Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[WolfpackFan]

My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125.

Sounds just like our situation. We always go to HHI the first week of June and stay in a 1BR. Our stays have been costing us 110 pts., but from now on they will cost 125 pts. Our plans are to make our 11 month ressie for a Studio which takes 65 pts. and then hopefully switch to a 1BR at 7 months using either our VWL or AKV pts. If we can't do it then I'll start backing up weeks until we can get the 1BR. If no luck, we'll just stay in the Studio. What gets me is that all this was done to supposedly reduce the pts. for Friday and Saturday nights. But at HHI, those points are still ridiculously high. Oddly enough, the Studio pts. didn't change that much, it was mainly the 1BR pts. Also, the 2BR's are not that many more pts. than the 1BR's now. It might be that we take a 2BR and waste the extra bedroom. But you do what you have to do.

 

[TisBit]

Maybe, but I think you missed my point which was for the reasoning that DVC gave for changing the points - you have to read what I was commenting to, which was that they lowered the weekend points so that more people would want to stay the weekend nights. I was saying that the people who like to go Sun-Thurs, because it fits their vacation preference (traveling on the weekends, etc) will not necessarily be adding the weekend nights TOO , etc. etc., just because they lowered the points. Those who already go on weekends are benefitted because their typical stay has been lowered.

Yes, those who spend less points for the time they usually stay might add a night (a trip?? - that would be a substantial savings), but I'm sure for some of those there will still be banking and borrowing to add the extra night or vacation. By the same token, those who are negatively affected will also find a way to bank and borrow to adjust.

No, I understood what the point was. But understand that the point is that if some lessen due to increase in point costs (most by only 2-10 points per vacation) many will add if it only means a few extra points then what they used to do.

I don't believe that they did this to encourage Sun-Thurs people to stay the weekend, but rather to increase weekend stays, which might be from Sun-Thurs people or people that typically go weekends. I know that I am more likely to stay a an extra weekend night now that the points don't "break the bank".

Majority of people in America actually work Mon-Fri jobs and are more likely to stay a weekend on vacation. While I am not one of those people (I work in law enforcement) my wife is and our vacations are usually from one weekend to another, before we would leave sun and come back saturday to save some points...I am more likely to do Sat to Sat now.

In the same sense, all the people here on the Dis that rent a room on cash to save points might rethink that theory, because the cost benefit is different now.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

Originally Posted by Buckalew11
I'm not happy with the new points system. My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125. I had not even looked at 2010 points until last night when I was thinking of booking for 2010.
I was surprised. I'm thinking of booking at BCV now and then switching to BWV, if possible, at 7 months to save some points. I'm not sure what I'll do.

It's doubtful BWV standard view will be available. It's likely AKV standard, OKW & SSR will be your best cheaper options.

One interesting thing about the reallocatio is that for certain room sizes during certain Seasons, even BW view rooms are cheaper than a similar sized rooms at BCV (and vice-versa). There are a lot fewer "no brainer" WL options among BCV, BWV and VWL where the points are exactly the same, so there is no risk of ending up with holding points. -- Suzanne

 

[Sammie]

Start booking earlier than you need at the exact 11+7 window, then add days until you get the dates you really want, then cancel the earlier days you do not need.

If you get your first 7 days at the 11+7 window (in say room 101), then you are guaranteed your longer stay if you add day by day. People that call the next day might get (say room 102) for your days 2-8 but no one else can start their trip in your room...

You might be able to walk by adding a day, then cancelling a day, but too many might get your account tagged as commercial (20 cancellations in a year)...

I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.

I mean it still has to be available.

 

[Mississippian]

I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.

I mean it still has to be available.

Sammie,

You may now make a reservation 11 months and six days ahead of your visit, instead of the old 11-month window. Under the old system, people were calling day by day. Now you can call once and get your reservation for the entire week.

The problem is that it is now possible for some dates to NEVER be available at the 11-month mark. They will be booked by people arriving a day or two earlier and will be completely unavailable when the first day to book on that particular dates comes around.

You are far more likely to get availability by "walking" than you are if you just wait until your desired reservation day arrives and book.

 

[dcfromva]

Anytime they are forced to turn-away potential guests due to lack of availability on weekdays--while weekend rooms sit empty--there is a problem.

Where is your data that supports weekend rooms go empty?

I would be willing to give you that weeknights book up before weekends, but I do not believe weekends go empty. It just doesn't mirror my experience with making reservations. I'd say 95% of of our stays include a least one weekend night. Anecdotal, yes, but I'm sitting on the W-L again for another Fri/Sat stay.

 

[tjkraz]

Where is your data that supports weekend rooms go empty?

Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself. The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand. If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.

 

[dcfromva]

Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself.

I am not familar with Fl law, perhaps you could point me to the statue to which you are referring?

The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand. If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.

I believe it has already been pointed out before that the language states "seasonal demand" Weekend to weekday changes do not suggest "seasonal" to me.
As I said before, I would be willing to give you that weeknights might book up prior to weekends, but empty --that is a far reach to make such a conclusion.

 

[tjkraz]

I am not familar with Fl law, perhaps you could point me to the statue to which you are referring?

It's been quoted in this thread at least a dozen times by Dean, myself and others. I'm not going to go search for it right now.

It states that the timeshare manager retains the right to reallocate the points in response to member demand.

I believe it has already been pointed out before that the language states "seasonal demand" Weekend to weekday changes do not suggest "seasonal" to me.
As I said before, I would be willing to give you that weeknights might book up prior to weekends, but empty --that is a far reach to make such a conclusion.

If I used the word "empty" it was hyperbole. Of course the resorts are not completely empty. But even if they are at 95% average on weekdays and 80% weekends (hypothetical), demand is still out of balance.

I think it is obvious that weekend levels are lower than weekdays under the current point structure. The volume of guests arriving on Sundays and departing on Fridays is very apparent to any resort guest. The 25% member cash discount is easy to obtain.

Whatever occupancy level the resorts are able to reach on weekends is also propped-up by the 25% discount bookings and rooms booked thru CRO under the breakage rules. The rooms should be full of members using their points--not cash-paying guests getting a deal.

 

[aurorafan]

Not to mention that the cost to buy in at lower point structure allowed them to significantly raise the price per point. Lets just say there is a breakeven point of where most feel comfortable spending on a timeshare. If that number is 20,000 then people who bought back in the days of 230 minimum at 52.00 a point only spent around 12,000 so they could easily by the minimum and more. Now a person who wants to buy a 160 point contract will need to spend close 18,000 for 30% less points. Now for a family to do the point structure that allows a good minimum (lets say 230 again) it would cost 26,000. So the owners who are advocating a minimum buy in that was higher have a great point that it would allow the system to work better, however the price per point has gone up to a point that make it difficult to get new buyers to buy in with that many points (this also benefits the older buyers as well as the value of their 230 points has gone up).

I definitely see the value to the system of having a higher minimum point buy-in, but I agree with the above statement in that DH and I wouldn't have been able to buy in if there had been a 230 pt. (or thereabouts) minimum at the current price per point. Our comfort level was definitely $20,000 as a max, preferably less, which is what we ended up with (160 pts. at $101/pt. minus the $8/pt. incentive).

We are one of the people Chuck (or Dean? can't keep track at this point sorry!) are saying Disney was hoping for with the "smaller" buy-ins though. We always knew we'd add on as soon as we paid off our current contract .

 

[aurorafan]

One thing that I really don't get, however, are those who plan to verbalize their disgust for DVC at the parks, to your friends, and to anyone else who will listen. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you follow a potential buyer around your home pointing out the non-existent closet space, the outdated kitchen cabinets, the tacky wallpaper in the den, or the overall feeling of gloom associated with the upstairs bedroom where Grandpa Bernie was found frozen last winter? I'm just curious.

Okay, I just had to post and say thank you for the laugh this morning! It is especially amusing to us as we have several of those issues in our house (although not the bedroom with the frozen relative )

 

[aurorafan]

I say that only as it applies to what we were told - "locking in to today's prices for tomorrow". It should still apply to all members using their points the way they have been.

No matter how you look at it, if a member has been booking Sun. to Thurs., their "prices" just went up for the same stay - which goes against what was implied.

If they had left some weeks in the year with the same points, that might have been a little better - at least the Sun.-Thurs. members would have some options at "yesterday's" prices.

Obviously, this is JMO.

The way I looked at it (and I could be completely off base here) was not that I could always get the same room at the same time of year for the same amount of days at "today's prices", but rather that what I could get in the future would still cost me less than what people going through CRO at that time would be paying. So I would be using points bought at today's prices while they'd be paying whatever the current rate would be at that time. Does that make sense?

 

[aurorafan]

condescending is the responses that r being given particularly as to the BLT situation re add on points. especially now that those short due to new allocation would be forced to purchase another 100 pts in order to make it work or curtail the plans they so carefully crafted. Never did i think i would be happy about deciding not to add on there.

I respectfully have to disagree with you here--I'm on page 126 of this thread, and so far even the people who say they have no sympathy for most of the situations are still saying they understand and/or agree with those who are upset over the BLT fiasco.

I personally think they should allow (as others have mentioned) those who already own BLT to get the minimum add-ons of 25 pts. to help alleviate the situation they now find themselves in. I think Tim is right--had they released this a couple of weeks ago before upping the add-on minimum, they would have seen sales increase a bit as those who found themselves short a few points amended their contracts to buy a few points more.

It was badly handled all around, and while I see the need for the reallocation (and will benefit sometimes from it) it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.

I mean it still has to be available.

Walking works when you book at the 11 month window plus additional days for which the 11 month has not yet opened. To understand, assume you book AKV concierge room 6401 11 months prior to Day 1 for Days 1 -7, but really want Days 5-11.

On Day 5, another member calls at 9 am and wants to book room 6401 for Days 5-11. They are told that there is no availability for Days 5 & 6 becuase you have already booked it. Days 7-11 are available, but the other member cannot book them because you cannot book within the 11 month window unless you have a continuous reservation; i.e., you must book Days 5 and 6 to be allowed to book 7 -11. The other member can WL day 5 but must call back the next day to see if Day 6 becomes available.

You call on Day 5 and want to book Days 7-11. Since you already have a reservation for Days 5 & 6, you are allowed to book Days 7-11 and can cancel Days 1-4 to free up points to do so.

This is how walking a reservation actually creates availability for days not yet at the 11 month window.

I personally have not problem with walking; members book reservations they do not use all the time. I much prefer members cancelling unneeded dates close to 11 months out rather than close to 30 days. -- Suzanne

 

[DVC92]

Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself. The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand. If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.

As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.

Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.

Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.

I also agree here. There are many assumptions being made. Since this "imbalance" has existed for some time, I feel there are other motives involved for this move ( like money).

 

[tjkraz]

As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.

Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me (bold text is my own, of course):

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.

http://www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/in....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0721->Section 56#0721.56

I don't see anything in the statute which gives the timeshare manager (the developer is a separate entity) the right to reallocate on a whim or "to make a few dollars."

If you want to disagree and keep playing the "where is your evidence" game, so be it. But so far I have yet to any proof to support your argument, either. While sales may benefit in some ways, they will undoubtedly suffer in others. And I think Disney has much to lose in terms of reduced breakage bookings due to higher weekend occupancy.

 

[DVC92]

I don't see anything in the statute which gives the timeshare manager (the developer is a separate entity) the right to reallocate on a whim or "to make a few dollars."

If you want to disagree and keep playing the "where is your evidence" game, so be it. But so far I have yet to any proof to support your argument, either. While sales may benefit in some ways, they will undoubtedly suffer in others. And I think Disney has much to lose in terms of reduced breakage bookings due to higher weekend occupancy.

It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate.

I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate.

I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.

No you didn't.....I am the one who thinks they did it for money!! We don't even know if Disney lost ANY sales due to this change. We all really know NOTHING! One constant is that Disney is hurting....big, big, time. They need to generate revenue, how ever the vehicle.

 

[Chuck S]

Actually, it really isn't all that "discretionary". It says they SHALL, not that they may at their discretion. Shall = must, not "if they want to."