DVC Club Level and Home Resort Survey

[NY Pirate Princess]

So many things DVD can do to enhance an exchange program that would play well within the current set up.

Agreed. And maybe we have walked this too far away from the survey now. What else could a home resort query be trying to get at?

 

[ziravan]

Any points owned by the trust for each resort would automatically have the same booking rights as every other owner because those rules are set by the conteact.

Home resort rules must be the same. Now, I guess technically, DVD could decide to hold their points back and not offer them until later, but it would be a choice not a requirement.

No different than owners who choose not to book until 5 months even when they can book as early as 11 months out.

However, DVD can already achieve that and that is they simply offer discounts on DVC villas for the cash guest. No need to make a complicated system.

Another way is they could simply expand the OTU points program for owners to have access to their points…just raise the limit beyond 24 per UY.

Think of it…For $99/yesr, you can now have access to as many OTU points as you want each year to book that extra trip. Those in the program are only charged $15/pt.

So many things DVD can do to enhance an exchange program that would play well within the current set up.

This is why I was saying earlier that they would have to institute an L2 (layer 2) network on top of the regular booking window L1.

Essentially they’d have to replace the 8 am random booking chance with a virtual queue and do a pre-process on the trust members for who can get through.

To use my example above, if 10,000 trust members have a chance at 1000 potential avail AKV reservations, the trust randomizes which 1000 are eligible to book before allowing just those into the regular booking window.

But that now requires two separate transactions which cannot be done at the stroke of 8 - even if the delay is a half second, that’s too long when the window opens at 8.

So. No more window. Every morning starting at 7:45, a virtual queue opens for 8 am bookings (just like moonlight Magic booking), the L2 randomizes who from the trust can enter the L1 pool and then the computer starts randomly allowing L1 bookings.

That standardizes the process for everyone and the change - in how bookings are made - is a sub-POS type of change.

 

[Sandisw]

This is why I was saying earlier that they would have to institute an L2 (layer 2) network on top of the regular booking window L1.

Essentially they’d have to replace the 8 am random booking chance with a virtual queue and do a pre-process on the trust members for who can get through.

To use my example above, if 10,000 trust members have a chance at 1000 potential avail AKV reservations, the trust randomizes which 1000 are eligible to book before allowing just those into the regular booking window.

But that now requires two separate transactions which cannot be done at the stroke of 8 - even if the delay is a half second, that’s too long when the window opens at 8.

So. No more window. Every morning starting at 7:45, a virtual queue opens for 8 am bookings (just like moonlight Magic booking), the L2 randomizes who from the trust can enter the L1 pool and then the computer starts randomly allowing L1 bookings.

That standardizes the process for everyone and the change - in how bookings are made - is a sub-POS type of change.

Okay but then it is still giving more people a chance to book with points owned by the same owner…the trust…then the current owner who is limited to one booking at a time.

Let’s keep it simple. If the trust has enough points 10 rooms, how can it be allowed to send 10 people in to snag them when your deeded owner can only send in one person at a time to snag those same 10 rooms?

When you are randomly letting in more than one person from the trust against one deeded owner, who is limited, then it’s not an equal system and I believe the POS requires it to be.

Basically, the trust is still one owner when it comes to booking purposes and thus, should only have one person enter the booking pool at a time, whether it has 1000 points at a resort or 10,000.

Those people who buy into the trust are not resort owners and thus should not be getting the same rights as a deeded owners.

So, I still think any attempt to layer a trust type situation….which is a different type of timeshare plan…except for maybe through BVTC with no home resort advantage..is going to be an issue.

And, I’m also not convinced that a virtual que for booking meshes with the contract

 

[Sandisw]

Agreed. And maybe we have walked this too far away from the survey now. What else could a home resort query be trying to get at?

Here’s a thought. With them putting in restrictions, maybe they are trying to get info on how to create an exchange program to get people away from buying resale?



Meaning, being able to add points that can be used at 7 months? Or, as I shared earlier, to get feedback for options in the future.

I just don’t think the question and the way it was asked even implies they would be considering trying to change the way the current resorts function.

 

[ziravan]

Here’s a thought. With them putting in restrictions, maybe they are trying to get info on how to create an exchange program to get people away from buying resale?



Meaning, being able to add points that can be used at 7 months? Or, as I shared earlier, to get feedback for options in the future.

I just don’t think the question and the way it was asked even implies they would be considering trying to change the way the current resorts function.

I think it’s reasonable to match what DVC is testing to similar ideas that have been fairly recently implemented in other timeshares.

There was a time when I would have said DVC is different. The 2016 restrictions cured me of that naïveté. So yeah. If DVC is polling an idea that closely resembles what the other timeshares are doing, I don’t think we are necessarily so off base.

 

[zavandor]

Do we really know how Disney handles the points they own?
Do they pre-book rooms before the 11 months windows opens? Or do they have a CM manually create the reservations they then sell for cash one by one?
Since the latter is impossible (we're talking about tens of thousands of reservations a year), they must have an automated system for their reservations. This somehow already violates the concept that they should treat themselves as any other member. If the automated system can even book before 11 months, then it's a double violation.
But they might already have been doing that for 30 years for all we know.

They could argue that the points owned by the trust should be treated as points that are not yet declared.
If the trust owns 10% of the points at a resort, then 10% of rooms in each category are kept aside. Trust members can book those rooms, legacy members can book everything else.
It's like if the points that go into the trust are "un-declared". Is that possible? Can a timeshare un-declare units? They certainly can under very special circumstances (for example destructive damage), but could it be done voluntarily if the developer owns enough points?

 

[zavandor]

Just a thought, maybe all the speculation about the Poly tower, new or old association, is moot, it'll be a trust!
(Before anyone kills me: no it won't, it's a joke, I don't think they're ready if they're surveying now).

 

[Sandisw]

Do we really know how Disney handles the points they own?
Do they pre-book rooms before the 11 months windows opens? Or do they have a CM manually create the reservations they then sell for cash one by one?
Since the latter is impossible (we're talking about tens of thousands of reservations a year), they must have an automated system for their reservations. This somehow already violates the concept that they should treat themselves as any other member. If the automated system can even book before 11 months, then it's a double violation.
But they might already have been doing that for 30 years for all we know.

They could argue that the points owned by the trust should be treated as points that are not yet declared.
If the trust owns 10% of the points at a resort, then 10% of rooms in each category are kept aside. Trust members can book those rooms, legacy members can book everything else.
It's like if the points that go into the trust are "un-declared". Is that possible? Can a timeshare un-declare units? They certainly can under very special circumstances (for example destructive damage), but could it be done voluntarily if the developer owns enough points?

That’s fair that we don’t know how DVD chooses to get its points used and with having the ability to anticipate breakage, there is for sure gray there

However, I do not think DVD can just remove rooms from the condo association.

When a casualty happens and rooms are not rebuilt, the owners of those rooms are given their share of the insurance proceeds and no longer have an ownership.

Removing rooms from the condo and then keeping them would mean they are no longer part of that initial resort and therefore, would simply become a new property.

Realistically, other than when new, there were always be individuals who own a share of a unit so there would be no way for them to just change someone’s deed.

I agree that if DVD is surveying the idea of shifting to a non specific timeshare plan and away from deeded ownership is being discussed, but as I said, my guess is it’s about a long term shift for the future and not for any near term..and to me, 2042 is not too far away to not think this is related to that.

 

[ljmiii]

Okay but then it is still giving more people a chance to book with points owned by the same owner…the trust…then the current owner who is limited to one booking at a time...

I can't help thinking that many of you (and my apologies to @Sandisw for choosing her post for my reply) are overthinking this. The POSs for the various resorts do not specify the booking mechanisms owners may use, only the relative windows in which they may use them.

DVD is bound by the conditions imposed by the POS and nothing else aside from the requirement to increase shareholder value. If they choose to create a DVC trust system, there is no requirement for 'fairness' or maintaining the same relative ease of access for current owners or even for fulfilling the booking ambitions of new owners.

Those of us who have experienced the introduction of trusts into other timeshare systems know this firsthand. New buyers into the trust never have the breath of options they think they were promised and existing owners find the existence of a trust is a mixed blessing at best.

Timeshare trusts are a great marketing tool for the developer and a dumping ground for 'bad' contracts. I hope that if enough recipients of the survey show equal displeasure to the idea as I did DVD might delay or even abandon the idea. But realistically, the positives for DVD will likely outweigh such considerations.

 

[zavandor]

I can't help thinking that many of you (and my apologies to @Sandisw for choosing her post for my reply) are overthinking this. The POSs for the various resorts do not specify the booking mechanisms owners may use, only the relative windows in which they may use them.

DVD is bound by the conditions imposed by the POS and nothing else aside from the requirement to increase shareholder value. If they choose to create a DVC trust system, there is no requirement for 'fairness' or maintaining the same relative ease of access for current owners or even for fulfilling the booking ambitions of new owners.

Those of us who have experienced the introduction of trusts into other timeshare systems know this firsthand. New buyers into the trust never have the breath of options they think they were promised and existing owners find the existence of a trust is a mixed blessing at best.

Timeshare trusts are a great marketing tool for the developer and a dumping ground for 'bad' contracts. I hope that if enough recipients of the survey show equal displeasure to the idea as I did DVD might delay or even abandon the idea. But realistically, the positives for DVD will likely outweigh such considerations.

The POS says that the room are booked "first come first serve" and if there is an entity that has a privilege, it violates that.
I am not convinced either way. It's one of those things where I think there isn't a black and white law. And if other timeshares have been doing it for a long time, creates a precedent.
Also, in all honesty, while I don't much like it, setting aside a % of rooms based on trust ownership is sort of fair, even if it might violate the letter of the POS.

Agree with Sandy that the most likely date for the big bang is 2042. At that point, they can enroll BWV BRV and BCV all at the same time into the trust. 3 of the most desirable resorts 100% bookable with trust points only. That would certainly have a lot of buyers interested. They might even convince existing owners to enroll their points (for a fee) in the trust for a shot at those resorts.
They could even keep VB and HHI instead of selling like many have said and resolve the problem of OKW not extended and upcoming SSR and Aulani expiration.

Start instead with one resort only and a few points here and there and discontent might grow over availability, which would cement a bad reputation for the new product.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

 

[Pooh12863]

This is why I was saying earlier that they would have to institute an L2 (layer 2) network on top of the regular booking window L1.

Essentially they’d have to replace the 8 am random booking chance with a virtual queue and do a pre-process on the trust members for who can get through.

To use my example above, if 10,000 trust members have a chance at 1000 potential avail AKV reservations, the trust randomizes which 1000 are eligible to book before allowing just those into the regular booking window.

But that now requires two separate transactions which cannot be done at the stroke of 8 - even if the delay is a half second, that’s too long when the window opens at 8.

So. No more window. Every morning starting at 7:45, a virtual queue opens for 8 am bookings (just like moonlight Magic booking), the L2 randomizes who from the trust can enter the L1 pool and then the computer starts randomly allowing L1 bookings.

That standardizes the process for everyone and the change - in how bookings are made - is a sub-POS type of change.

You have more faith in Disney IT than most folks do.

 

[Cfabar1]

Just a thought, maybe all the speculation about the Poly tower, new or old association, is moot, it'll be a trust!
(Before anyone kills me: no it won't, it's a joke, I don't think they're ready if they're surveying now).

They might be surveying now to kill the idea of doing a trust. Or at least slow it down.

 

[Sandisw]

I can't help thinking that many of you (and my apologies to @Sandisw for choosing her post for my reply) are overthinking this. The POSs for the various resorts do not specify the booking mechanisms owners may use, only the relative windows in which they may use them.

DVD is bound by the conditions imposed by the POS and nothing else aside from the requirement to increase shareholder value. If they choose to create a DVC trust system, there is no requirement for 'fairness' or maintaining the same relative ease of access for current owners or even for fulfilling the booking ambitions of new owners.

Those of us who have experienced the introduction of trusts into other timeshare systems know this firsthand. New buyers into the trust never have the breath of options they think they were promised and existing owners find the existence of a trust is a mixed blessing at best.

Timeshare trusts are a great marketing tool for the developer and a dumping ground for 'bad' contracts. I hope that if enough recipients of the survey show equal displeasure to the idea as I did DVD might delay or even abandon the idea. But realistically, the positives for DVD will likely outweigh such considerations.

That is not actually true. The POS states that DVD can not use its points to book rooms except by following the same rules as you and I.

And, while the Home Resort Rules and Regulations can be determned by DVC, they still have to follow the law and treat every ower there the same....so, DVD does not get a different set of rules to use its points or who has access to its points to increase its ability to let non owners (which those who buy into this trust type system are...non owners of the resort) have an advantage.

I agree its being overthought and that is by those who think that DVD has any desire to change up the current system and make it convulated with the use of a trust, simply because of one survery question.

First, it will take many, many years for them to own enough points at any of the sold out resorts to make this type of system viable....and second, there is no need for them to do it when they can just start all new resorts with this new model, and then work out the exchange rules for those new resorts with BVTC to allow the way things book within the original DVC resorts.

Heck, when I first joined in 2009, there were surveys sent out shortly after that about a tiered membership program and that the more direct points you had, the more "perks" one would get. That was 13 years ago and so far, we don't have anything like that.

 

[crisi]

No, they can't do this for existing, already declared, resorts.

I think they are trying to get around that. By saying they are adding points for "services" not "rooms" they may be able to get around their own contract - or believe they can. Disney's tried some "they can't do that" stuff before - and I think that the marketing team often runs ahead of legal in these "bright ideas they get."

 

[Matty B13]

I think they are trying to get around that. By saying they are adding points for "services" not "rooms" they may be able to get around their own contract - or believe they can. Disney's tried some "they can't do that" stuff before - and I think that the marketing team often runs ahead of legal in these "bright ideas they get."

I would think that points would have to be deeded to a unit in the resort????? Wouldn't they???? I guess they could sell points for services, but they wouldn't be able to use them to reserve a unit in the association.

 

[Cfabar1]

I would think that points would have to be deeded to a unit in the resort????? Wouldn't they???? I guess they could sell points for services, but they wouldn't be able to use them to reserve a unit in the association.

I would think points in the current system could not pay for services since the system is based on points being tied to a unit.

But they could, as Sandisw mentioned above add new rooms that are club level to DVC at a higher point per night.

I don’t know how the PoS works for AK and if it contractually guarantees the services of the club or only that they are club rooms.

 

[Sandisw]

I would think points in the current system could not pay for services since the system is based on points being tied to a unit.

But they could, as Sandisw mentioned above add new rooms that are club level to DVC at a higher point per night.

I don’t know how the PoS works for AK and if it contractually guarantees the services of the club or only that they are club rooms.

The CL lounge is a limited commercial element of AKV. So it was declared into the condo assocation.

Right now, the cost to run it is part of AKV dues…and all owners contribute as part of dues. Because the cash side also uses it, they contribute as well…but thst could change and only DVC would pay.

They can also decide to not use it as a CL lounge and the the extra points that currently apply to the units would then be reallocated back to the other units.

So, I do not believe they can add a lounge and sell more points. They have the right to add additional common elements to any association, but they can’t then add adiditionsl points to sell without new rooms since points are simply a way to represent ownership of the units.

 

[ziravan]

The CL lounge is a limited commercial element of AKV. So it was declared into the condo assocation.

Right now, the cost to run it is part of AKV dues…and all owners contribute as part of dues. Because the cash side also uses it, they contribute as well…but thst could change and only DVC would pay.

They can also decide to not use it as a CL lounge and the the extra points that currently apply to the units would then be reallocated back to the other units.

So, I do not believe they can add a lounge and sell more points. They have the right to add additional common elements to any association, but they can’t then add adiditionsl points to sell without new rooms since points are simply a way to represent ownership of the units.

The POS if I’m not mistaken grants the right to add or subtract from features such as restaurants shops (not common elements).

Adding CL to existing resorts would fall this way.

They’ve changed categories before without adding rooms/points by reallocating existing points and so that is not a problem by precedent.

So they could add CL to existing resorts and increase the point chart of those rooms by minor reallocations without raising overall points.

Why would they do that? We’ve just come off a decade of DVC expanding into current deluxe resorts in order to have dues take over part of the services.

DVC CL at BCV, for example, means the CL gets partially underwritten by dues - and this has been a DVC/Disney MO for awhile, adding extra point’s notwithstanding.

 

[Sandisw]

The POS if I’m not mistaken grants the right to add or subtract from features such as restaurants shops (not common elements).

Adding CL to existing resorts would fall this way.

They’ve changed categories before without adding rooms/points by reallocating existing points and so that is not a problem by precedent.

So they could add CL to existing resorts and increase the point chart of those rooms by minor reallocations without raising overall points.

Why would they do that? We’ve just come off a decade of DVC expanding into current deluxe resorts in order to have dues take over part of the services.

DVC CL at BCV, for example, means the CL gets partially underwritten by dues - and this has been a DVC/Disney MO for awhile, adding extra point’s notwithstanding.

They can not sell points for services. The only reason the CL at AKV is funded by dues is because the lounge itself is a common element of the condo association.

There are no points that were assigned to it but the rooms that are given access.

So, to add to existing resorts, they must add new rooms to go with the points and the lounge would need to become part of DVC if they want to sell additional points to account for it.

FL timeshare requires dues to only fund operations of the resort and since the CL lounge was declared at AKV, its operation counts.

They can add restaurants or shops, but it’s not the services being added but commercial spaces that are declared to the resort.

Now, they can certainly just add the lounge and redistribute current points to make some rooms CL and others not. But that still requires them to declare the CL lounge as a limited commercial element.


Even at AKV, if they stop CL services, the points associated with those rooms are just redistributed. But, those points were decided when the original resort opened.

 

[Sandisw]

To add for CL, they can certainly add this to new resorts without an issue as the point structure would be set to absorb it.