DVC plans to target commercial renters

[lowlight]

What I miss in the discussion about walking (and people wanting to get rid of it) is that the underlying situation remains the same: there are some room categories at some times of the year for which there is more demand than there is availability even during the home resort period. Walking - while unpopular - means, you can get an advantage if you put in the effort.

Walkers don’t have an advantage, they have a guarantee. If DVC meant for walking to be ok, they wouldn’t sell fixed weeks. Fixed weeks are booked 12 months in advance, the only reservations allowed before 11 month FCFS. Except for walkers, they get theirs at any time after their use year begins and longer if they make a phone call. Why buy a fixed week and pay the premium when you can walk for free?

If you remove walking and everything else remains the same, first come first served is the mechanism.

That’s what the contract guarantees. Anything else is a violation.

 

[walt34]

Walkers don’t have an advantage, they have a guarantee.

They don't. It depends on how long they are willing to walk. And nobody, not even for the most in-demand categories - seems to be walking for more than a few months.

That’s what the contract guarantees. Anything else is a violation.

Not sure you'll find many people to agree with you that walking is a contract violation. Disney certainly hasn't seen it as such for a long time.

I conclude from your statement that you are fine with a 07:00 am rush that is being dominated by renters?

 

[zavandor]

Uh oh... goodbye thread about renting, welcome back thread about walking.

 

[walt34]

Uh oh... goodbye thread about renting, welcome back thread about walking.

Aren't they interlinked if people ask for walking to be removed together with other measures against commercial renting when it seems that removing walking might actually be to the advantage of commercial renters, as I've pointed out?

They certainly share the common perception that people don't get the rooms they want because of (perceived) violations of rules.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Americans dislike cheaters even more. Try cutting a line and see the reaction.

The rules "expressly prohibit" renting for "commercial purposes". Those who are renting for commercial purposes are cheaters.

I would apply this "cheating" idea to walking, too. Sure, walking is not expressly forbidden in the POS like commercial renting is. However, walking most definitely violates the intent of the booking process (which is why DVC identified it as something they are looking to reduce). Walking is basically a loophole that not everyone knows about, and those that do know about it are given an unfair advantage when booking difficult-to-get rooms. And like most things in life (taxes, etc), loopholes are usually closed once they are discovered. That said, shutting down commercial renting should absolutely be priority #1, no doubt.

The good news is stopping commercial renting should be easier to start implementing. I'm sure DVC has an algorithm to identify the contracts that are renting their points at a rate that would constitute "commercial renting". By the sounds of it, restricting walking could be a little tougher (mostly because it would be a new rule that is added). Like others on here, I don't want to lose the flexibility with which I book rooms. However, I know that walking is VERY easy to define and identify so any new rules probably wouldn't be restrictive to those who want to book their rooms under the "normal" reservation process. I have no idea what those rules would look like, so it will be interesting if DVC does in fact make a move there.

 

[tx911]

I would apply this "cheating" idea to walking, too. Sure, walking is not expressly forbidden in the POS like commercial renting is. However, walking most definitely violates the intent of the booking process (which is why DVC identified it as something they are looking to reduce). Walking is basically a loophole that not everyone knows about, and those that do know about it are given an unfair advantage when booking difficult-to-get rooms. And like most things in life (taxes, etc), loopholes are usually closed once they are discovered. That said, shutting down commercial renting should absolutely be priority #1, no doubt.

The good news is stopping commercial renting should be easier to start implementing. I'm sure DVC has an algorithm to identify the contracts that are renting their points at a rate that would constitute "commercial renting". By the sounds of it, restricting walking could be a little tougher (mostly because it would be a new rule that is added). Like others on here, I don't want to lose the flexibility with which I book rooms. However, I know that walking is VERY easy to define and identify so any new rules probably wouldn't be restrictive to those who want to book their rooms under the "normal" reservation process. I have no idea what those rules would look like, so it will be interesting if DVC does in fact make a move there.

They are both the seedy parts of DVC, perpetrated by few to the detriment of many.

 

[Sandisw]

Walkers don’t have an advantage, they have a guarantee. If DVC meant for walking to be ok, they wouldn’t sell fixed weeks. Fixed weeks are booked 12 months in advance, the only reservations allowed before 11 month FCFS. Except for walkers, they get theirs at any time after their use year begins and longer if they make a phone call. Why buy a fixed week and pay the premium when you can walk for free?



That’s what the contract guarantees. Anything else is a violation.

I’ll push back again on one point. It is your opinion that owners who are walking are violating the FCFS rule because you think that intent is built into that.

Others, like me, do not because POS says rooms have to be made available to all owners on a FCFS basis based on whatever rules DVC puts in place, with the one exception and thst is they must give home resort owners a one month advantage over non resort owners under FCFS.

DVC choose to make booking 11 months plus 7 from a check in date and the system allows any owner to book under those terms.

Walking is a loophole because the rules DVC wrote allow it to occur. Loophokes don’t make something against the rules…it allows people to get around the rules without technically violating them. That is why they are called loopholes.

You can certainly complain to DVC that the rule they put in place violates that clause. But it’s the fault of DVC and not the owners.

Which is which why all these LLCs were created and owners set up multiple memberships for renting,..to bring this back to the thread at hand.

It allowed them to get around the definition that DVC used in 2008 to constitute commercial purpose because that rule stated it applied to a membership..singular.

It’s also why I think DVC may finally adjust things because too many people are using the loophole to get around the commercial purpose clause.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

On a separate note about commercial renting, I think it would be hilarious to see the reaction of any person/company that purchased 2000-4000 points for the purpose of renting...only to see DVC successfully crack down hard on commercial renting. I guess those people would be taking a LOT of trips to WDW, lol.

 

[walt34]

On a separate note about commercial renting, I think it would be hilarious to see the reaction of any person/company that purchased 2000-4000 points for the purpose of renting...only to see DVC successfully crack down hard on commercial renting. I guess those people would be taking a LOT of trips to WDW, lol.

We'd probably see resale prices for some resorts dropping, at least temporarily, when those contracts are unloaded.

 

[Cyberc1978]

What I miss in the discussion about walking (and people wanting to get rid of it) is that the underlying situation remains the same: there are some room categories at some times of the year for which there is more demand than there is availability even during the home resort period. Walking - while unpopular - means, you can get an advantage if you put in the effort.

If you remove walking and everything else remains the same, first come first served is the mechanism. Whoever clicks the fastest when the window opens gets the room. Because programs can click much faster than humans can, this means commercial renters using the right tools would win most of the time. Is this really better?

What other alternatives are there? Everyone who wants the room could enter a lottery and then luck decides. Everybody would have the same chances but this would of course also mean that someone, who really depends on the room because of limited flexibility and is willing to work for this now has the same chance as someone who just wants to 'give it a try' and would have much more flexibility.

Which one is the least bad option? I really don't know, I just hesitate to ask for the removal of walking without understanding the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative.

We already had the discussion about walking - just in another thread. This thread is about renting - not walking.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Uh oh... goodbye thread about renting, welcome back thread about walking.

Yeah. We already had the discussion about walking. Now back to talking renting

 

[lowlight]

Yeah. We already had the discussion about walking. Now back to talking renting

They are inextricably tied together. Renting is definitely the worse of the two.

 

[Nabas]

And yet, that would penalize members like me who are not walking but are patiently modifying a reservation to add days as the walkers move on by. It also has a lower impact on members with a large number of points because they can book 7 nights and then wait several days before modifying while someone with "just enough points" would be the loser. Walking will still occur. It will just be over a shorter period and those hard to get rooms during popular times will still be elusive to many members.

Here's my proposal to (mostly) eliminate walking.

First, some existing rules to keep in mind:

• Member stays can be up to 30 nights long.
• Members can book at their home resort at 11 months.
• Members can book up to 7 nights at 11 months.
• At 11 months, members can add nights to their original 7-night stays, one night at a time. (This is how longer stays are booked at 11 months.)

Assuming the above rules do not change, I believe the following rules minimize walking:

• Only for a reservation booked at exactly 11 months, the check-in date cannot change by more than 6 nights unless the entire reservation is cancelled and rebooked.
• This restriction no longer applies once at least one night after the check-out date is available to be booked by other DVC members.

I believe this approach limits walking to a maximum of 6 nights.

Example:

I book December 1 to 8 (7 nights) at exactly 11 months. Each day after that, I add one night until I have December 1 to 15 booked (14 nights). I then modify my reservation to drop December 1 to 6 (6 nights), leaving me with a reservation from December 7 to December 15 (8 nights). However, I am not allowed to change the check-in date to later than December 7 (i.e. 6 nights after my original check-in date).

However, starting on December 16 (i.e. the day after my check-out date), I am allowed to make any modification I want to this reservation.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

We'd probably see resale prices for some resorts dropping, at least temporarily, when those contracts are unloaded.

That's what I was thinking, too. They would unload those contracts for whatever they had to sell them for. Which would be funny in its own right.

 

[Cyberc1978]

They are inextricably tied together. Renting is definitely the worse of the two.

We have to agree to disagree. Except for its two things that some like and others dislike.

Take away walking, people would still rent.

Take away renting, people would still walk.

 

[Sandisw]

I would apply this "cheating" idea to walking, too. Sure, walking is not expressly forbidden in the POS like commercial renting is. However, walking most definitely violates the intent of the booking process (which is why DVC identified it as something they are looking to reduce). Walking is basically a loophole that not everyone knows about, and those that do know about it are given an unfair advantage when booking difficult-to-get rooms. And like most things in life (taxes, etc), loopholes are usually closed once they are discovered. That said, shutting down commercial renting should absolutely be priority #1, no doubt.

The good news is stopping commercial renting should be easier to start implementing. I'm sure DVC has an algorithm to identify the contracts that are renting their points at a rate that would constitute "commercial renting". By the sounds of it, restricting walking could be a little tougher (mostly because it would be a new rule that is added). Like others on here, I don't want to lose the flexibility with which I book rooms. However, I know that walking is VERY easy to define and identify so any new rules probably wouldn't be restrictive to those who want to book their rooms under the "normal" reservation process. I have no idea what those rules would look like, so it will be interesting if DVC does in fact make a move there.

This actually sums up nicely what some have posted about both topics.

Those who can be identified as renting for a commercial purpose have definitely decided to use the walking loophole to their advantage.

Not all renters walk, and not all walkers are renters.

But again, it’s up to DVC to create the rules that don’t allow loopholes to exist in the first place.

Put it in the context of DVC ND owners who answer yes , if they are asked “are you a DVC owner” who is checking out when shopping at WDW.

They know the CMs intent is to determine if they are eligible for the discount and they know they are not but have said it’s the CMs job to be clear and not the owners.

And I believe that it is on DVC to make sure the program is running as intended and not the fault of owners who are using the system in the way it functions, even if it isn’t functioning the way it is was intended to function.

 

[Tatebeck]

Here's my proposal to (mostly) eliminate walking.

Yep, this is basically the same proposal I put out a few months ago. I definitely think it would work, but some other members didn't think they would be allowed to change the booking rules to this without at least updating the Home Resort Rules and Regs or the POS(s).

It is definitely linked to renters as other members have said. I haven't seen anyone say that they are all for commercial renting but against walking. And commercial renting is more explicitly against the rules anyway so it would probably make the most sense for them to crack down on commercial rentals and then determine if more rules are needed for booking afterwards

 

[Tatebeck]

We have to agree to disagree. Except for its two things that some like and others dislike.

Take away walking, people would still rent.

Take away renting, people would still walk.

At this point I would say that MOST commercial spec renters walk. They have to to get the rooms they want at the times they want.

So most major commercial spec renters walk, but I would also hazard a guess that most members don't walk their average reservation. You don't think that if they magically ousted all of the commercial spec renters at once that it would cut down on walking as well?

If some people who are doing both of the 2 things "wrong" are shut down, then there will be less members doing the the second "wrong" thing (regardless of whether the "wrong" things were against the letter or the spirit of the rules). 2 birds with one stone and all that. No use aiming at a single bird when there are pairs of them everywhere for easy picking

 

[Nabas]

Yep, this is basically the same proposal I put out a few months ago. I definitely think it would work, but some other members didn't think they would be allowed to change the booking rules to this without at least updating the Home Resort Rules and Regs or the POS(s).

Per Florida statute:

the managing entity [i.e. Disney] of a timeshare plan is authorized to manage the reservation and use of accommodations using those processes, analyses, procedures, and methods that are in the best interests of the owners as a whole to efficiently manage the timeshare plan and encourage the maximum use and enjoyment of the accommodations and other benefits made available through the timeshare plan​

This is why, for example, Disney could change Point Charts without membership approval (and a lot of members were really upset when October and November became more expensive).

The State of Florida already grants to Disney the authority to manage the reservation system using "methods that are in the best interests of the owners as a whole".

Disney does not need approval or change the POS to modify how reservations are made, as long as they do so "in the best interests of the owners as a whole".

I get the impression that there are more members that dislike walking than like walking. Therefore, placing limits on walking are "in the best interests of the owners as a whole".

 

[Cyberc1978]

At this point I would say that MOST commercial spec renters walk. They have to to get the rooms they want at the times they want.

So most major commercial spec renters walk, but I would also hazard a guess that most members don't walk their average reservation. You don't think that if they magically ousted all of the commercial spec renters at once that it would cut down on walking as well?

If commercial renting went away, members would still walk - I would.

So renting won’t solve walking. If ie commercial renters was stopped, you honestly think that other members wouldn’t take their place?

Also there are few value rooms they will ALWAYS be difficult to get - walking or not. Same with standard view at BWV.