Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

[Dean]

This is really a great discussion based on an exciting controversial issue. How about this one...

In another post: Off-Season What is it Really? Dean says: "There are certain room types you should not count on though (sometimes even if you own at that resort), these include the 2 Q dedicated 2 BR at BCV, any GV, standard view at BWV and concierge at AKV."

If all GV are booked at the 7 month window - there should be no problem with balancing demand. With this pattern, if one GV fills up, people move to the next choice. The points don't much matter - the amount dedicated to GV are always used. That being said, you know the next question...

Why change the point allocation? Just to mess with people? What's weird is that some resorts went up dramatically on the WEEKENDS and others went down on the weekend - but they are all booked all the time???

This would make total sense if GV were heavily booked at SSR (the GV there went up a whopping 18 points in Magic season for F/S SSR must be popular on weekends), and OKW GV must be empty because they went DOWN 24 points on F/S.

Those are really large fluctuations for units that are booked solid. Seems random to me.

As noted, there's more to it than just when it's booked. Do people who want the weekend get shut out because of S-F. Are S-F booked at 11 months and weekends closer to 7 months. Are they booked on cash or points as some days are booked for cash prior to the 7 month window opening. Also as noted, there needs to be come consistency so it may be some time change that didn't need to be changed. Even if some things didn't need to be changed, it's unlikely the change would make things any worse so it's still appropriate. Even if there were not a specific problem, it would be appropriate for DVC to be proactive if they deemed it helpful overall. One thing to remember for OKW is that the weekend/weekday formula has been different than the rest of the resorts, even with the 1996 change. To a degree, this is not fixable when you compare to other DVC resorts but it does create some unique issues in such a reallocation.

 

[jamstew]

I have just arranged two weeks this fall in 1 BR (AKV 7 OKW) using those traditional timeshares you mention (or a version thereof, RCI points) at a cost of about $450 a week including the exchange fee and $95 resort services fee. That's far less than the maint fees would be on the points for those weeks. I was worried that availability would be worse with RCI than II trading in and this appears to be exactly the opposite so far.

Owning a fixed week only means that I'm guaranteed to be able to stay in my unit at my home resort if I choose to. I think what some people (not you obviously) may not understand about fixed weeks is that you can trade for any time you want (subject to availability). Although I don't have the trading power to get into DVC, I can use exchanges to extend my S-F DVC trips. Would I rather be on-site the whole time? Absolutely, but by trading my traditional TS (a summer week in Hot Springs, Arkansas) for a May week at Sheraton Vistana (or Bonnet Creek if it comes through with an ongoing search), I'll have a total of 12 nights The MF at my home resort, plus the exchange fee is $559.

 

[bcrook]

One thing to remember for OKW is that the weekend/weekday formula has been different than the rest of the resorts, even with the 1996 change. To a degree, this is not fixable when you compare to other DVC resorts but it does create some unique issues in such a reallocation.

VWL and BLT followed the same pattern as OKW. They all went down on weekend substantially, but AKV, SSR, and BWV all went up. It is weird if there is 100% filled. So it doesn't appear that OKW is that unique. At least VWL, BLT and OKW went down on weekends like all other units, but the increase in SSR, BWV, and AKV on F/S seems odd.

I did fall in love with those GV at SSR though. Sun-Thur dropped 8 points a night. That is some consolation for those S-F travelers.

 

[Dean]

Owning a fixed week only means that I'm guaranteed to be able to stay in my unit at my home resort if I choose to. I think what some people (not you obviously) may not understand about fixed weeks is that you can trade for any time you want (subject to availability). Although I don't have the trading power to get into DVC, I can use exchanges to extend my S-F DVC trips. Would I rather be on-site the whole time? Absolutely, but by trading my traditional TS (a summer week in Hot Springs, Arkansas) for a May week at Sheraton Vistana (or Bonnet Creek if it comes through with an ongoing search), I'll have a total of 12 nights The MF at my home resort, plus the exchange fee is $559.

I was purposefully cryptic in the previous post trying not to confuse people too much. A point I've made a number of times lately it seems is that there is no such thing as a traditional timeshare anymore. Fixed week/fixed unit resorts are a thing of the past other than when a resort carves out the best units during peak times so they can make more money. While I own both RCI weeks and RCI points, I do not own ANY fixed week/fixed unit options any more. My current holdings are Bluegreen points which I use directly, use for RCI AND II deposits and use for the RCI points for deposit program. I own a 1 BR RCI points unit in LV which has a points to fees ratio that is very good. I own points in MX enough for a peak season studio or 1 BR depending on the view and which trades with II. I also own 5 weeks with Marriott, all Platinum season floating week units mostly HH and HI. Then there's DVC. I use them all for different things. My model is diversity so I can take the best that each has to offer. Then I rent out the things that are applicable on the off years I'm not using them. Fixed weeks can have a significant trading advantage in that you can often deposit earlier (18 months with Marriott compared to 12/13) and have control over your week, view, etc.

Timeshares have saved me tons of money compared to paying out of pocket and have been a great source of enjoyment and education for myself and my family. Much of the savings I've plowed back in to group family trips like this past summer at Gatlinburg where we had 35 people and 9 2 BR units all of which I provided. This summer we have 3 two BR units for HH, beachfront Marriott with family. The interesting and scary thing is that this summer will cost me more for 3 units than last did for 9 units.

VWL and BLT followed the same pattern as OKW. They all went down on weekend substantially, but AKV, SSR, and BWV all went up. It is weird if there is 100% filled. So it doesn't appear that OKW is that unique. At least VWL, BLT and OKW went down on weekends like all other units, but the increase in SSR, BWV, and AKV on F/S seems odd.

Look at both the total points and ratios for OKW compared to the other resorts and look at the premium for GV over say a 2 BR plus a studio. Add in to that the idea that OKW came with free passes for several years with 2 for a studio, 2 for a 1 BR, 4 for a 2 BR and 6 for a 3 BR.

 

[TisBit]

I agree that a change for the dates in some Season may be likely in the future and may be part of the reason for the 2010 reallocation.

Because DVC could not change the points required for any one night by more than 20%, some weekday studios at OKW (formerly, 8 points per night) could not increase or decrease by more than 1 point in any reallocation. Nor can they go from 9 to anything higher than 10 in the next reallocation. As a result, we may see more than one change in the near future in order for the dates in some Seasons to be modified. -- Suzanne

I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR. THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.

By bring THV's in at a lower point total (in comparison) they allow demand for them to sky rocket and create a situation where they can charge more for THV's, reducing other units total points.

Basicly, they will be able to gobble up points at SSR (which could help stir demand by making it more value oriented) with the THV's which could be seen as a great value right now.

 

[doconeill]

I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR. THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.

By bring THV's in at a lower point total (in comparison) they allow demand for them to sky rocket and create a situation where they can charge more for THV's, reducing other units total points.

Basicly, they will be able to gobble up points at SSR (which could help stir demand by making it more value oriented) with the THV's which could be seen as a great value right now.

This an interesting point, to a certain degree. Since they gave the THVs their own room classification, I don't believe there is anything restricting them from diverging the point costs from those of the 2BRs. However, I believe because they are being declared into the inventory with a certain point cost, then the total number of points per year for booking the THVs could not change, much like for the entire resort. I could be wrong about that though...

 

[doconeill]

One more thing...I've stayed out of this discussion to this point since the change didn't largely affect me (I bought points on what I felt I could afford, not for any particular schedule), but I understand the plight of those that did.

I'm posting this only because we do know that Disney does have its "spies" reading these things...

Would people be more amenable to the change if Disney were to offer, for a limited time, the purchase of additional points as an add-on contract to resorts they already own, with a much smaller minimum - say, 5 points? Or if they could, 1 point? This might be a bit problematic at the sold out resorts, but it at least might be seen as a gesture of goodwill to the members who were most severely affected.

 

[tjkraz]

I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR. THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.

I think you're right--they probably could do that.

But it's worth noting that DVC had at least two opportunities to do that in the 2010 reallocation and decided not to. The most obvious example is the two Preferred View categories at BWV. The BoardWalk View rooms fill up much quicker than the Garden/Pool view, yet they still cost the same. The other example would be the near-Hospitality House categor at OKW, which seems like it would have higher demand since that was the reason for creating the category in the first place.

We should probably file all of those possibilities away under the heading of "things that could happen down the road."

 

[jamstew]

Much of the savings I've plowed back in to group family trips like this past summer at Gatlinburg where we had 35 people and 9 2 BR units all of which I provided. This summer we have 3 two BR units for HH, beachfront Marriott with family. The interesting and scary thing is that this summer will cost me more for 3 units than last did for 9 units.

Now that's scary! BTW, where in Gatlinburg? My daughter & her family would love to go next summer, but I have no idea where to try & book them. I've stayed in rental homes in Pigeon Forge several times, but my exposure to Gatlinburg is limited to shopping in the downtown area and a couple of restaurants.

 

[Dean]

I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR. THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.

By bring THV's in at a lower point total (in comparison) they allow demand for them to sky rocket and create a situation where they can charge more for THV's, reducing other units total points.

Basicly, they will be able to gobble up points at SSR (which could help stir demand by making it more value oriented) with the THV's which could be seen as a great value right now.

I would agree that some type of differential might be appropriate between THV and regular 2 BR at SSR. I personally don't think they'll be quite as popular as some do . Their relative small numbers may prove me wrong, we'll see. Regardless, I don't think the demand will be enough to make any difference at the 7 month window or affect the number of SSR points vying for other options at 7 months.

OWould people be more amenable to the change if Disney were to offer, for a limited time, the purchase of additional points as an add-on contract to resorts they already own, with a much smaller minimum - say, 5 points? Or if they could, 1 point? This might be a bit problematic at the sold out resorts, but it at least might be seen as a gesture of goodwill to the members who were most severely affected.

It's worth noting that DVC is set up the way it is from a deed/registration standpoint due to choice, not necessity. DVC could have held the deeds in trust themselves and simply assigned the rights to individuals making it much easier to make such changes on the fly. Given the current set up, I don't see them doing anything less than 25 points other than possibly for NEW member who bought retail between the time BLT was announced and the new points charts came out. They would not do it for less than 25 points but what they might do is offer to swap the entire contract to a different registration.

 

[Dean]

Now that's scary! BTW, where in Gatlinburg? My daughter & her family would love to go next summer, but I have no idea where to try & book them. I've stayed in rental homes in Pigeon Forge several times, but my exposure to Gatlinburg is limited to shopping in the downtown area and a couple of restaurants.

It could be scary but I have rules about the visit and I am not tied to any group or their vacation style. For this strip especially, anything from we didn't see you the entire week to you spent all the time with us would have been fine. We had my siblings and their families, one of my wife's siblings with their family including adult kids and their family, college room mate, cousins, High School Friends, etc. Some stay 2 nights, some stayed the entire week or most of it. I'd have to say it was the best vacation we've ever had with the family cruise that included my mom before she passes as second.

To be honest, there is no place in Gatlinburg I'd consider comparable to DVC or that I'd trade DVC points for. In RCI, Crown Park, Tree Tops, Bent Creek and Mountain Loft are likely the top options. Further out, the Wyndham in Sevierville is likely even nicer than mot of those but not as good a location. I don't know Sunrise Ridge, the Grande Crown (? new) or Day Springs enough to know to recommend them. Several of theses are in II also, I'd add Westgate for II to the list. It also depends on the type of experience you want. Crown Park and GTS are in town, Wyndham away from the mountains across from the outlets.

You could look at redweeks, TUG, the Bluegreen Yahoo group, etc for places to find private timeshare trades or rentals. There are a host of rental companies for private homes in Gatlinburg as well. We much prefer Gatlinburg (White Oak Flats) due to the mountains but if you're into shows, PF offers advantages there. The ONE show Gatlinburg has is "Sweet Fanny Adams". It's a wonderful, funny, slightly off color Vaudeville type show. I would highly recommend it but wouldn't take preteens or younger.

 

[jamstew]

To be honest, there is no place in Gatlinburg I'd consider comparable to DVC or that I'd trade DVC points for. In RCI, Crown Park, Tree Tops, Bent Creek and Mountain Loft are likely the top options. Further out, the Wyndham in Sevierville is likely even nicer than mot of those but not as good a location. I don't know Sunrise Ridge, the Grande Crown (? new) or Day Springs enough to know to recommend them. Several of theses are in II also, I'd add Westgate for II to the list. It also depends on the type of experience you want. Crown Park and GTS are in town, Wyndham away from the mountains across from the outlets.

You could look at redweeks, TUG, the Bluegreen Yahoo group, etc for places to find private timeshare trades or rentals. There are a host of rental companies for private homes in Gatlinburg as well. We much prefer Gatlinburg (White Oak Flats) due to the mountains but if you're into shows, PF offers advantages there. The ONE show Gatlinburg has is "Sweet Fanny Adams". It's a wonderful, funny, slightly off color Vaudeville type show. I would highly recommend it but wouldn't take preteens or younger.

I'd never trade my DVC for anything or anybody! I'd be trading Hot Springs RCI resort to Gatlinburg for my daughter, her husband, and my 3-year-old grandson. They'd only be interested in the mountains, so I'll be looking for Crown Park, Tree Tops, Bent Creek and Mountain Loft. I think Sevierville is a little too far out. The whole area is obviously gorgeous, but I think if they're looking for hiking in the national park, Gatlinburg would be a better fit. Thanks for the tips.

 

[TisBit]

This an interesting point, to a certain degree. Since they gave the THVs their own room classification, I don't believe there is anything restricting them from diverging the point costs from those of the 2BRs. However, I believe because they are being declared into the inventory with a certain point cost, then the total number of points per year for booking the THVs could not change, much like for the entire resort. I could be wrong about that though...

It was added as a phase, not stand alone resort. Similar to how studios came in with a specific point requirement, but can change, only the overall numbers have to stay the same, THV's just increased the total available points at SSR.

I would agree that some type of differential might be appropriate between THV and regular 2 BR at SSR. I personally don't think they'll be quite as popular as some do . Their relative small numbers may prove me wrong, we'll see. Regardless, I don't think the demand will be enough to make any difference at the 7 month window or affect the number of SSR points vying for other options at 7 months.

Which is why I believe that they did not change them now, it gives them options later. If they are popular they could increase their point requirements significantly (like between 2 br and GV) or they could leave them alone. But, to note, when they announced what the point cost would be, everyone was surprised that it was the same cost as a 2 BR.

Time will tell.....

 

[TisBit]

I think you're right--they probably could do that.

But it's worth noting that DVC had at least two opportunities to do that in the 2010 reallocation and decided not to. The most obvious example is the two Preferred View categories at BWV. The BoardWalk View rooms fill up much quicker than the Garden/Pool view, yet they still cost the same. The other example would be the near-Hospitality House categor at OKW, which seems like it would have higher demand since that was the reason for creating the category in the first place.

We should probably file all of those possibilities away under the heading of "things that could happen down the road."

Actually, the near HH at OKW is not in the POS, so I am not sure they could translate a "booking categorey" or basicly a room assignment to more points for the same type of room. Plus, they could remove that near HH just as easily as they added it.

Now the Preferred Views I am not sure how they were set up, but yes, the could possibly change those, if they were set up as different categories from the start, such as SV at AKV. But I think there they might have BW views fill up fast, but the preferred views help keep points low for the standard rooms, so they do serve a purpose, giving a value option to the resort.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.

I don't think that's obvious at all. The THV's sound very cool. But after the initial ballyhoo dies down, the negatives are going to be obvious (remember their slogan, "THV, we're like the Carousel, only less convenient). There's a reason the original treehouses failed. There's a reason all the various flavors of Dinsey villas failed. There's a reason why Ft Wildersess Cabins have only average popularity. In the end, the THV's will be a nice addition and somewhat popular, but I believe they won't be swamped with demand. I may be wrong (been wrong about a lot of things) but it's certainly not obvious they will be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 months.

 

[jodifla]

I don't think that's obvious at all. The THV's sound very cool. But after the initial ballyhoo dies down, the negatives are going to be obvious (remember their slogan, "THV, we're like the Carousel, only less convenient). There's a reason the original treehouses failed. There's a reason all the various flavors of Dinsey villas failed. There's a reason why Ft Wildersess Cabins have only average popularity. In the end, the THV's will be a nice addition and somewhat popular, but I believe they won't be swamped with demand. I may be wrong (been wrong about a lot of things) but it's certainly not obvious they will be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 months.

Yeah, I totally agree with this watching WDW over the last 30 plus years. Too many other prime properties for that one to be that popular.

 

[doconeill]

It was added as a phase, not stand alone resort. Similar to how studios came in with a specific point requirement, but can change, only the overall numbers have to stay the same, THV's just increased the total available points at SSR.

I understand it is not a standalone resort, but as an added phase. What I'm wonder is that because the phase only consists of one type of room class and a different class from anything else, whether such point adjustments may have a smaller scope than the whole resort.

Are all the points declared for the different classes of rooms all just considered one giant lump sum, or are they declared per class of room? I remember some confusing language in the documents with regards the room classes, and "maximum reallocation" and something like that. I think I understood it once...

There's a reason the original treehouses failed. There's a reason all the various flavors of Dinsey villas failed. There's a reason why Ft Wildersess Cabins have only average popularity.

Did the treehouses truly fail because of popularity, or because they were expensive to maintain and the regulations made it expensive to do something about it? What other villas failed and why?

The THVs are a novelty. They have drawbacks, but they also sleep more and have more privacy than a 2BR. There are only 60 "rooms" to fill, so I expect there won't be a problem filling them. Again, we're not talking about an entirely new resort to fill.

 

[drusba]

My take on the THVs is that will be quite popular but ultimately there will be some available at 7 months out many times of year but you will still have close to maximum occupancy year round. Problems with the prior treehouses were usually high cost and an audience for reserving -- the general public -- that couldn't be sold on a place of seclusion at WDW. Personally believe making them DVC is a master stroke because they are hitting the right audience, DVC members who go a lot and many of whom would appreciate a shot at a THV once in a while.

 

[Dean]

Actually, the near HH at OKW is not in the POS, so I am not sure they could translate a "booking categorey" or basicly a room assignment to more points for the same type of room. Plus, they could remove that near HH just as easily as they added it.

Now the Preferred Views I am not sure how they were set up, but yes, the could possibly change those, if they were set up as different categories from the start, such as SV at AKV. But I think there they might have BW views fill up fast, but the preferred views help keep points low for the standard rooms, so they do serve a purpose, giving a value option to the resort.

Ultimately none of the booking views are protected by the POS, quite the contrary, DVC has the right to administer reservations and adjust points accordingly as long as they balance them. Each POS carries a (presumably) worst case scenario chart that states what the costs would be if all days were the same for a given unit type as well as a guarantee you can reserve at least one day for a given number of points though not necessarily your days. I guess some would argue about what would constitute a worst case scenario based on this issue.

Given the requirement that each "unit" (usually collection of rooms) stay the same, it's likely difficult to think they could change the points requirements for a given view late in the game or after sell out. It did happen at BWV after it opened and after quite a few contracts were sold. I understand they had to do quite some legal ramblings to get that done but I'm not sure specifics and I've never heard anything that would give me clues. For example, it's likely this change did involve a change to the points costs of units though it was a decrease and actually a benefit to the members. I'm assuming they had to amend their state paperwork and specifically get their approval. I'm also assuming they had to change certain deeds or generate a second deed to anyone who'd bought in to any affected unit but I have never seen a report that anyone knows of this happening.

 

[tjkraz]

But, to note, when they announced what the point cost would be, everyone was surprised that it was the same cost as a 2 BR.

IMO, that surprise was mostly driven by ignorance of the product. Now that we know that they are essentially a two bedroom villa with an extra dividing wall (same sq footage, same number of bathrooms, same occupancy), I believe they are priced appropriately.

Demand could justify slightly higher costs than a normal 2B, but as I said there were opportunities to go down that road and DVC declined.

Actually, the near HH at OKW is not in the POS, so I am not sure they could translate a "booking categorey" or basicly a room assignment to more points for the same type of room. Plus, they could remove that near HH just as easily as they added it.

Sure they could reprice certain segments of rooms. As long as the resort remains balanced.

Now the Preferred Views I am not sure how they were set up, but yes, the could possibly change those, if they were set up as different categories from the start, such as SV at AKV. But I think there they might have BW views fill up fast, but the preferred views help keep points low for the standard rooms, so they do serve a purpose, giving a value option to the resort.

Standard View doesn't really have any bearing on it. I'm just referring to the two Preferred View categories. Nightly costs are the same--both before and after the reallocation--yet we know that most folks will happily take the BoardWalk view over a Garden or Pool view.

Yeah, I totally agree with this watching WDW over the last 30 plus years. Too many other prime properties for that one to be that popular.

The THVs may not be high on many folks' lists of favorite destinations, but while priced the same as the 400 other Two Bedroom villas at SSR, they are certain to be in high demand. Again it's a lot like the BWV BoardWalk and Garden/Pool views. Given the opportunity to book either room class for the same number of points, the scales are likely to tip toward the THVs. Not all people will like the remoteness or the bunk beds, but since the 60 THVs are only a fraction of all Two Bedrooms at the resort, they are certain to be popular.

Down the road, raising the nightly costs for the THVs 1-2 points per night (while lowering elsewhere) probably wouldn't change that much either.