Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[KLR-wlv]

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

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

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

I don't think any of us can presume to know WHY DVC did this - I choose to believe it's to "inflate" the older resorts points to come in line with current resorts for sale and to discourage competition from the rental market. That's my opinion - not 50 point b&b'ers "destroying" the system.

But of course - all we're being told is "To enhance the system for members"

 

[KLR-wlv]

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

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

People ADD-ON after the minimum in order to have an 11 month window for reservations. This effects anyone with a less-than-week's worth of points at any added on resort. So you're saying as an owner of WL - if I wanted to add-on at BLT to make reservations there at New Year's every other year or so - adding on 145 points to do that which now doesn't work and why I cancelled my add-on - shouldn't be allowed because that B&B is hurting the system?? How?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

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

I'm not here for friendship.

Having said that, I'm not here to be anybody's enemy either. None of this is personal with me.

It's all about the design intentions of a business model and to me it's obvious what the intentions of the model were. If I'm wrong, then I am sincerely wrong because it's the only way the model makes sense to me.

Why do they have minimum buy-in levels? Do you think 160 is arbitrary and random?

 

[figment795]

Perhaps people should think back to when DVC first started. I believe that at the time, the minimum points to buy in was somewhere around 240?? To me, it was obvious that the original intent was that people would basically buy points for a full 1 week stay. However, in order to increase sales, as the price per point rose, they decreased the minimum number of points required to buy in.

I think that now they have too many members who bought small contracts, planning on only 5 night stays and as a result, are not having availablility for those who want to stay a full 7 nights. This probably came to light more when the changes to the booking policies were changed.

I total agree with your coments. I feel DVC is not happy with all these small contracts and this is their way of adjusting the house in their favor again. I do not know how many more changes will occur before we sell.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

People ADD-ON after the minimum in order to have an 11 month window for reservations. This effects anyone with a less-than-week's worth of points at any added on resort. So you're saying as an owner of WL - if I wanted to add-on at BLT to make reservations there at New Year's every other year or so - adding on 145 points to do that which now doesn't work and why I cancelled my add-on - shouldn't be allowed because that B&B is hurting the system?? How?

Why "a week"? Where did that come from? Did you decide that?

Please quote me (in context, please) where I said B&B hurt the system and I'll try to clarify my intended dialog.

 

[WolfpackFan]

Why do they have minimum buy-in levels? Do you think 160 is arbitrary and random?

Sorry, I'm out of this debate. Have a nice day.

 

[tjkraz]

I don't think any of us can presume to know WHY DVC did this - I choose to believe it's to "inflate" the older resorts points to come in line with current resorts for sale and to discourage competition from the rental market. That's my opinion - not 50 point b&b'ers "destroying" the system.

But of course - all we're being told is "To enhance the system for members"

No, we have also been told that the move was "to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns." It has also been illustrated repeatedly that DVC is required to periodically reallocate in compliance with Florida timeshare law.

You seem to only be hearing what you want to hear.

 

[jdg345]

Thank you--this was very helpful--it looks like the changes are all over the board.

I thought it was a pretty slick chart too. I didn't put it together, I borrowed that from another forum and another poster. (MO). I don't know if I can link there though, so ...

But here's another quick link to the chart, again, not my work:

http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081

 

[jecpva]

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

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

But what about someone who did buy in at the minimum, say 210 points, so they could afford a Grand Villa every 3 years. This is the same thing as saving your 50 point contract for 3 years so you can afford a studio. Just a different room choice. Would they both be "working the system". This is the way the points were set up and promoted by DVC and is not anything wrong. Just because you view it this way doesn't make it so. Regardless, now anyone who took advantage of the S-F points differential has to rethink how they will utilize their points whether they have a small contract or a large one. We always took advantage of the S-F points, sometimes booking rooms off property for the weekends so we could stretch our vacation. By the way, I have 210 OKW and an add on of 120 @ SSR so I'm not one of "those" people".

 

[KLR-wlv]

No, we have also been told that the move was "to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns." It has also been illustrated repeatedly that DVC is required to periodically reallocate in compliance with Florida timeshare law.

You seem to only be hearing what you want to hear.

Sorry to paraphrase - didn't realize that was ignorance on my part - I will be sure to quote from the scripture of DVC announcements from now on...

 

[bobbiwoz]

The one place that the charts are negative for us is with the Beach Cottage. The points for weekends were so out-of-sight-high, 143, vs 53 if my memory is correct, that we never considered booking one for a weekend stay. There will probably be more evening out, so we will be buying more VB points. After only 1 BC stay, my DH is hooked. We don't want to go every 3years, but at least every other year, for 3-4 nights. I was very happy with OVIR's until we stayed in a BC, too..it's not all his fault!

Bobbi

 

[KLR-wlv]

My entire reason for purchasing VB points was for a Beach Cottage every now and then - I've never had a difficult time booking any other room category at VB at 5 months out even at spring break. ANd I am not about to purchase more points now because I think there will be further adjustments since they hit their max in 2010 for the BC increases. We are staying for T-Giving this year for the first time. I kind of feel like cancelling since I don't want to get hooked...

 

[jdg345]

As I look at it, BLT owners need fuel to make Disney realize it has acted improperly and faces the risk of having its change successfully challenged. These members have literally been screwed. Concealed from them when they bought is that the change was going to be made. They bought relying on the chart they saw, and now they are SOL because Disney raised the minimum to 100 points for an add-on. Disney not only did wrong but added insult to the injury. It is the epitome of a series of stupid management decisions that failed to consider the interests of those purchasing at BLT and it is so bad that it looks intentional. At the very least Disney should permit those members to have the option of either purchasing a 10 point or more add-on at the discounted price originally paid or to rescind the entire transaction and get their money back.

Come now, I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

I shredded my most recent BLT add-on contracts. I'm keeping the founding points for now and will see how it plays out.

 

[jdg345]

This will be us.

Due to airfare costs we seek to maximize our # of days on vacation since we typically only take one "flying" vacation per year. Thus far that has meant a minimum of 7 days and a desire to stay longer.

With weekend points now lower it will be more cost effective than it was previously for us to add days on to either the beginning or end of our 7 day stays.

Are you sure about this? Weekday's can now be more expensive than the savings given on the Fri/Sat stay. IOW: The week can actually be a bit more expensive now. If you're extending by adding weekdays, then it's likely to be even more expensive than that. It might work out depending on what resort/season you're talking about [for now], but you might want to check the charts to confirm.

 

[hellerjw]

Personally I was never comfortable with splitting my points between multiple resorts because I wanted enough at one resort to get 2 or 3 stays a year there with the 11-month booking window. If we could switch at the 7-month mark great, if not I knew I had a reservation somewhere we loved. We started with 200 at AKV and last year did two 100 pt add-ons so we now have 400 pts at one resort. This gives us the flexibility of planning multiple yearly trips without having to worry about seasons or weekend points so much.

Having all my current points at our home resort is what makes me comfortable within the system DVC has put in place, it doesn't mean its the only way to utilize the system they deemed would govern our stays.

I was never comfortable with the idea of buying smaller contracts just so I could stay somewhere a night or two (and have to move during a stay) or that I would have to bank/borrow just to get a stay there every three years. However, that's just my personal feeling and how I was most at ease with how we would use the system that's in place. Obviously there are many others that are perfectly fine with owning multiple resorts or smaller contracts that require banking/borrowing and that is how they want to use the system that's in place. Neither approach is wrong.

I think DVC understimated the ingenuity of owners and the "inside" knowledge that's available to owners and newbies alike via places like these boards. They probably never intended their system to be used in the creative ways it has been so they used whatever avenue they had available to try to correct the disparity. Hence, the recent drastic changes to the point charts.

I'm sure the US never intended for its tax code to grow to thousands of pages either, but when taxpayers find clever ways to legally "use" the system, regardless of what the system's original intentions were, they have to make adjustments. That's how I see this, a simple adjustment to try to reign in use of the system that may have been headed in a direction DVC was uncomfortable with. It hurts some, it benefits others. It doesn't mean they are punishing us for using the system in ways they couldn't imagine when they orginally created it. If anything, it means DVC underestimated how quickly it would grow and the ingenuity of its members.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

My entire reason for purchasing VB points was for a Beach Cottage every now and then - I've never had a difficult time booking any other room category at VB at 5 months out even at spring break. ANd I am not about to purchase more points now because I think there will be further adjustments since they hit their max in 2010 for the BC increases. We are staying for T-Giving this year for the first time. I kind of feel like cancelling since I don't want to get hooked...

As a Vero Beach owner, this is where I suffered the most. I had two seasons where my 50 pts were enough Sun-Thurs. With banking and borrowing, I could at least get 3 nights in a beach cottage and switch to an OVIR for the remaining two nights. Well, the point re-allocation shut me out of any beach cottage night, except for banking and borrowing, only to get TWO nights! My BLT add-on was to give me a chance of 5 nites in a BC at 7 mos. Soooo.....at least I was able to increase my BLT pts. enough to retain this strategy. No way am I going to purchase more VB points. Otherwise, I just lose a year banking and borrowing for an OVIR, so not too much of a deal with the OVIR's.

 

[TSMIII]

Are you sure about this? Weekday's can now be more expensive than the savings given on the Fri/Sat stay. IOW: The week can actually be a bit more expensive now. If you're extending by adding weekdays, then it's likely to be even more expensive than that. It might work out depending on what resort/season you're talking about [for now], but you might want to check the charts to confirm.

You misundertand - we're adding additional weekend nights which are now cheaper than before and thus we are more likely to go for longer than 7 nights.

 

[LIFERBABE]

I thought it was a pretty slick chart too. I didn't put it together, I borrowed that from another forum and another poster. (MO). I don't know if I can link there though, so ...

But here's another quick link to the chart, again, not my work:

http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081

Great Chart! Thank you to the OP! Is there a way to increase the size and print?
Sure will save me some work!

 

[DebbieB]

Can't banking and borrowing rules be changed? If so, we could REALLY hear screams!

I believe there is a clause in the contract that says banking and borrowing can be suspended to keep the system in balance.

 

[zorro77]

Just got back from Thailand and saw the post about the point charts. Took a quick look at a time we are going in oct in 09 and 10. We will use 1 less point at OKW for a 1 bedroom in 10. Not sure about all the issue that are being brought up. We have a good number of points and i can not see any big issues at this time. We spend most of our 750 every year at varies time and no big concern. I think that all business are going to do whatever than can to make the profits they need to and yet stay within their limits available. I think their will be changes to many things over the next year and that is what it will take to stay profitable.