Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[DVC92]

It is under Florida time share laws that require rebalancing of the system. The exact link has been posted several times on this thead.

Denise in MI

Can you link me to the statute?

 

[LVSWL]

I would certainly count members actions louder than words and interpret that any member staying on points weekdays but cash weekends as a vote for lower weekends. Interesting that the change in 1996 did exactly that. It lowered GV significantly while increasing essentially one season. While the increase in adventure season was to both weekdays and weekend, the end result was that both were increased though weekdays higher than weekends overall on a % basis.

I don't agree that to interpret any member staying on points weekdays but cash on weekends is a vote for lower weekends. Maybe, that member just would like to take more trips with their points, and using a smaller amount for each trip would allow them to take two trips instead of just one, or three instead of two. Now with the points higher, that may not be a possibility. It is not as though Disney made the weekend points equal and that member could travel on the weekend now, those points are still considerably higher.

 

[DVC92]

Under section 721.13 of the Statutes, it states the managing entity has the following duty: "(g) Scheduling occupancy of the timeshare units, when purchasers are not entitled to use specific timeshare periods, so that all purchasers will be provided the use and possession of the accommodations and facilities of the timeshare plan which they have purchased."

I don't believe that requires all nights to have equal points.

 

[Dean]

One thing I fail to understand is why some think that DVC is under a legal obligation to balance demand. In reviewing my POS, it clearly states that reservations are on a first come, first serve basis. If you don't get your desired booking, too bad. It also states that the reallocation, limited to 20%/year, to balance demand is a discretionary power of DVC, not a mandatory one. It goes on to state that there are a maximum number of points that can ever be required to stay in a particular room (i.e., studio, 1 bedroom, etc.) on any given day.

That being said, if DVC truly is trying to balance demand, then subsequent reallocations will occur yearly until weekdays/weekends are balanced however unfair that might be to minimum point purchasers of which I am not. This one time reallocation will not influence or allow members, particularly those who purchased a minimum # of points (e.g., 160), to book on weekends which still require substantially more points. However, this reallocation will allow such members to make a minimum add-on of 25 points to continue going only Sun-Thurs. and will force any new buyers to purchase more points if they only are attempting to book weekdays. If DVC doesn't institute further reallocations, then I believe this was their motive.

I think this section from FL chapter 721 implies the requirement as does the POS in general but it will not spell out that it MUST be done or at what level.

(6) Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan. 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. The person authorized to make additions and substitutions during the term of the multisite timeshare plan shall also comply with the requirements of this subsection in ascertaining the desirability of the proposed addition, substitution, adjustment, or amendment and the impact of same upon the demand for and availability of existing plan accommodations and facilities.

I don't agree that to interpret any member staying on points weekdays but cash on weekends is a vote for lower weekends. Maybe, that member just would like to take more trips with their points, and using a smaller amount for each trip would allow them to take two trips instead of just one, or three instead of two. Now with the points higher, that may not be a possibility. It is not as though Disney made the weekend points equal and that member could travel on the weekend now, those points are still considerably higher.

The issue isn't what an individual wants but what really happens. Maybe that member didn't want lower weekends, maybe they'd prefer lower weekdays. But actions speak louder than words and if your actions are that you stay weekdays and not weekends on points, you're creating a push toward a change. In an ideal system there would be someone else to push back the other way and it would all even out, not so with DVC it appears. Hopefully going forward this change will be enough to even out usage. It might or might not, we'll see. I's entirely possible you'll need another similar change in a few years.

Can you link me to the statute?

FL Chapter 721
FL Admin Code for timeshares . The way it works is the Statutes are the law and the rules further define the statutes but must be c/w them. If order to write a rule you must have the specific authority to do so under the statute.

 

[NJ Mets fan]

they could raise the number of points for a full week in magic season at the Boardwalk from 350 to 352 points in 2010. I came pretty close to buying 350 points so I could go every year during this season. I thought they could not change the point charts. I guess technically I could have kept borrowing the extra 2 points each year but what keeps them from raising the number of points even more??? I'm a new member so maybe there is something I'm not aware of.

 

[dandave]

Hi! DVC is allowed to arrange the points, as needed. They just can't change the grand total per resort.

There's a thread for this info here:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2066946

 

[NJ Mets fan]

Thanks - I should have known there would be a thread on this. I have to agree with the majority of people in that I don't like the changes.

 

[MELSMICE]

I don't agree that to interpret any member staying on points weekdays but cash on weekends is a vote for lower weekends. Maybe, that member just would like to take more trips with their points, and using a smaller amount for each trip would allow them to take two trips instead of just one, or three instead of two. Now with the points higher, that may not be a possibility. It is not as though Disney made the weekend points equal and that member could travel on the weekend now, those points are still considerably higher.

This is why we prefer not to say at DVC on weekends.......saving points for future trips during the same year, while also being able to experience different resorts.

 

[mickeymom629]

The issue isn't what an individual wants but what really happens. Maybe that member didn't want lower weekends, maybe they'd prefer lower weekdays. But actions speak louder than words and if your actions are that you stay weekdays and not weekends on points, you're creating a push toward a change. In an ideal system there would be someone else to push back the other way and it would all even out, not so with DVC it appears. Hopefully going forward this change will be enough to even out usage. It might or might not, we'll see. I's entirely possible you'll need another similar change in a few years.

The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.

 

[tjkraz]

The reallocation is based upon simple economic theory--supply and demand.

You can't price all nights identically because demand varies. Certain seasons are in greater demand so you charge a higher price to lower that demand. Christmas or Easter weeks would be a prime example.

Other weeks are in lower demand so you discount in order to increase demand.

The same holds true for days of the week. Weekends have the highest baseline demand due to interest by both weeklong vacationers and weekenders. So the weekend prices should be higher than weekdays.

The problem was that DVC set the weekends TOO HIGH in the first place. The points were prohibitively high and the only way to lower them was to raise other days.

If the point costs were identical for every night of the year, a Two Bedroom at Saratoga Springs would cost 41 points per night. The fact that DVC is charging 31 points per weeknight (Choice Season) in 2010 illustrates the fact that the points are still discounted to adjust for demand. A weekend is 48 points during the same season, which is done to limit what would otherwise be excessive demand for weekend reservations.

 

[BroganMc]

The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.

Well said. I personally think what DVC did was to actually make the system more unworkable and weekends even less desirable to members. It also created an instability where there wasn't one. In that, I mean changing weekly totals after so many years and with so many sold out resorts means that many members now are short points for a week. That in itself creates unrest among the membership. Talk of being able to do it again and make that imbalance even greater just jeopardizes the program's trust issues even more.

Of course, there are those here who argue DVC had legal rights and reasons to do what they did. And there are some who benefitted positively from the change (i.e. weekend warriors). The question to me is not if DVC had the right to reallocate but whether what they did was a wise thing overall. Was it truly beneficial to membership?

I know if I had purchased 350 points at BWV with the intention of taking the family down every Spring or Summer, I'd be hopping mad right now to find my contract is now worth less.

Let me put it this way, the wise thing for DVC to have done would have been to redistribute the weekly points but kept the weekly totals the same. They should also have announced this change the end of last year when BLT started selling. At least a warning that points were being reallocated. Barring all that, they should at least offer members of the currently selling resorts a promotion to do small add-ons to make up the difference. Leaving BLT owners hanging out to dry with that bogus 100 pt minimum add-on screams unethical.

 

[tjkraz]

The question to me is not if DVC had the right to reallocate but whether what they did was a wise thing overall. Was it truly beneficial to membership?

I don't see where they had any other choice.

The foundation of DVC is 100% year-round occupancy. If DVC is looking at trends where weekday rooms are filling up 10-11 months out while weekends are sitting empty, adjustments have to be made. For the last 3-4 years members have openly talked about how reservations are much more difficult to come by. Most often it was attributed to SSR coming on line and all members getting more paranoid about securing reservations. In hindsight, I suspect an even greater influence was the consistent flow of people buying points exclusively for weekday use. As time went on we had more and more people competing for the limited supply of weekday reservations.

Let me put it this way, the wise thing for DVC to have done would have been to redistribute the weekly points but kept the weekly totals the same.

Easier said than done. When you are reducing 2 nights and trying to spread the points over 5, the numbers are rarely balanced.

Look at SSR 2B Magic Season. The 2009 numbers are 36 pts weekday, 68 weekend and 316 weekly.

For 2010 the weekend points were reduced by 9 per night. That's 18 total points. How do you spread 18 points over 5 weeknights and still keep the weekly totals the same? You don't. So the weekly cost went up 2 points.

Most of the variances are of a similar 1-4 point swing. There are a very small number of larger variances, but I assume they are warranted by booking trends at the resort.

 

[Pootle]

The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!"

I mostly stayed Sun-Thursday too and it will change my pattern. I will now pay for the occasional weekend stay with points rather than cash.

Congratulations to Dean and tjkraz especially for sticking with this thread and pointing out the obvious and not-so-obvious angles without emotion and with great common sense. It's been an interesting read

 

[jakenjess]

The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.

At this point that's EXACTLY how I see it playing out for us. We may add one weekend night, but overall we'll stay fewer days on Disney property. No matter how you slice it, it's more points for us. This may also impact whether we buy APs. We always were able to stretch our points and get a couple (or even three) trips on one AP, but that looks doubtful now. I may go for the 10-day nonexpire, as our trips will now be fewer and farther between.

 

[Dean]

The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.

Only time will tell for certain and it will take us a long time to know in all likelihood since we will have indirect info at best to judge ourselves. However, the issue isn't what a given member will do but what the membership overall will do. There will likely be some that don't have the points and may have LESS points stays over time OR stay less days on points when they do. There will be others that have enough points (now or in the future) and WILL stay over the weekend and others still that will stay long weekends due to this change (or around 9 days with 2 weekends). Some have those visit habits now even with the higher weekends, more will with the change. The only way to change everyone's stay is to structure the options in such a way that it's really only feasible to stay over the weekend or a full week but I don't really see that happening. Remember, you don't have to change everyone's habits, just a percentage. And if this change isn't enough, you'll likely see another shift if a few years.

For sake of discussion, lets assume for a minute that those who currently stay S-F will not change their habits in any way except as this change forces them and that they will not buy any more points. As a minimum, you've freed up around 10% or more of the weekdays for other members to use and these days will more likely be Sundays and Fridays, thus they're more likely to stay over a weekend as well since their points will now go further. Thus this change will have at least some of the desired effect even if it doesn't change the approach of any S-F type members. But as I've noted, I have been one of those S-F members and it will change my approach for some trips.

The question to me is not if DVC had the right to reallocate but whether what they did was a wise thing overall. Was it truly beneficial to membership?

I know if I had purchased 350 points at BWV with the intention of taking the family down every Spring or Summer, I'd be hopping mad right now to find my contract is now worth less.

IF it evens out demand and improves the occupancy numbers overall, it has a major benefit to each and EVERY member, even the ones that it will cost more points. Obviously it comes with a price to some as does each and every change. If one bought exactly the number of points for a given week, with banking and borrowing, the damage is minimal. Your case is the worst situation I believe for a full week (percentage wise), going from 97 to 105 for a studio and even then it will only cost about 1 trip for a whole week every 12 years. Worst case scenario for a S-F person should be a loss of 1 stay every 5 years. For the example you quoted, 350 going to 352, it won't cost a full trip over the entire life of the contract.

As you likely know, one of my considered approaches was to add on 25 points at AKV instead of the 100 I did buy and then sell all the rest of my points. Then stay mostly on exchanges in. I would have been in a very uncertain position if I only owned 25 points when you couple that with this change and the change to RCI.

 

[Plutofan]

The people who should be really upset are the HH and Vero owners who purchased points to use at those resorts. Their savings has shrunk dramatically over the rack rates. With MF going up higher than the rack rates at these resorts recently you wonder how long it will be before it is not worth it to own at these resorts. If you divide the rack rate by the number of points most WDW resorts points value are the high twenties to thirties. If you do the same calculation at Vero and HH there are some point values in the low teens.

 

[mickeymom629]

originally posted by Pootle mostly stayed Sun-Thursday too and it will change my pattern. I will now pay for the occasional weekend stay with points rather than cash.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that means that you either had more points than you needed for Sun-Thurs stays before the point change and are now going to use them to stay 6 or 7 nights now or, if you are like me, you will be forfeiting another night of the week for that weekend night and/or banking and borrowing to add that weekend night(s), but still staying 4 or 5 nights in total.

I should have said "people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less # of nights as often, or less often with the same # nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" unless they had extra points to spare before. The # of nights meaning that now they might include a weekend night.

By changing these points, DVC has increased the cost for my stays and they already had my money and continue to get it every year when I pay my dues.

And, somewhere back in this thread is about housekeeping costs. I would prefer that they do away with trash/towel day unless someone requests it. I've never stayed long enough for the full cleaning day. Was the point about housekeeping that they have to come on Fridays and Sundays because of the vacation patterns? If villas were vacant on weekends then why haven't members been able to check in early on Sunday and get an already cleaned place - supposedly cleaned on Friday, which was a weekday (not double pay) and when most villas were vacated? In all my stays, I have rarely had a room ready when we've checked in on Sunday before 4p.m.

 

[disnefile]

I am very happy that DVC made the change. The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system. Timeshares are to benefit everyone. They should make the points equal for all days. I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.

DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.

 

[photobob]

The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.

We are even less likely to stay on weekends than before. My change will be either to stay less nights overall than before or drop down in accommodations to stay as many or more nights. I may try go to the resort that has lowest points.

 

[mickeymom629]

Plutofan - The people who should be really upset are the HH and Vero owners who purchased points to use at those resorts. Their savings has shrunk dramatically over the rack rates. With MF going up higher than the rack rates at these resorts recently you wonder how long it will be before it is not worth it to own at these resorts. If you divide the rack rate by the number of points most WDW resorts points value are the high twenties to thirties. If you do the same calculation at Vero and HH there are some point values in the low teens.

That's us. When we bought, HH MFs were lower than others and that was one of the reasons we bought there.