DVC exchange question

[mattnday]

My wife and I are DVC members as well as WorldMark owners. We currently see a DVC week available on II and are thinking of grabbing it. Would we still have to pay the transprotation fee even though we are owners?

 

[RobDoc]

Yes, you will still need to pay the $95 fee. You will be able to make requests thru MS, add the Dining Plan if desired and will get the usual member benefits (unike other II exchangers).

Enjoy!

 

[bwvBound]

Congratulations on your recent DVC purchase! We also own both (WM & DVC) and have made several successful trades into DVC using our WM credits. Even with the fee we find the total costs for the exchange week is far, far below using DVC points for the same stay. Enjoy!!

 

[Dean]

While the fee provides nothing for members who exchange in that they would not already have without the fee, it's still usually a good deal. It's not a transportation fee but a resort services fee whichsimply provides access to MS, plain and simple. There are a couple of benefits that are stay specific, you would not get those but would get all other perks. DVC is reconsidering the fee for members since more and more are exchanging in.

 

[bwvBound]

DVC is reconsidering the fee for members since more and more are exchanging in.

Hmmm ... the reconsideration could go either way. Would you offer clarification on the "more and more"? Is this a stick or a perk? Two ideas that come to mind:

DVC is reconsidering the fee for members since more and more [DVC Members] are exchanging in.

Could result in increasing the fee? Rational: A DVC owner maintaining a small # of DVC Points (for the perks) who relies on frequent inbound exchanges consumes resources while paying less into the system overall. A higher inbound fee might be seen as creating balance in the system -- or at least discouraging the game of owning a small contract.

DVC is reconsidering the fee for members since more and more [outsiders] are exchanging in.

(Sorry! "outsiders" isn't the best word. I'm trying to describe the inbound exchange guest who has no DVC in their timeshare portfolio.) Could result in reducing the fee or removing it altogether for the DVC owners as it has become a sufficiently robust and reliable revenue stream from our "outside" guests.

Insight? (Thx!)

 

[bwvBound]

Could result in reducing the fee or removing it altogether for the DVC owners as it has become a sufficiently robust and reliable revenue stream from our "outside" guests.

Oh, oh! But that same situation could create incentive for the "outside" guest to join DVC in order to waive the fee in future exchanges! Hmm ... a nice teaser on the invite to a tour ... "Would you like to avoid the inbound exchange fee on your next visit?? Come on down!"

 

[littlestar]

Oh, oh! But that same situation could create incentive for the "outside" guest to join DVC in order to waive the fee in future exchanges! Hmm ... a nice teaser on the invite to a tour ... "Would you like to avoid the inbound exchange fee on your next visit?? Come on down!"

I don't think that many people actually trade in unless they want to go during hurricane season (September) or risk a cold spell in the month of January. But, it probably would be tempting to have some points if a person traveled during those months and traded in frequently - it would be nice to skip that $95.00 fee.

 

[Dean]

Hmmm ... the reconsideration could go either way. Would you offer clarification on the "more and more"? Is this a stick or a perk? Two ideas that come to mind:

Could result in increasing the fee? Rational: A DVC owner maintaining a small # of DVC Points (for the perks) who relies on frequent inbound exchanges consumes resources while paying less into the system overall. A higher inbound fee might be seen as creating balance in the system -- or at least discouraging the game of owning a small contract.

(Sorry! "outsiders" isn't the best word. I'm trying to describe the inbound exchange guest who has no DVC in their timeshare portfolio.) Could result in reducing the fee or removing it altogether for the DVC owners as it has become a sufficiently robust and reliable revenue stream from our "outside" guests.

Insight? (Thx!)

I don't think there's any chance the fee could go higher. DVC is the only system that does this and only for on site options and because they can. There are other resorts that add energy surcharges and the like but they generally do so for whoever stays, not just exchangers. DVC is certainly an outlier and maverick in this area and I'm surprised II went along with it in the first place. And I'm guessing any concessions that II might give up could also result in abolishment of this fee. The one issue that might be a stickler to this is it's possible that the contract with II requires them to charge the fee and if so, they may not be able to waive it for members.

Approximately 3% of members exchange with II and that number has been slowly increasing. But given the system has grown a lot, even if the % stays the same, it's a lot more weeks to exchange in to. I suspect we'll see more and more 2 BR units and start to see some busier times like summer though I doubt we'll see much for premier time.

 

[Dean]

I don't think that many people actually trade in unless they want to go during hurricane season (September) or risk a cold spell in the month of January. But, it probably would be tempting to have some points if a person traveled during those months and traded in frequently - it would be nice to skip that $95.00 fee.

There are more times available than you think.