Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[KAT4DISNEY]

For the record I am negatively impacted even though I didn't try and avoid weekend stays. But I'll work with what is given and am not crying unfair. I'm lucky enough to be able to choose various times to vacation so I'll adjust. But I have had a few thoughts about this change.

• I think this was poorly handled and that DVC is making too many sweeping changes. From a business standpoint I think this alone has been a bad decision and is creating ill will.
  
• I think DVC probably should have done season date adjustments and that they are now creating other allocation problems. I'm specifically referring to Adventure season in early Dec. which I felt was a real bargain. It may make the other adventure seasons a bit more difficult to fill and cause another gap in occupancy. After all isn't that the time people have really been complaining about not being able to get reservations?
  
• We don't have DVC's information so it is all supposition that weekends were not filling up. Personally we are and were going to continue to be weekend/week stayers. The DIS group is great at maximizing DVC value (and there's nothing at all wrong with that). But I don't think it's a typical representation. Ths jist is that I haven't been convinced that weekend/weekday points were so out of whack. In fact I'm now fully expecting to have difficulty in getting weekends. This change is a BIG plus for people who live close to WDW.
  
• The change to BLT points is just plain unfair and unacceptable. There is no way that they didn't know this change was coming. This is where Disney really brought themselves down more than a few pegs to the level of bad-mouthed timeshares.

I do understand about people's complaints in being told to pick out your season and unit size to determine what you buy. I was told the same thing. And even though the paperwork negates anything your told I have never bought the idea that just because a business covers their behinds in the legal paperwork that it is ethical to feel they can say anything for a sale. I hope that people will contact DVC and complain about how they were sold this product. I disagree with posters that say it's how it's done and just accept it. I won't get political but that's so much at the root of the problems we're experiencing in the country today. It actually is possible to be correct and honest and make a sale b/c hopefully there is enough to the product that makes it worthwhile in selling.

More than the point charts the thing that gives me greater pause is the much less discussed change to waitlisting. I think Dean is 100% on track that DVC is certainly encouraging and may be setting up for a change to longer stays. Limiting to 2 waitlists and starting to even out weekday/weekend points leads me to that conclusion.

Yikes!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart. There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.

This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.

Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.

Is there anyway that they are messing around with the SSR points in the adding of the treeshouse villas? ie - could they "issue" more points in their declaration for those units than the 2 bedroom number that they are going to charge since technically they are a different type? I haven't seen any paperwork and really wouldn't think so but if so then they could up all the points around the resort. And, it would leave them open to change the point requirements for the tree house units later if they determine they are experiencing a greater demand and then reduce other units back to the level they were.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

. . .
[*]I think DVC probably should have done season date adjustments and that they are now creating other allocation problems. I'm specifically referring to Adventure season in early Dec. which I felt was a real bargain. It may make the other adventure seasons a bit more difficult to fill and cause another gap in occupancy. After all isn't that the time people have really been complaining about not being able to get reservations? . . .

The limit on not making more than a 20% change in the point total for any particular night prohibited DVC from switching certain rooms at certain resorts from one Season to the another.

For example, a Studio in Adventure Season in OKW on weekdays was 8 points; the most it could change (and not violate the 20% limit) was by 1 point, which it did in 2010, to 9 points. If DVC does further weekday/weekend rebalancing for 2011, the Adventure Season OKW weekday studio could go all the way to 10 points per night.

If they did more changes in 2011, then in 2012, DVC might be able to move early Dec into Dream Season (i.e, a weekday Studio at 12 points) and move, say, late Aug into Adventure Season (i.e., a weekday studio at 10 points). If they are going that route, I would also expect to see Oct move to Dream Season and May move to Choice Season.

I don't have a crystal ball, but DVC has taken the genie out of the bottle with this change in the points chart and I would not be surprised by more changes. -- Suzanne

 

[kristenrice]

If you're 10 points short with the new schedule and you own 150 points, what's the big deal about borrowing 10 points every year for 15 years? You might be ready to skip a year by then anyway... or do an add-on. I'm obviously missing something.

Some people bought smaller contracts (i.e. the 100 point minimum at AKV offered this summer) to take a 200 point vacation very other year. Some planned for a 300 point trip every three years. It is not so simple as just "borrowing 10 points" from next year. Some folks need to use every available point for their vacations and now they are coming up a few points short.

I have had to redo my vacation plans for the next several years just like others who have posted here. I am not thrilled about it, but I will make due. Instead of putting 4 of us in a 2BR down the road, we will have to tough it out in a 1BR. Sure, we might not be bringing along family and friends like we had planned, but we'll adjust.

Some people can't just borrow the points and even fewer are in the financial position to "just do an add-on". As much as I would have like to buy in for 200-300 points, we didn't have that kind of money. For those who can afford enough points for a full 7 nights, congrats! I am not one of you. I can afford enough for 5 weeknights...for now. We'll see what happens if there are further reallocations. I am with those who have said that it is not so much THAT they made the change, it's more upsetting as to HOW they went about it. I've adjusted and moved on since there is nothing I can do to change it.

 

[Belle & Ariel]

Because I've been saying the same thing for 60+ pages and some people still choose to not understand and insist Disney is the big bad wolf because Disney followed the contract. The contract that we all signed. Yes, I'm frustrated that there are adults that spent thousands of $ and seem not to have taken the time to read the contract to understand what they were buying. That is not Disney's fault, it is their own fault.

Maybe it's because I work in business and deal with contracts all the time. I would never sign something I didn't understand.

When we did our tour, we asked our guide for a copy of the contract to preview. He was astonished and said no one had ever done this before.
When do people typically get their contract? If it is not seen until you are back home and under deposit/contract, you are emotionally invested and it's a little late to read the fine print.

 

[Dean]

Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart. There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.

This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.

Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.

You may want to work it out room by room, day by day for the entire year. Some weeks went up and some went down but only two instances did a specific week, unit and season change by more than 4 points, choice studios went up 8 points and Premier GV went down 32 points. All total there were 13 unit size and season decreases and 8 increases if you count 2 BR and THV as different if I scanned through correctly. In all cases except the two I mentioned above, the change up or down was between 1 & 4 points for the entire week. This will not be an exact science given that there are several factors. You start with the current charts and demand and are limited by the 20% change limitation and the need to balance the entire resort (but not a given unit type). If I read your post correctly, I think you made some incorrect assumptions. There is no need for a given season or room type to balance, effectively all they have to do is balance the entire resort for the year, it's a little more complicated than that but in effect that is the ultimate limitation. While the newer POS suggest each unit "group of rooms" must balance, the oldest one I have from 1994 essentially implies the entire resort must balance.

And exactly how could I possibly be adversely affected by that "multiple week owners get first dibs at 13 mos" rule EXCEPT when looking at possibly the highest demand week: Christmas to New Year's. Given that when I purchased my first (and then my assumed sole week) I knew demand would be high then and my likelihood of getting thus decreased, I fail to see the pain in that rule change.

I'm not saying you personally but any member. It likely doesn't affect you because you own at low demand large resorts and this happened before you were a member so you knew up front. But for those that bought places like Maui and tried unsuccessfully for 5 or so years to get the week they wanted and couldn't, you might feel differently. You make another point for me, that it's how it affects one personally that is the issue for most, not the overall interpretation of the situation. My point in this was that Marriott changed the rules mid stream without input and it did affect a large block of owners at many resorts. And they did so almost exclusively with the intent of spurring sales it appears.

You keep trying to say that this DVC change is nothing compared to what Marriott might one day do. But you fail to miss what DVC did and what Marriott can never do: shorten my one week timeshare to 6 days.

That is precisely what's happening with Choice season at SSR. The weekly jump of 8 whole points means that one of my 4 weeks has gone to 6 days. Absolutely no benefit to me. The lower weekend points are completely overwhelmed by a 2 pt daily increase in the weekday rates.

I'm not trying to say anything, I AM saying it's small potatoes in the big scheme of things and is a lot less than things Marriott has done in the past and that both DVC and Marriott MIGHT do in the future. How it affects you is obviously important to you but not germane to the decisions. I am sorry it cost you a day of usage simply because you were aiming at that exact unit size and season but DVC did not single you out personally. As with any changes there are winners and losers, you are one of the losers it appears and I truly am sorry about that. But I guess the real question is what do you do now? Do you sell, buy more points, do an occasional cash day, shorten your stay every few trips; those are the type of decisions that we all must make if we are on the losing end of this.

 

[Dean]

Wilson, I guess you and I agree on something!! (Dean are you getting paid by Disney??)

No but I'm open to any bonus they might throw my way. They might think it's funny as I'm usually taking them to task in one way or another.

When we did our tour, we asked our guide for a copy of the contract to preview. He was astonished and said no one had ever done this before.
When do people typically get their contract? If it is not seen until you are back home and under deposit/contract, you are emotionally invested and it's a little late to read the fine print.

Unless they were very new I don't believe this for a second. More likely sales talk for no need to worry, no need to read it.

 

[jekjones1558]

I am one of those who believes that Disney did what its fiduciary responsibility to members requires, although I think that it delayed this move too many years, thus making it more painful. I also believe the short notice is totally disrespectful. DVC booking works best when planned well in advance.
I wish there were a way to put pressure on Disney to open a window for multiple point transfers and for small point add-ons. Although I know that some folks are too angry to consider putting any more $$ into DVC vacations, I think that there are some who just want to solve their new point shortage dilemma. Once the initial shock and fury have passed, there remains the task of work-arounds. I wish I knew of an effective way of organizing an effort to facilitate solutions for those members who are most negatively impacted.

 

[CheapMom]

How can we tell if DVC is in compliance- is there some sort of points audit that is available to us so that we can see that the resorts are truly reallocated and that it is not, as Brogan's SSR math shows, a resort wide increase?

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart. There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.

This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.

Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.

Not sure about this, but it was always my understanding that the points had to balance over a year. Not a day or week or month. I have not done any numbers for any time periods. So I don't know how the numbers really work out.

I guess I'm going to have to go back and read all these damn posts to understand what all is being said.

Personally, I think a thread should be limited to 10 pages.

 

[Belle & Ariel]

I was responding to your assertion that companies are not there to please the customer, they are there to make money. DVC has been doing both for many years, as do many companies that are in the business of dealing with customers. I don't believe DVC is losing money. If it was, I doubt they would be building 4 new resorts at once, with the fifth one beginning construction soon.

I am talking about the lost revenue resulting from empty rooms on weekends translating into no money spent on tickets, food, etc. Every empty room represents a loss of potential income--I'm sure they have a per diem average.
If you have taken any business classes, you would know a company is in business to make money and maximize shareholder wealth.
Can you imagine going into a bank to get a business loan and saying your goal was to please customers? That's not why businesses exist.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Can you imagine going into a bank to get a business loan and saying your goal was to please customers? That's not why businesses exist.

Somehow, I think Walt Disney had just THAT in mind.

Now I'm getting sucked in.... just got my feelings going.

 

[tjkraz]

for me I was paying $15,000 (plus annual dues) for 40+ years of lodging at my favorite resort at my favorite place to vacation

The standard terms and conditions acknowledged at check-in as a cash guests are what...a single page? The collective DVC ownership docs are several hundred pages in length. Big difference.

 

[TIGGERmetoo]

I guess we were lucky, before we bought I asked our guide about points changing & he explained that the total points for a resort for a total year would not change but they could be reallocated into different days/weeks.

 

[Sammie]

Not sure about this, but it was always my understanding that the points had to balance over a year. Not a day or week or month. I have not done any numbers for any time periods. So I don't know how the numbers really work out.

I guess I'm going to have to go back and read all these damn posts to understand what all is being said.

Personally, I think a thread should be limited to 10 pages.

I was told by Member Services that they have to be equal from year to year for the total based on weekly stays, adding all the seasons and all the room types.

 

[Sammie]

I am talking about the lost revenue resulting from empty rooms on weekends translating into no money spent on tickets, food, etc. Every empty room represents a loss of potential income--I'm sure they have a per diem average.
If you have taken any business classes, you would know a company is in business to make money and maximize shareholder wealth.
Can you imagine going into a bank to get a business loan and saying your goal was to please customers? That's not why businesses exist.

If DVC truly does not have any desire to please its customers they need to redo thier website.

The Disney Difference is what sets Disney Vacation Club apart... it's the heritage, tradition and values that began with Walt himself, carried forward to today.

Believe me Walt cared.

 

[BroganMc]

You may want to work it out room by room, day by day for the entire year. Some weeks went up and some went down but only two instances did a specific week, unit and season change by more than 4 points, choice studios went up 8 points and Premier GV went down 32 points. All total there were 13 unit size and season decreases and 8 increases if you count 2 BR and THV as different if I scanned through correctly. In all cases except the two I mentioned above, the change up or down was between 1 & 4 points for the entire week. This will not be an exact science given that there are several factors. You start with the current charts and demand and are limited by the 20% change limitation and the need to balance the entire resort (but not a given unit type). If I read your post correctly, I think you made some incorrect assumptions. There is no need for a given season or room type to balance, effectively all they have to do is balance the entire resort for the year, it's a little more complicated than that but in effect that is the ultimate limitation. While the newer POS suggest each unit "group of rooms" must balance, the oldest one I have from 1994 essentially implies the entire resort must balance.

Yes I understand that but I think you have not understood my math.

I went through each room category and did a simple equation of increase or decrease in weekly total.

For SSR that means for the room category of studio, there was a net INCREASE of 7 points needed per year. Grand Villas had a net decrease of 44 points. Of course there are many more studios than Grand Villas (432 to 36) so any net decrease is far outweighed by the net increase for the resort.

I did the same equations on the other categories, accommodating for the exact number of units in that category and multiplying by a factor of 52 for the number of weeks in the year. What I came up with in the end was a net increase number of points.

What makes this all hinky to me is that if you expected there to be a balanced chart just redistributed points then adding up all the point differentials should give you a net difference of 0. It does not.

SSR 2010 Overall Weekly Point Differential (factoring point adjustments for each room category & season per year multiplied by number of each unit in the resort)

GVs -44 (x 36) = -1584
THVs +3 (x 60) = 180
Dedicated 2bedrooms -1 (x 360) = -360
1bedrooms +3 (x 432 units) = 1296
Studios +7 (x 432) = 3024

TOTAL POINT DIFFERENTIAL

-1584 (GVs) + 180 (THV) + - 360 (Ded 2bed) + 1296 (1bed) + 3024 (studio) = +2556 (net increase)

Or if we want to break it down for the 52 weeks next year then the totals are:

-82368 (GVs) + 9360 (THV) - 18720 (Ded 2bed) + 67392 (1bed) + 157248 (studio) = +132912 (net increase)

You make another point for me, that it's how it affects one personally that is the issue for most, not the overall interpretation of the situation. My point in this was that Marriott changed the rules mid stream without input and it did affect a large block of owners at many resorts. And they did so almost exclusively with the intent of spurring sales it appears.

Honestly, the reason I'm not all bothered by the 13 month rule is that it doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect me because I own multiple weeks already. I have yet to be able to snag a holiday week in Hawaii however because I do not own there. Had I desired to purchase there I'd significantly increase my chances. The 13 month rule doesn't help me or hurt me.

The same is true for point changes at resorts I don't own, which is why I'm not screaming about any resort other than SSR and BLT. BLT seems to have a more balanced chart to my eyes. SSR is different.

Skimming chatter about VWL, I wonder if there's something similarly hinky about that one too.

I'm not trying to say anything, I AM saying it's small potatoes in the big scheme of things and is a lot less than things Marriott has done in the past and that both DVC and Marriott MIGHT do in the future.

If Marriott drops Cypress Harbour or Grande Vista or even Manor Club, I lose the ability to trade my unit for hotel rewards points. I still get to travel to those resorts for a full week. I also own weeks during the times I like to travel, just in case they decide to go to a fixed week system. If they drop II and go to internal exchanges, well then I own at only the resorts I like to visit. This is all covered in the same rules you and others have given to prospective DVC buyers (i.e. don't count on the perks, don't count on trading, etc.).

The one thing you seem to want to overlook is that the weekly totals have changed significantly enough that a week at DVC has decreased to 6 days for many.

Now sure, I can weather the storm better than others. I have enough of a cushion that I can just adjust my travel patterns. But I still notice the shortfall and am incensed at the principle of the thing. Everything you're saying about what's in the POS does not seem to be what DVC actually did.

But I guess the real question is what do you do now? Do you sell, buy more points, do an occasional cash day, shorten your stay every few trips; those are the type of decisions that we all must make if we are on the losing end of this.

If this had simply been a matter of rebalancing (and handled with much better communication), I would have just added on a 25 pointer to cover the difference for times I like to go (October & May). But because they've bungled this and seem to be willfully cheating me and others out of their usage, my faith in the company is hanging by a thread. I don't wish to enter into more contracts with them.

I still enjoying going to Disney and will until the personnel and amenities detoriate to similar levels. So for me, I'll just adjust my traveling pattern to maximize my point usage. That means I'll just shorten my stays in May and extend them in September, October or December. I fail to see how this change will make one bit of difference to weekend demand. I suspect very few people bookended a week with weekends. The point decrease on weekends does not equate to the point increase in weekdays. So even if you were able to bank a few points on your stay it is not enough to cover a full day's usage at any time. People will be flocking to the same travel patterns, just with much less enthusiasm for the company and a sense of being pressured.

Overall it seems the ones making these decisions are the ones counting on sales as their bottom line. So the best way I can make a statement to them (other than send off my e-mails and letters of complaint) is to not add to their sales anymore than I have. That also means they lose me as a free PR person. I'm more likely to warn prospective buyers from the program than toward it.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

I was told by Member Services that they have to be equal from year to year for the total based on weekly stays, adding all the seasons and all the room types.

Hey Sammie, Thanks... I don't remember it that way, but I am not a real good reader. So, if I am wrong... wouldn't be the (many numbers) time. Need to be more careful about what I know and what I THINK I know.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Overall it seems the ones making these decisions are the ones counting on sales as their bottom line. So the best way I can make a statement to them (other than send off my e-mails and letters of complaint) is to not add to their sales anymore than I have. That also means they lose me as a free PR person. I'm more likely to warn prospective buyers from the program than toward it.

Well said... this is me... I won't be a PR person, but I am not yet going to discourage prospective buyers.

 

[TSMIII]

Yes I understand that but I think you have not understood my math.

I went through each room category and did a simple equation of increase or decrease in weekly total.

For SSR that means for the room category of studio, there was a net INCREASE of 7 points needed per year. Grand Villas had a net decrease of 44 points. Of course there are many more studios than Grand Villas (432 to 36) so any net decrease is far outweighed by the net increase for the resort.

I did the same equations on the other categories, accommodating for the exact number of units in that category and multiplying by a factor of 52 for the number of weeks in the year. What I came up with in the end was a net increase number of points.

What makes this all hinky to me is that if you expected there to be a balanced chart just redistributed points then adding up all the point differentials should give you a net difference of 0. It does not.

I'm sorry but it's more complicated than that.

You have to do as Dean said and calculate day by day. There are too many variables, like the shift of the weekends year to year, season to season.

Further, there is the Base Year that DVCMC has used for the initial calculation of the point chart. I mentioned in a previous post that one could go to tjkraz's excellent site dvcnews.com and find his article about the POS language which he actually pulled from the SSR POS. This will help explain the methodology DVCMC used to derive the point totals.