Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[MiaSRN62]

She made it quite clear that she sees how some are negatively affected by the change

Well sorry Tim....I guess her post didn't seem quite as clear to me as it did to you. I didn't see it the way you did. Interpretation can be a difficult thing on internet boards. Enough said by me on this point.

 

[palhockeymomof2]

She said "members as a whole" not just "members."

If you look at the progression, the post she was replying to first implied the changes were an overall net reduction in value for everyone. That lead to confusion on pahockeymom's part since her numbers did not show it as being a net loss.

She made it quite clear that she sees how some are negatively affected by the change (quoted in my last post.) But she is also correct in observing that the net change--collectively--is zero. The reallocation did not add new points to the system. Some have seen their value increase...others have had their value decrease...but as a whole there is zero change.

thanks again for explaining things much clearer that I do....

 

[DVCDebb]

Yes there are those of up upset due to the increase in points Sun-Thur as with school schedules and work this is what we can do and now points have gone up 5 points each night. That is a huge impact on family travel for some of us the value has gone down now.

 

[MiaSRN62]

Wow......I never said I didn't see how some members were negatively impacted...or that I didn't understand why some members were upset....I actually said the opposite....that I understood and felt very bad for those members so please don't put words in my mouth.......yes the reallocation made it more expensive for some members....but not all members... as was said in the post I read this morning...and the one I responded to.....I do see the flip side of the coin and did say I felt bad for you being short 30 points.....please go back and read what I said....

I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said pahockeymom. Honestly, I read and re-read your post and still see it differently. I'm on vacation in WDW right now....I probably shouldn't be on this particular thread.

I'm having some down-time after a long day in the parks (fighting cheerleader crowds) and staying up to 1 am last night for EMH. So I'm probably overly tired. So again, if I understood your post to say or mean something different, then I apologize. Don't know what else to say except I just keep missing the jist of what you were trying to say. Or I was concentrating on certain sentences and not looking at the post as a whole. Like I said.....I'm backing off from this thread while I'm in WDW because I don't need the heat..... I'm glad Tim is backing you up on what you said. Have a good night.........

 

[palhockeymomof2]

Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.


I was responding to BWV dreamin's post a page or so back. that stated .. with the reallocation vacations were more expensive for members as a whole....I thought I had missed something in figuring out the number of points needed for our trips...trying to see how our vacations would be more expensive...since I thought I had calculated that on one trip the points needed would be 2 more and on another a few less.....I had figured out our points correctly......I get that for any trips booked for 5 week nights the points required per trip when up....and I understand your frustration..30 points... ugh

MiaSRN62..how exciting at WDW now..wish I was there too ...have to wait another 6 months or so.....

I think these threads get confusing sometimes and I never meant anything negative by posting...the only reason I posted on it yesterday was because of the statement made about members as a whole needing more points & vacations being more expensive...I had thought I understood the reallocation....and didn't understand that statement....I've since made a few more post on this thread trying to answer different points...but the bottom line is I do understand and sympathize with anyone negatively affected...my brother is a member who will need more points to vacation as well...

Enjoy the rest of your trip Mary

 

[MiaSRN62]

Thanks for understanding Mary.......this thread has become quite the monster. I guess I've read so many negative/snarky comments (and several directed right at me), that you get the defensive guard up a bit.

I was reading through this thread and trying to catch up from 2/3 (the last day I had checked before leaving for FL), and I guess it was just too much to tackle while in "vacation mode"

We're on our final day in WDW and I'm planning on just going out and having some fun Thanks again Mary........


Oh....and btw, I was able to get dh out to see the BLT model (before we left, I mentioned he was refusing because he was so ticked !)........so I think a few posters said that this point reallocation frenzy would die down a little and the dust settle.....
Being that my dh was willing to look at the models showed he's softening a little bit on it. He's not sure he wants to buy any more points right now as he feels a bit deceived for lack of a better word.
Not happy.....but accepting it all a little more........

Off to play...............


Maria

 

[tjkraz]

I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points. We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful. I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been. But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time.

...who am I kidding? I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less. We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.

I'm going to miss it!

I can understand the initial negative reaction (believe me!) but you might want to take a close look at your numbers before you decide to sell.

According to your post you bought the points 10 years ago at a much lower price than we see today plus a CM discount. The points are long paid for. It also sounds like you only have enough points for 4-5 nights even under the 2009 charts.

If I'm reading that correctly, you can't own too many points. 150, perhaps?

Assuming Walt Disney World (or Disneyland, or Vero, or HHI) still appeals to you as a vacation destination, consider what you'll pay out-of-pocket as a cash guest compared to your current annual dues payments.

Even if you can't visit for 4-5 days every year, you should still be able to do that pattern 4 out of every 5 years with your current points by banking and borrowing. Or you could look at combining points from 2 years and making a longer stay every-other-year. Or you could look into visiting during a cheaper season. Sounds like your family may be getting a bit smaller--perhaps you could get by with a smaller room size.

Despite being a change that will impact many established vacation patterns, the reallocation doesn't completely eliminate the value of DVC ownership. And there are multiple approaches people can take to deal with it.

 

[mickeymom629]

Thanks tjkraz for the thoughtful words!

Actually we own 150 at HH and 50 VB and have never financed. But our dues are the highest and we never go to HH or VB, so I am thinking of selling ours and buying at WDW. I just got off the phone with someone at the Timeshare Store, and he gave me an idea of what my points might sell for. The interesting thing is that VB points are going for less than we bought them for and HH points are going for slightly more. Part of the reason for this is because I've already borrowed most of the points for 2009.

I've thought of some of the scenarios you've stated, but I wonder how difficult the smaller rooms will be to book, especially now with the point chart increase. I always knew we could get a 2 bedroom at OkW.

I don't want to jump the gun. But I'm also worried about no one wanting to buy my points if/when I am ready to sell.

 

[jamstew]

I've thought of some of the scenarios you've stated, but I wonder how difficult the smaller rooms will be to book, especially now with the point chart increase.

That's my problem. I can't downsize from a studio I have 150 at BCV & 150 at VWL, but I bought them with the intention of sharing the points with my adult children. The combined contracts are plenty for me to do whatever I want to, but I have to consider their trips too (actually, since I bought the points and pay the MFs, I don't really have to, but YKWIM). I was pretty freaked out at first, but after running some comprehensive spreadsheets, it's going to be at least six years before we're in a deficit (assuming the points don't change another 20% between now and then ). By that time, I seriously doubt I'll be traveling solo any more, so I'm not going to worry about it. I'm also not going to add on. I think I like the idea of a transfer when and if it becomes necessary.

 

[disneynutz]

I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points. We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful. I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been. But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time.

...who am I kidding? I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less. We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.

I'm going to miss it!

I hate to see Disney push anyone into giving up on what was once a good thing, but I understand your dismay.

You may want to investigate your contractual requirements should you decide to sell. Some CM's have reported that they are required to sell their points back to Disney.

Good luck and best wishes.

 

[disrailfan]

This is interesting. I am glad that we will be making short trips usually during the months of October and December from now on now that we are Empty Nesters.

 

[BroganMc]

This statement would also be accurate: "...I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation..." Since the total points cannot change, she is quite correct that the net impact to members is zero. Individual members will undeniably win or lose, but as a whole nothing has changed.

Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.

This is at the heart of many questions and the myriad of mathematical calculations popping up across the member community. As of yet, DVC has not produced the figures that demonstrate totals have remained the same. And even some in Member Services are suggesting that they are not with some resorts having fewer points in 2010 than 2009. All we have to say that the reallocation preserved point totals is that brief PR announcement and what statements were in our contracts laced with a lot of faith that DVC wouldn't dare shortchange membership.

It all reminds me of a science fiction story I once watched. The supercomputer was inflating people's electric bills by 1-2 cents and embezzling billions with the net effect.

Second issue here is your definition of "membership as a whole". Without access to the data of "total points owned by each member" and "most frequent booking pattern", we simply do not know if more members suffered, gained or had no issues with this change. The best we can do is total up different types of vacations and see if they cost more or less points in 2010. This is where weekly points come in handy. It's very easy to see how vacations compare.

I'm one of those who will take a hit but can afford to adjust my way out of it. So my concern is based more on principle than anything else. Now if weekly totals had remained balanced throughout the year, I'd have much fewer issues with it.

 

[Dean]

Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.

This is at the heart of many questions and the myriad of mathematical calculations popping up across the member community. As of yet, DVC has not produced the figures that demonstrate totals have remained the same. And even some in Member Services are suggesting that they are not with some resorts having fewer points in 2010 than 2009. All we have to say that the reallocation preserved point totals is that brief PR announcement and what statements were in our contracts laced with a lot of faith that DVC wouldn't dare shortchange membership.

It all reminds me of a science fiction story I once watched. The supercomputer was inflating people's electric bills by 1-2 cents and embezzling billions with the net effect.

Second issue here is your definition of "membership as a whole". Without access to the data of "total points owned by each member" and "most frequent booking pattern", we simply do not know if more members suffered, gained or had no issues with this change. The best we can do is total up different types of vacations and see if they cost more or less points in 2010. This is where weekly points come in handy. It's very easy to see how vacations compare.

I'm one of those who will take a hit but can afford to adjust my way out of it. So my concern is based more on principle than anything else. Now if weekly totals had remained balanced throughout the year, I'd have much fewer issues with it.

All you have to do is make arrangements to go down and spend the day in Celebration with DVC looking over the books as is allowed under FL law. While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change. ASAMOF, the more people truly affected the more likely the change was needed.

 

[MELSMICE]

While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change.

I realize this is just rehashing the same old scenario, by my Easter break vacation in a 2BR at OKW from S-F will increase by 40 points. That's more than a few points.

 

[dcfromva]

While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change. ASAMOF, the more people truly affected the more likely the change was needed.

I don't follow your point here (bolded). 100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down. That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.

 

[White_Sox_Fan]

I don't follow your point here (bolded). 100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down. That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.

Because of an apparent higher demand for the lower point weekdays it would probably be more like 60-70% negatively effected and 30-40% positively effected IMO.

Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.

I guess you have to determine what you consider "the same". By no means do the charts seem to balance to exactly zero. I did calulations for a few resorts and found SSR to balance to 0.017%, BCV to 0.011% and OKW to 0.026%. All statisically insignificant IMO. However, as pointed out several times, the variation in number of weekends and seasons can account an even greater variation. There is a lot of unknowns in all of our caclulations. How does DVC take into account the yearly variations (like leap years), what percentage of lock-off occupancy do they consider, etc. Regardless, the fact that the numbers seem to be so close is evidence that there is no great imbalance in the reallocation as some have suggested.

 

[jana]

Originally Posted by BWV Dreamin
That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.

While it may be that more people have been negatively impacted, it is far more likely the imbalance in the POSTERS stating they have been negatively impacted is more down to human nature than the true numbers. Human nature makes those who feel they have been disadvantaged (AKA cheated) MUCH more likely to take the time and effort to let someone (anyone) know about it. This multiplies quickly for repeat posts. Someone whose pleased or neutral with a change in circumstances may post once to say so, but is unlikely to labor the point. Someone whose seriously Peed off is likely to vent until their anger has dissipated (which may take several posts). That's just the way humankind is wired

As has been stated a resort can be full ( at weekends) but not with members. If Disney has rented those rooms out in order to earn $$ for members using cash purchases ( DCL or CC) outside of Disney, it is a very inefficient use of those points. It results in Disney having to charge many more points for cruises, concierge collection and the Disney collection than may be required if there were more efficient ways of using those points. Lowering weekends at the very least means Disney would raise more $$ from the same number of points, either by lower cost per weekend or by being able to access lower point cost weekdays that are freed up by changing member usage. I hope the increased efficiency this change should bring about is passed onto the members in better value in non DVC options (waiting with breath baited)

Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.
Perhaps ( and I find this hard to say because I love a good conspiracy theory) Disney, aware the current usage was already putting a large strain on the availability, realized when the RCI customers were added, it would be too much for an already over stretched system to take. That does require a range and ability of thought I'm a long way from convinced they possess, however I'm prepared to at least consider the notion.

 

[Disneyhappy]

Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.
Perhaps ( and I find this hard to say because I love a good conspiracy theory) Disney, aware the current usage was already putting a large strain on the availability, realized when the RCI customers were added, it would be too much for an already over stretched system to take. That does require a range and ability of thought I'm a long way from convinced they possess, however I'm prepared to at least consider the notion.

If your theory is correct, DVC could have simply stayed with II and there would have been no need to reallocate the points.

 

[Sabor]

If your theory is correct, DVC could have simply stayed with II and there would have been no need to reallocate the points.

I don't understand why people cannot understand that there WAS a need to reallocate whether you like it or not. It was long overdue.

 

[tjkraz]

Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.

I'd say it's possible that RCI asked--or DVC offered--to reallocate in order to make for a fundamentally sound start to the RCI relationship.

But RCI could not dictate how the points would be structured. Only historical booking trends can make that determination.