Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[bevis]

I can understand how the S-Th folks feel that they've lost some value. But I have to admit that i'm a little more than suprised at how many folks (here on the Dis Boards anyway) seem to vacation basically the same time of year, every year.
I asked a few pages back for some to define flexibility in terms of their ownership, particularly at the time they purchased, in hopes of understanding the hostility toward management. To me the issue was the timing of the reallocation (BLT sales) but even considering that, i've come to my senses reading Dean's explaination.So back to flexibility.
At the risk of sounding snarky, what did you expect. We all knew (or should have known) that this would happen eventually. It looks as though some of you more "seasoned" owners already have experienced it.
The way the system is set up is the as flexible as it can be. I never expected that the points for the same weekday, weekend day, week, season, etc. would stay the same indefinitely, so any changes to any of these don't give me reason to complain. If we could only travel the same week every year, we wouldn't have even considered DVC.
I just can't see how those that travel that way can say anything about the flexibility. If you can't or don't take advantage of the flexibility then maybe DVC wasn't a good choice.

 

[DVC92]

As I had previously mentioned, way back in 1992, DVC sold points (minimum being 230) and marketed the resort in a manner encouraging weekly stays. I still have a brochure they employed showing what a week costs for every season and unit. I don't know what the pattern of use was in the early years, but DVD/DVC altered their sales approach by lowering the minimum purchase of points and permitting small add-ons. This either created the current problem (assuming there is one) or exacerbated it. Whether or not their current actions are for sales or to alleviate an actual imbalance they created, I don't believe we will truly ever know.

 

[Disneyhappy]

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.

Hmmm... Insteresting - If that is the case, they should not market it as a flexible system which was one of the main reasons we spent more to buy DVC vs Marriott time share. DVC is coming closer and closer to being just another timeshare with the benefit of being onsite. Nothing wrong with it if that was how they market it. The 5 day renters DO have my sympathy if they made the initial point purchase based on that vacation pattern and the representation from DVC of a flexible vacation system. The POS may give DVC the right to make these many changes they have been making in the last few years but it doesn't mean it is no in "bad form" and members have to be happy about it. I followed these boards for quite a few years before we bought in and there were never complaints like I read now related to changes. If there had been this much negative chatter at the time be bought in, we would never have signed the contract.

As far as Disney winning any contract dispute- although they have the edge, I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. I see contract disputes litigated daily in my line of work and it is amazing how some courts, including appellate courts, rule when they think they are helping the underdog. Problem is finding an attorney (or team of attorneys) willing to go up against the relentless, well financed DVC/Disney teams of attorneys.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I would not be surprised to see the seasons change - as summer travellers - there is always plenty of availiability in May/June/July while the value weeks (Jan, early December, October/November) are really popular with DVC owners. I would not be surprised at ALL to see summer points decrease and "value" seasons increase.

That would not surprise me either as DVC becomes more popular. The point is to fill the parks during the times of the year when non-DVC members are staying home. The only way those "value" times for DVC will change drastically is if JQ public starts coming again during those seasons.

 

[lugnut33]

There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand." Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.

Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.

Now that's some stuff I'd like to see.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

As I had previously mentioned, way back in 1992, DVC sold points (minimum being 230) and marketed the resort in a manner encouraging weekly stays. I still have a brochure they employed showing what a week costs for every season and unit.

Back then, point systems were pretty uncommon. Was Disney really encouraging weekly stays, or just trying to make the system more understood by customers whose concept of a timeshare was a weekly stay.

 

[tjkraz]

Legally, in determining whether material information has been withheld, there is big distinction between revealing to a buyer that you reserve the right to make a change in the future, which arguably they have revealed (but there is a question, particularly for BLT owners, there), and revealing that you actually intend to make that change in the very near future, particularly before the buyer even gets to make a reservation for the resort. The "concealed" information would be Disney's knowledge that it was intending to make a change in points when it was selling to recent purchasers.

In a legal action, the buyer would also be entitled to get all documents of any such consultant and any communications between the consultant and Disney. What you describe could not have been the case because Disney as the manager and fiduciary of the members cannot just delegate away its responsibility to a consultant and then try to remain ignorant of what it was doing for months (doing so itself would be improper). It would be required to keep track and would be charged in any legal action of having all the same information and knowledge that its agent, the consultant, had when the consultant had it. I have seen many cases where the right hand tried to claim it did not know what its left hand was doing and it is a defense that I have never seen work.

Fair enough.

However, if that argument holds any water, it would apply to every single contract--original or add-on--that DVC has sold since it began evaluating reservation patters in preparation for the point adjustments. It's not just BLT that was reallocated but AKV, SSR, BWV and every other resort...all of which would have had some volume of contract sales while the reallocation was being computed.

That's a pretty big ball for Disney to drop from a legal standpoint.

I'm sure DVC isn't the first point-based timeshare to reallocate. Is there any legal precedent for having to provide additional disclosure beyond the statements in the POS and other ownership docs?

The legality of a BLT reallocation would appear to be a separate issue. Given the wording in the POS, I tend to agree that it may not be appropriate. However, as I said previously, I would also file that under the heading of "be careful what you wish for."

The scheduled BLT adjustments for 2010 are much more subdued than other resorts--just a point or two shift per night. If the BLT reallocation were reversed, we would go into 2010 with 8 resorts that have favorable weekend points and BLT with extremely unfavorable weekend rates. That could lead to even lower weekend occupancy at BLT and a more radical reallocation after a year or two worth of data has been accumulated. You'd be buying a one or two year reprieve from adjustments, followed by (potentially) years of even higher weekday rates.

 

[lugnut33]

Meh. We're over a hundred pages with countless posters throwing out terms like like fraudulent, dishonest, misleading, deceptive (and many, many more) toward DVC / DVD / Disney / Jim Lewis.

The terms of the POS are pretty much the only known quantity here. Nevertheless, many are playing judge, jury and executioner by condemning the above despite having little first-hand knowledge of the facts. There's also a lot of personal bias coming thru, here.

The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.

You are doing the same thing as many others because I constantly hear you saying too many people are staying during the week. Again, no real evidence of that has been presented (I'm not saying it's not true, but we are all guessing, unless you've seen the numbers) other than the old charts showing the weekdays were cheaper thus leading us to believe more people are using their points on weekdays than weekends.

I tend to believe this move is more targeted to getting locals to buy more points.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

Fair enough.

However, if that argument holds any water, it would apply to every single contract--original or add-on--that DVC has sold since it began evaluating reservation patters in preparation for the point adjustments.

At some point, Disney crossed a line. Reallocation went from possible to likely. It's hard to say when that line was crossed - that's why we have lawyers and courts. My guess is the line was crossed when specific action was taken - a committee was set up or consultants were hired. The legal standard is pretty weak - if a buyer can credibly claim they would have acted differently with information, it's a material fact.

It's an interesting message board discussion. But the practical consequences are very small. There's a chance some recent buyers will complain, and Disney will refund their money. No big deal either way.

 

[tjkraz]

You are doing the same thing as many others because I constantly hear you saying too many people are staying during the week. Again, no real evidence of that has been presented (I'm not saying it's not true, but we are all guessing, unless you've seen the numbers) other than the old charts showing the weekdays were cheaper thus leading us to believe more people are using their points on weekdays than weekends.

I probably expressed myself poorly. I wasn't trying to say that people are incorrect for making their own observations or discussing how they feel about the change. I have no problem with that. You're correct--there is little that is truly clear-cut here.

What I find disappointing is the the fact that some posters are being chastised for being insensitive toward others, while many more have had a field day making disparaging remarks at the expense of DVC / Disney / Jim Lewis. Here's hoping that EVERYONE can keep the personal attacks out of their posts--even toward those who are not here to defend themselves.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

You are doing the same thing as many others because I constantly hear you saying too many people are staying during the week.

The argument isn't that too many people are staying during the week. It's that demand for weeknights was too much higher than weekends.

 

[DaveH]

We bought in 2001. We were told and explained clearly this could happen. When we bought I was looking for ways it could change for the negative to us. I have noticed as DVC has grown on how easy some days have been to get and others harder. I have noticed the unofficial of seeing how busy the resorts are seem to be lighter on Friday ans Saturdays than the rest of the time. We have used just s-th and whole weeks and long weekends. We bought in at 150 points. Our needs were a studio. Our normal travel times at VWL our home was 7 to 10 days. We started going more than once a year, so when we could we added on when SSR opened to member buy in. We later added on the member cruise in 2007. We have one time we go almost every year and another often. We have also gone other times. I looked at the charts on weekly basis. One resort went up somewhere from 2-5 points and another down 2-3 points. I have also noticed that other times both went up and others down. I have noticed at one time the last 2 weeks of Aug was lower than now. The seasons have changed a little. I have noticed some minor days or 2 also in different seasons.

 

[TisBit]

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.

I think this would be a self defeating reasoning. By saying that people will change their vacation habits due to a negative affect on points, it would thus mean that those that are benefiting would also change their vacation habits in a positive way, by staying extra night, adding a trip, etc.

The only way that this reasoning would result in lower occupancy would be if they their was a substantial increase of points to EVERY member.

 

[tjkraz]

Hmmm... Insteresting - If that is the case, they should not market it as a flexible system which was one of the main reasons we spent more to buy DVC vs Marriott time share.

The reallocation hasn't altered DVC's flexibility. You can still book multiple resorts and room sizes, different dates each year, any number of nights that you want (no minimum stay), etc.

To some the VALUE has been altered, but that doesn't really have anything to do with its flexibility.

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Two months ago, if someone had investigated buying DVC for 2- and 3-day weekends they would find it to be a very poor value due to the high weekend point costs. Weekday travelers received a better value.

As of 2010 that value has been shifted a bit--weekdays aren't quite a good but weekends have improved substantially. On a macro level, I doubt the value of DVC has changed much at all--it's simply been reallocated. Some will make out better than they did in the past while others will be worse off.

 

[javamom]

Wow, I've read most of this thread. Stunning read.

For those members that bought pts for specific stays or types of stays, I feel for you.

Points are points, and most all owners are going to use their points in a way that maximizes their usage. For some, this allocation hurts. I feel for them.

That members use their points as they are allowed by the contract, and that DVC administers the program as they are allowed to by the contract is just fine and dandy. Yippee, everyone gets a cookie.

Personally, it doesn't effect my membership or my points. I didn't buy a set amount of points, or a minimum buy-in, for specific stays. I do however, use my points wisely to maximize the number of nights that I can stay. In most scenarios, I've lost a night. Oh well, I still get my vacation/s.

I do find it fascinating that they would choose this time to reallocate the points. I cannot think of a worse PR nightmare. "Welcome, thousands of brand new members that haven't even had a chance to use your points. Yeah about that, those examples that we showed you aren't really going to work on that minimum buy-in. But, you can bank or borrow around points and it'll all work out. Would you care to add-on to that contract?" "Oh, you don't need that many more points, eh? Sorry about that."

Similar scenario for those that did BLT add-ons.

As members, DVC already has our money. But I don't think that you could pay me enough to be a guide or MS CM right now, or well into 2010. I don't blame folks for being upset about this and word of mouth is the best seller. I think the timing is baffling from a PR stand point, and with all the properties that they have to sell I cannot think of a better way to generate ill-will on the grapevine.

Arguably, DVC doesn't "need" it's members to help generate sales, but in this economy, I wouldn't want my membership spewing venom a/or selling their contracts on the resale market.

Just my .02, and in this economy, it's really more like .00002

 

[LVSWL]

My new least favorite word..reallocated

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand." Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.

I agree that those that just purchased BLT probably have the biggest gripe. I wonder, however, if Disney couldn't use the argument that if the demand trend was pretty much the same across all the existing resorts that they could interpolate that BLT would have the same issues.

 

[figment795]

I would not be surprised to see the seasons change - as summer travellers - there is always plenty of availiability in May/June/July while the value weeks (Jan, early December, October/November) are really popular with DVC owners. I would not be surprised at ALL to see summer points decrease and "value" seasons increase.

If that happens DH and I will sell both our SSR and BLT contracts.

 

[Dean]

If that happens DH and I will sell both our SSR and BLT contracts.

I think you can expect early to mid Dec to change designations in the next few years to likely Dream season.

 

[figment795]

Agreed, harsh, nasty and uncalled for. Aside from saving points, some of us work 6 to 7 days a week, and taking a full week off from work can be an issue (such as my DH), so a 5 night trip is all he can muster at a time. You shouldn't be so judgmental when you have no idea what you're talking about......

Sorry if I made you mad. I do know what you are talking about. My DH as well has limited time off and sometimes we can only do a 5 day trip. I was trying to say we will miss the old point chart system that ends in 09.