted Disney...that as I now know was my own mistake. And to be honest, the changes have little to no effect on us, because our kids are nearly grown and we have more freedom to travel whenever we want... but thats not the case for everyone. This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!

 

[tjkraz]

Actually, I did think about the fact that VWL is a "hot" place to be for the month of December. And I also understand why they did the reallocation. I am just miffed the way they chose to spread around the point increase.
But they also increased the Jan and Sept time for those high point additions, so I am not sure what the heck they are thinking.

The reallocation is all about balancing weekdays vs. weekends. Direct comparisons between other unit sizes and other resorts aren't even relevant.

If the weekday One Bedroom costs went up by a greater percentage than weekday Studio costs, that suggests that weekend One Bedroom vacancies were higher than weekend Studio vacancies.

Also bear in mind that the adjustments would have been based upon all three components of Adventure seasons--January, September and early-December. Although December has high occupancy, January and particularly September are much different. Once you blend the data from all of those seasons, the results may not be what you would expect as a frequent December visitor.

 

[tjkraz]

Not to rehash this too much, but the cost to non-extenders isn't just the time and trouble of filling out the paperwork. It's what I believe to be meaningfully increased future maintenance costs.

Disney addressed that. In the latter years of ownership the capital improvements budget will be separate for extenders vs. non-extenders. Don't remember how the information was circulated, but I've seen it mentioned here a number of times.

 

[Doug7856]

I'll just wear my 'Ask me about DVC' button Disney gave me

I like that idea!

 

[tjkraz]

This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!

That's an emotional response shared by many but please realize that Disney was obligated to make this sort of periodic adjustments. They adjusted the points back in 1996 and it's a wonder they waited so long to do it again.

The laws of the state of Florida hold DVC (our timeshare manager) responsible for updating the point charts to account for shifts in demand. Here is a quote from the Florida statutes:

The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan.

You can find the entire text here:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0721->Section 56#0721.56

At this point the worst thing we can hold DVC accountable for is poor communications. Whether they profit from this is unknown and really irrelevant to the need for the changes.

 

[Dean]

What is the selling feature of DVC now? Hedging off inflation by paying huge sums of money up front for a point chart that can change seems very foolish. I realize we all should have read all the documents, but we basically just trusted Disney...that as I now know was my own mistake. And to be honest, the changes have little to no effect on us, because our kids are nearly grown and we have more freedom to travel whenever we want... but thats not the case for everyone. This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!

I see it differently. The factual draw is the same as it always has been. True that is may not be a good fit for some today that it was last month but the reverse is true as well. One buys DVC to have the option of a room on property for a controlled price. That price may vary somewhat because of reallocation and dues over the years. Shame on anyone for buying simply because they trusted Disney. I think it's funny, and wrong, to blame this on greed, sales attempts or any similar motivation. IMO the real area to place blame is squarely on the flexibility of the system, namely the ability to reserve less than 7 days up front without a priority given to those wanting the full 7 days. It's part of the cost of doing business with such a system.

 

[Doug7856]

That's an emotional response shared by many but please realize that Disney was obligated to make this sort of periodic adjustments. They adjusted the points back in 1996 and it's a wonder they waited so long to do it again.
. . .

True, but Disney was not obligated to change the rules for minimum purchase requirements, delay the charts from their normal October unveiling until after the rule change, and then drop this big point chart change just about 11 months out from the first booking date.

As has been said repeatedly, we'll all get over this, but the way this was handled just diminishes the trust and good will that the Disney Company has spent 100 years building among many DVC members.

 

[Chuck S]

True, but Disney was not obligated to change the rules for minimum purchase requirements, delay the charts from their normal October unveiling until after the rule change, and then drop this big point chart change just about 11 months out from the first booking date.

As has been said repeatedly, we'll all get over this, but the way this was handled just diminishes the trust and good will that the Disney Company has spent 100 years building among many DVC members.

I agree, Disney should never have lowered the points to 150 minimum, and should have aggressively used ROFR to repurchase smaller add-on contracts, unless they were being bought by an existing member.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

Disney addressed that.

Have they? Are sure? And if they were forced to address the issue after the fact, it makes their motivation even more suspect.

In the latter years of ownership the capital improvements budget will be separate for extenders vs. non-extenders.

That only address half of the increase - the reserve budget for post 2042 maintenance. Even if Disney doesn't charge non-extenders for that, there is still this issue of what shape the resorts will left in 2042. How much of our money will Disney spend fixing up the resorts in the 2039-2042 years? What expenses could they justify before the change? What can the justify now?

 

[bobbiwoz]

...
IMO the real area to place blame is squarely on the flexibility of the system, namely the ability to reserve less than 7 days up front without a priority given to those wanting the full 7 days. It's part of the cost of doing business with such a system.

Interesting, and this is the feature that I like most about DVC. A full week at WDW was not something we ever did even when we had our DS's. My mantra was "There's more to Florida than WDW." However, we liked the WDW part of our trips very very much, and as empty nesters and as DGP's we go back again and again.

Bobbi

 

[HookdonWDW]

I agree, Disney should never have lowered the points to 150 minimum, and should have aggressively used ROFR to repurchase smaller add-on contracts, unless they were being bought by an existing member.

I think this is definitely a huge part of the issue. Reallocation was inevitable (and necessary IMHO). The people it hurts the most are those with small contracts. I don't think the minimum should have been reduced, and I think they should have worked harder to make sure New owners (even those buying via resale) owned at least the minimum required points.

 

[bcrook]

IMO the real area to place blame is squarely on the flexibility of the system, namely the ability to reserve less than 7 days up front without a priority given to those wanting the full 7 days. It's part of the cost of doing business with such a system.

But this is what makes DVC so much more appealing than all the other timeshares. I bought my 175 points to utilize this system rather than purchasing at Wyndahm, Westgate, or any other weekly point system. I have a Bluegreen too because it is based on points (although it is not as flexible and much harder to find what I want.) If the priority for DVC is week long stays, then market it that way. And it is radical to start changing that goal, after so many sales were based on the flexibility.

I really appreciate everything that you have written about the need for reallocation. You have made wonderful points based on the premise that the dates and point schedule are out of whack. But, I haven't seen any data that says it is out of whack. We have to assume that it was, and now it is fixed. But this could also be a way simply to eat up more points from the people who are primarily booking weekdays.

Is there data that shows people are having a hard time getting into their home resorts? And is there data that Friday and Saturdays at the resorts are ghost towns? I haven't had any trouble getting in to anything I have asked for in the past two years booking at 11 months and mostly 7 months. 2 bedrooms, 1 bedrooms or studios.

Again, I appreciate this thread. I would just like to see some facts.

 

[Chuck S]

Have they? Are sure?
That only address half of the increase - the reserve budget for post 2042 maintenance. Even if Disney doesn't charge non-extenders for that, there is still this issue of what shape the resorts will left in 2042. How much of our money will Disney spend fixing up the resorts in the 2039-2042 years? What expenses could they justify before the change? What can the justify now?

I don't know about you, but even though my membership expires in 2042, (and if OKW also closed in 2042) if I vacationed in 2039, I would want the resort to be in the best shape possible. I would be unhappy if maintenance were to slide just because it was closing in a year or two. A building could need a new roof in 2039, even if the resort closed in 2042. The difference is, now they will amortize such mainentance through 2057 rather than sticking the 2042 owners with the entire cost, as they would have to do if the resort were closing.

 

[BeccaG]

I came across an interesting quote from Walt Disney I had to share considering the nature of this thread. I don't think DVC or WDW shouldn't make a profit, its just interesting to hear Walt's perspective. . .

"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money." Walt Disney

 

[Dean]

But this is what makes DVC so much more appealing than all the other timeshares. I bought my 175 points to utilize this system rather than purchasing at Wyndahm, Westgate, or any other weekly point system. I have a Bluegreen too because it is based on points (although it is not as flexible and much harder to find what I want.) If the priority for DVC is week long stays, then market it that way. And it is radical to start changing that goal, after so many sales were based on the flexibility.

I really appreciate everything that you have written about the need for reallocation. You have made wonderful points based on the premise that the dates and point schedule are out of whack. But, I haven't seen any data that says it is out of whack. We have to assume that it was, and now it is fixed. But this could also be a way simply to eat up more points from the people who are primarily booking weekdays.

Is there data that shows people are having a hard time getting into their home resorts? And is there data that Friday and Saturdays at the resorts are ghost towns? I haven't had any trouble getting in to anything I have asked for in the past two years booking at 11 months and mostly 7 months. 2 bedrooms, 1 bedrooms or studios.

Again, I appreciate this thread. I would just like to see some facts.

Then there are certain things that encompass the cost of such flexibility. Reallocation is one, high dues and lack of availability certain seasons are others. DVC does not release occupancy numbers so if you were in a position to have hard facts, you couldn't pass it on anyway. There certainly has been a TON of anecdotal and verbal info over the years to confirm this issue.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

I don't know about you, but even though my membership expires in 2042, (and if OKW also closed in 2042) if I vacationed in 2039, I would want the resort to be in the best shape possible.

I think those are going to be interesting times, as members will have very different opinions. There's a lot of us cheapskates who aren't going to want to spend money putting new furniture, carpets, etc in the rooms those last couple years.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

What is the selling feature of DVC now? Hedging off inflation by paying huge sums of money up front for a point chart that can change seems very foolish. I realize we all should have read all the documents, but we basically just trusted Disney...that as I now know was my own mistake. And to be honest, the changes have little to no effect on us, because our kids are nearly grown and we have more freedom to travel whenever we want... but thats not the case for everyone. This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!

This brings up an interesting question (at least to me).

Has anyone checked the resale market for the last couple of days? It appears that this hasn't affected pricing at all. If it hasn't, it would seem reasonable to conclude that none of us has lost any real value in our investment(s) (at least not because of this change).

While some of us may believe that our perceived value may have been diminished by this change, I think it is important to remember that the real value (read: $$$) appears unaffected by all of this.

This begs the question; HAVE we lost any value? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..."