www.dvcnews.comPlease forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while), but could someone please post the link that has the 2010 point charts ?
Thanks,
Chris
Please forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while
You might want to wait till you get home to read the "charts".......Thanks Dreamin - and to think I was just hoping to have an answer by the time I got home tonite. When will I figure out that DIS really stands for Data In Seconds
Chris
For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand were your comments where coming from.....
I understand that DVC is a flexable timeshare..for us a week system based on a Sun-Sat stay would not have worked with the kids school/sports schedules..... we bought into BWV 8 years ago because of the flexability
to take trips of different lengths/seasons and villa size......I feel really bad
for everyone who bought an exact amont of points for a set season/villa size and has now needs more points per year to vacation the same way
There are MANY people I know that do whatever they can to maximise their vacations who are not on these boards too. I even know cash paying guests who do this. They don't book weekend nights at POP because it's $10 extra....they book in value season....etc
The whole "manipulating" word bothers me a little in your post sabor. My husband and I became Members in Aug 2000. We purchased as many points as we felt we needed to do a Sun-Thurs stay. We explained to our guide, that we had an offsite timeshare and HAD to stay weekend to weekend there. So we had no use for staying weekends with DVC. So I don't feel we "manipulated" anything. We knew we wanted and neeed Sun thru Thurs so that is what we purchased and that is what we have used. No manipulation there. I will say, now with this reallocation, dvc will force us to do some manipulating. So beginning in 2010, yes...we will be manipulating to maximise our vacation (i.e., booking smaller units and switching over to larger ones during the weeknights we stay). But for the past 9 years, we have not done this. We vacationed as we had planned from the very beginning. But starting 2010, we will have to get a little more crafy.....
That's not really true. Some members will need more points to vacation the same way they did, others will need less and many, if not most, will end up about the same overall. I think you're going on the assumption that the S-F crowd was a major group. While I think they were/are a significant group, I do not believe they are a major group in terms of number. And many of those still had enough points to make different choices and simply chose the S-F route, often staying weekends by other means. The truth is that it matters not (from a system standpoint) whether reallocation increases the costs for a subset of members because it's the overall usage that will drive this issue if further reallocations are needed.As always, I respect your thoughtful opinion. And while I would love to fully buy into this thought, the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand. Further realloclation will continue this trend....the only way to compensate for the changes, and maintain current vacation habits, is to increase or add-on points. Shifting members to include one or both weekends will not save or maintain the current members vacation points needed. So call it what you will, the end result does not change.....members will need more points, our current timeshare is not the same value as before the points reallocation. No denying this.....
Again, don't take this to represent the majority of the members either here on DIS or otherwise. People with a vested interest are more likely to post or even care plus bashing DVC has become the preferred view lately on the DVC portion of DIS and thus those with an opposing view are less likely to post. It's still a relatively small portion of the membership. Overall this change is likely neutral or nearly so to most members. Assuming the reallocation was needed, you would expect a larger group unhappy than happy, by definition. But still both groups added together are likely much smaller combined than those that are mostly unaffected.
It seems I'm only responding to your posts. I'm really not trying to single you out or beat you up, sorry if it seems that way. People throw around the word flexibility like it means something unto itself. Flexibility means something different to different people. In many ways my Marriott timeshares is MORE flexible than DVC and the weeks I own are all full weeks and float within high season. No doubt some people's stay will go up and that's how it should be given the information and needs at hand. IMO, that fact that some people's stay will increase in points really has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the decision. I'm still sad for those it affects in a negative way but without that sadness spilling over to affecting the decisions at hand.For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand where your comments were coming from.....
To a degree beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's use is another persons misuse. I'd personally put walking in this category of misuse. I would have put day by day as a use of an unintended ability.
As I noted above, these are two separate issues. I certainly see one being unhappy with the change if they are affected negatively. IMO, that is an unrelated judgement of a personal situation that does not carry over to the reasonableness of the decision itself. I think that's the philosophical difference in that some are having trouble sorting out their personal situation and the effect therein compared to the system needs while many of us see them as different if not unrelated issues. Here's an example that I think is somewhat applicable. Most states do not have a way to collect sales tax on internet or similar sales that occur across state lines. Many try to shift the responsibility to the consumer to pay it instead but I don't know anyone who actually has gone to the trouble to do so. IF the states figure out a way to enforce the state taxes on such sales, I'm sure some will be unhappy but it's hard to argue with an enforcement of the state laws even though it's been this way for decades where no one way paying the tax.
Thats okay.....just a couple of highlighted comments. If the S-F crowd was not that major a group, who was driving the imbalance? Secondly, if the overall usage of Sun-Fri was not the causing factor for point reallocation.....what was? Oh Dean, this topic was exactly what prompted my first and lengthy thread back in 2007 when it was indeed you and tjkraz discussing these very same issues!!!
Because it doesn't take a large % of people to make the balance out of whack. A 5% shift is enough to throw things off if it's consistent. Remember this is a conglomeration of usages. Some will be S-F, some will be 6 days with 1 weekend day, some will be 12 days with only one weekend, others a full week, etc. 5% is major in this context as is a 5% difference when talking SSR points at the 7 month window but it's not a MAJORITY which was the context in which you were using it. I do believe that the weekend/weekday imbalance was the main driving force in the change if not the only factor. So you should not have been surprised if we'd warned you already. One thing I can bet you is this won't be the last change that is negative to a group of members.
