DVC III ? Dumb DVC member....

[dtheboys]

Ok, I'm not up on all of the newest DVC stuff....
Can someone help me understand what a DVC III resort is?

 

[TenThousandVolts]

I saw someone say that about the new KT- it was said in the context of the 2060 end date. I don't know why they said that- 2060 would be the 4th chronological end date. 2042, 2054, 2057, and now 2060. So maybe I misundertand what he meant when he said DVC III- but that is what I assumed it had something to do with the end date.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Some folks on the DIS have speculated that at some point in time, Disney would separate the resorts into resort classes making it harder for people in DVC I resorts (2042s) to stay in the newer resorts, vice versa. So far, I've only seen mention of DVC I & DVC II. Maybe they are considering California and Hawaii to be DVC II. I think the folks that DO speculate about this have different schemes of how they would separate it all out. HOWEVER, it is all speculation. I personally don't see it, but who knows.

 

[AKV707]

Wouldn't that just devalue our ownerships? I just can't see DVC doing this. What would be the advantage to them?

 

[JimMIA]

I could be wrong, but I believe SSR and AKV are DVC II's and all of the older resorts are DVC I. There is no practical difference between DVC I and DVC II. I think the end date of the contracts was the only difference, and they are now extending OKW.

The rest is all speculative. The details of GCV and Hawaii have not been announced yet, and of course the Contemporary property has not been formally announced by DVC yet, so we don't know on those three.

I'd bet the only difference with future resorts will be increased buy-in costs and higher per-night point costs. It would definitely devalue our existing memberships if they put different booking limitations on the newer resorts.

 

[Caskbill]

....

I'd bet the only difference with future resorts will be increased buy-in costs and higher per-night point costs. It would definitely devalue our existing memberships if they put different booking limitations on the newer resorts.

That's definitely possible. There is no guarantee by DVC that you will be eligible to use your points at all future DVC resorts. In fact, the only guarantee you have is that you can use your points at your home resort.

If the construction costs for newer resorts increases substantially they may have to split them into separate entities. Suppose to make Hawaii or the contemporary resorts viable, they have to charge $125/point. If they want all DVC the same, then AKV and SSR would go to $125/point.

If they made it totally separate, they could continue SSR and AKV at about $100 and sell the others at the higher price. Or they could keep it all the same, raise the price to $125, and then give a $25 incentive to purchase AKV or SSR. This would be similar to how they did things in the past.

The fact that the towers have been declared as their own separate condominium association may indicate this is their plan. I think all the other resorts are under one umbrella: DVD/DVC.

 

[JimMIA]

If they want all DVC the same, then AKV and SSR would go to $125/point.

Yeah, but that's a BIG if. They sell AKV and SSR at different prices now, so I don't see why they would necessarily want to sell everything at the same price.

If they start selling the Contemporary prior to selling out AKV, I think they will need a significant price differential in order to avoid hurting AKV sales. If you price them closely, I think most buyers would buy the Contemporary.

In addition, there's no question that DVC will sell their points for "whatever the traffic will bear." And the traffic will bear a somewhat higher per-point price at an MK-view monorail resort than it will at AKV. I've been guessing $10 or more per point premium, but the real number could very well be in the range of $25 pp more.

If they split the Contemp off from the regular DVC properties -- so that you had to own there to book there -- I'm sure they'd charge a LOT more per point. I personally think that would be a big mistake. They have a very successful business model, allowing everyone to book anywhere at seven months. I think they'd be nuts to monkey with that.

The fact that the towers have been declared as their own separate condominium association may indicate this is their plan. I think all the other resorts are under one umbrella: DVD/DVC.

I think every DVC resort has their own condo association, don't they? Each is individually managed, and all revenues and expenditures related to that property go through that property's condo association, I think. I know they all have separate budgets, and I'm pretty sure it would not be legal to co-mingle funds between the properties. I don't think creating a Kingdom Towers condo association means anything more than that.