DVC Point Charts for 2011 - Post chart release discussion begins on Pg 14

[dismedvc]

If BWV was not fully declared when the room classes were changes and the theoretical methodology I have offered was used and if it had been identified then it would be the same situation. Just because you get away with something once does not mean it is proper.

If a time-share company were to actually do this it brings up moral, civil and criminal issues (if I were such a timeshare company I would certainly want to review it before it became a nightmare).

bookwormde

I am not sure if what we are talking about should actually be in a separate thread, but since it started here, it should probably continue here.

I still do not see the problem if DVC did this. I do not understand exactly what you think they got away with. It sound like you are saying if they had waited until the resort was sold out it would have been ok, but since they did it before the resort was sold you think it might be "criminal". You stated in your post #579, doing this before the resort was sold out was unfair to the initial purchasers.

However, if I was an initial purchaser, and was told when I purchased that every room in the resort would cost 40 points a night, but then before the resort was sold out they made a change so that 20% of the rooms now cost 32 points a night and 80% of the rooms cost 42 points a night I would not feel I had been deceived.

Note: I am not trying to attack you personally, I find your posts to be some of the most informative I read, and almost always totally agree with your opinions, logic and conclusions. However, in this case I honestly say I do not understand your conclusion, so maybe I am missing something.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

We have a small contract (100 points) and do tend to stay weeknights, in studios, in adventure season.

This is not to "game" the system, but because we are a couple, usually like the nice weather in January, and can take a week off for vacation but must use the weekends to get to Walt Disney World. We also tend to primarily go to Walt Disney world.

I do admit that DVC has been a fantastic value for the way we have always vacationed. That is why we bought into DVC.


As for the comment of requiring people to own more points. I don't see that happening...but I do see a possible situation where small point owners would be forced to bank or borrow points so that they could meet a certain minimum length of time. That could still be problematic for owners with only 25 points.

I personally think that I will be safe with my 100 point purchase, even though it is a resale because DVC has subsequently made 100 point purchases available at SSR and AKV.

We may buy more points, but we have a few personal variables to work through. As I finish my dissertation, I'll be looking at a full-time teaching position (hopefully), and we are still trying to be more than a couple. These things will effect when we vacation, the size of our rooms, and our ability to purchase more points.

 

[Inkmahm]

I don't want that Doc. Sorry if that is what I conveyed.
I said :

That was simply in response to someone who made a comment about weeknighters needing to be subsidized by weekenders. I don't want to say the wrong thing here...so I'm stepping lightly. I was merely making a response to a comment about weeknighter's looking for bargains and cheap stays. Sorry this is not a personal attack against anyone...just a generalized observation of a comment made and my reasons for saying what I did above about the weekends. IOW, if NOT staying weekends was going to be such an issue with DVC (as it seems it now is), they should have made it a requirement from the start so all this confusion/frustration/point dilemma etc would not exist. That's all I was trying to say.

I was just trying to explain that when we purchased 10 years ago, we did so with the full intention of not staying over weekends and our guide was very accomodating and stressed how easy this would be because DVC is so flexible. But now today, I'm kind of made to feel guilty for making people subsidize their trips and taking the cheap way out. If DVC would have told us at signing that weekends could be imposed....or minimum stays or whatever....we might have planned and purchased differently than we did. And I know...it's all in the tiny print of the written contract. Believe me, Doc, I'm the last person that wishes a weekend stay imposed. Sorry again if I wasn't clear.

Maria

Maria, there is NO reason at all to feel guilty using the DVC system as designed, including using it to stay only Sun to Thurs nights. I chose to pay the weekend points in the past knowing full well that I was subsidizing the weekday only people. But to me, it was worth it to not have to change rooms in the middle of a stay just to save points. We all have the same options with DVC and you shouldn't feel at all guilty for using whatever is available to you. I just think we shouldn't take it so personally when the points are changed to make the weeknights and weekends more even in points. There's logic to the change.

 

[TisBit]

IOW, if NOT staying weekends was going to be such an issue with DVC (as it seems it now is), they should have made it a requirement from the start so all this confusion/frustration/point dilemma etc would not exist. That's all I was trying to say.

I was just trying to explain that when we purchased 10 years ago, we did so with the full intention of not staying over weekends and our guide was very accomodating and stressed how easy this would be because DVC is so flexible. But now today, I'm kind of made to feel guilty for making people subsidize their trips and taking the cheap way out. If DVC would have told us at signing that weekends could be imposed....or minimum stays or whatever....we might have planned and purchased differently than we did. And I know...it's all in the tiny print of the written contract. Believe me, Doc, I'm the last person that wishes a weekend stay imposed. Sorry again if I wasn't clear.

Maria

I think what people are saying is that the bookings were too skewed towards weeknights, so the whole point of this reallocation is to balance those scales. They are not trying to MAKE you stay on weekends, but rather to allow you to, without a huge penalty.

Now, as others have already pointed out, I think that they might have gone to the other extreme and made weekends very "cheap" on points, but I suspect that this is on purpose, will stay the same for a couple of years to get people to break their current vacation habits and then possibly move a little more towards charging more for weekends. I think 5-10 points extra for a weekend night, depending on the size of the accomodation is about right....with this latest change there are a lot of 1-3 point differences.

 

[wdrl]

Allowing people to own smaller packages has also been partly responsible, I wonder if they'll fix that issue at some point and if the do wil they grandfather current members?

This might put Disney in a "Darned if they do and darned if they don't" dilemma. You have to admit there is a very strong demand for small 25 to 75 point contracts from the membership, and this demand will probably continue despite point reallocations. For some, they only need to add a few more points to their membership to add another day or two to their trips, or to upgrade their accommodation. They don't need, or can't afford, a 100 or 150 point minimum add-on. And don't forget about the members that "break" their add-ons or master contracts into smaller pieces so that it will be easier to sell their contracts in the future, or to pass them on to multiple family members. Instead of buying a 500 point contract, the consensus wisdom of these boards would be to purchase 5 100-point contracts, or even 10 50-point contracts.

Bottom line, I agree that small point owners are more adversely impacted by the 2010 and 2011 point reallocations. But I don't see that the membership's desire for small contracts will ever diminish.

 

[wdrl]

Has anyone added up all the points to make sure the total has not changed and that points have just been rearranged like DVC states can/will happen. I'm just not so trusting when I keep reading how much points changed/increased last year and this year. Relatively new here so sorry if this is a stupid question.

See my prior posts #434 and #474. Based on my review of the data for VWL and BWV, the 2011 reallocation did not result in increases of the total points for these two resorts. And I don't think you raised a stupid question; that is why I computed the point totals for these resorts.

 

[Tiger926]

The one thing hubby and I find funny is that last year, Disney decided that they needed to start charging higher cash rates for resorts. This year, DVC, a division of Disney, decides to do the opposite, and basically make the points between weekend and weeknights almost the same.

Very confusing, Tiger

 

[Dean]

We have a small contract (100 points) and do tend to stay weeknights, in studios, in adventure season.

This is not to "game" the system, but because we are a couple, usually like the nice weather in January, and can take a week off for vacation but must use the weekends to get to Walt Disney World. We also tend to primarily go to Walt Disney world.

I do admit that DVC has been a fantastic value for the way we have always vacationed. That is why we bought into DVC.

I don't see it as gaming the system though I do see it as using the system within the rules but different than intended. Basically they make the rules and we use them as they work for us. Day by day and walking are extreme examples of unintended consequences of the policies.

As for the comment of requiring people to own more points. I don't see that happening...but I do see a possible situation where small point owners would be forced to bank or borrow points so that they could meet a certain minimum length of time. That could still be problematic for owners with only 25 points.

I don't expect they'll retroactively require current members to own a minimum number of points but I can see many options they could do going forward. I've already mentioned a minimum stay and even one that might include a weekend day. They could also give a priority for longer stays to reserve earlier than shorter ones. They could require new members going forward to have a minimum interest. This might prevent some sales or force resale buyers to add on as part of ther transfer process. They could raise the minimum add on to 100, something they've already experimented with once though their timing was terrible. I realize there are a lot of variables here and that some would cause uproar and some are likely not workable (but are possible) given the complexities.

 

[Sheribo]

I'm not impressed. My March break trip has gone up by 30 points in 2 years. I know they have the right to do it but I still feel like they did the bate and switch on me. Sadly, the friends who introduced us to DVC have put their points up for sale. We're just not comfortable with a system that can change every year and costs us more. That wasn't what we were looking for when we bought DVC. We hoped that changes would be made every few years but not every year. The magic of ownership is gone. Now every year we'll wait to see if we should feel grateful or bend over.

 

[Dean]

This might put Disney in a "Darned if they do and darned if they don't" dilemma. You have to admit there is a very strong demand for small 25 to 75 point contracts from the membership, and this demand will probably continue despite point reallocations. For some, they only need to add a few more points to their membership to add another day or two to their trips, or to upgrade their accommodation. They don't need, or can't afford, a 100 or 150 point minimum add-on. And don't forget about the members that "break" their add-ons or master contracts into smaller pieces so that it will be easier to sell their contracts in the future, or to pass them on to multiple family members. Instead of buying a 500 point contract, the consensus wisdom of these boards would be to purchase 5 100-point contracts, or even 10 50-point contracts.

Bottom line, I agree that small point owners are more adversely impacted by the 2010 and 2011 point reallocations. But I don't see that the membership's desire for small contracts will ever diminish.

I don't see the demand has any impact on Disney decisions unless they start to sell those size contracts to new members. I doubt they care if they lose a few sales for those buying specifically intending to resell as some have. Most people likely don't buy with the intent to sell later do I think the end result is it'll have little impact on sales if they adversely affect the ability to resall micro contracts.

The only way small point owners are more adversely affected is if they are more involved in the targeted practice of reserving S-F. I know they're not the only ones that do so but suspect they do so on average more than larger point owners. I'm somewhat in between in that I almost never pay points for weekends. I own 100 AKV and 333 BWV. I bought my AKV at 4 * 25 with the possibility or reselling part of them later though I have never pursued that option and likely will not though I still may pare down the BWV at some point.

I'm not impressed. My March break trip has gone up by 30 points in 2 years. I know they have the right to do it but I still feel like they did the bate and switch on me. Sadly, the friends who introduced us to DVC have put their points up for sale. We're just not comfortable with a system that can change every year and costs us more. That wasn't what we were looking for when we bought DVC. We hoped that changes would be made every few years but not every year. The magic of ownership is gone. Now every year we'll wait to see if we should feel grateful or bend over.

I understand the sentiment. I personally look at this from a big picture standpoint. To that end this IS an every few years change and the two years in a row should be looked at as one change. There may be minor changes going forward and some of them may make DVC not viable anymore, such is the world of timeshare.

 

[RobDoc]

...
I was just trying to explain that when we purchased 10 years ago, we did so with the full intention of not staying over weekends and our guide was very accomodating and stressed how easy this would be because DVC is so flexible. But now today, I'm kind of made to feel guilty for making people subsidize their trips and taking the cheap way out. If DVC would have told us at signing that weekends could be imposed....or minimum stays or whatever....we might have planned and purchased differently than we did. And I know...it's all in the tiny print of the written contract. Believe me, Doc, I'm the last person that wishes a weekend stay imposed. Sorry again if I wasn't clear.

Maria

There is no reason at all to feel guilty about anything as ALL members regardless what days of the week they choose to use DVC points have opportunity to use those points as they wish according to the resort, dates and villa type they wish to occupy.

As for the what you were told at signing - nothing is in "tiny print" - it is all clearly stated in the POS but unfortunately, many never feel it important to review those documents before signing or even after signing during their rescision period where they can back out of the contract if desired. To be clear, the point charts can (and have) changed, but to-date there are still no minimums imposed for stays.

Those who have chosen to use points on weekends in the past are finding less costly stays and those who chose to use them primarily for weeknights are finding more costly stays - but the parameters and flexibility of the DVC program have not changed at all. I can certainly understand the disappointment of those who find their stays costing more points this year and again next year. We were affected the same way back in 1996 and chose to add more points at that time.

 

[bookwormde]

Dismedvc.

The problem is this, if a timeshare company sets up a timeshare an creates points based on certain views and then before the units are even declared changes the views of a significant portion of the units so that if they had classified them correctly they would have sold say $20m less worth of points then they should take the “hit” for this mistake, instead of just raising the per point requirements per night for all the members who have already bought, so the total number of points stays the same.

Certainly not “fair” and possibly a civil law issue and if they did it with for knowledge that is might potentially be civil law a violation (and it is judged as such) and they attempted to conceal the “adjustment” (did not tell the members about it when they made the adjustment) then that might well enter into the fraud statues of many states, especially if there was a past pattern of doing this.

Or maybe I just have a distorted sense of what is “fair”.

bookwormde

 

[Tamar]

I can sympathize with all the PPs who are negatively affected. I almost bought a 30 point add on at AKV so that we could stay 4 weeknights in concierge every other year. Last year's point chart had me very glad I didn't do that.

We're lucky in that I don't think our F&W trips in a std view at BWV will change much since we always stay more than a week. I just hope the weekends don't get booked out from under us by "walkers".

 

[Inkmahm]

Dismedvc.

The problem is this, if a timeshare company sets up a timeshare an creates points based on certain views and then before the units are even declared changes the views of a significant portion of the units so that if they had classified them correctly they would have sold say $20m less worth of points then they should take the “hit” for this mistake, instead of just raising the per point requirements per night for all the members who have already bought, so the total number of points stays the same.

Certainly not “fair” and possibly a civil law issue and if they did it with for knowledge that is might potentially be civil law a violation (and it is judged as such) and they attempted to conceal the “adjustment” (did not tell the members about it when they made the adjustment) then that might well enter into the fraud statues of many states, especially if there was a past pattern of doing this.

Or maybe I just have a distorted sense of what is “fair”.

bookwormde

Maybe I'm not understanding your point. The total points don't change for a DVC location no matter what the views end up being. There is no such thing as raising the point requirements for those who already have bought. If the points for a villa go up, then there is a decrease somewhere else. Again, total points don't change. What am I missing?

 

[bookwormde]

Inkmam,

In my “theoretical” time-share company the developments company benefited by $20M and the members are paying higher per night point’s fees because of it. If the development company had assigned the rooms correctly then they would have made $20M less and the points per night would have averaged about 1 point less for each accommodation.

This time share company raised the required points 1 point per night above where they would have been if they had not made this mistake or if they had assigned the correct number of point to the units at declaration (different from what they thought in there initial filing) and reduced their gross income by 20M.

Basically they offset the loss of points in these 50 or so units (which were downgraded) by adding points to the point chart.

bookwormde

 

[bookwormde]

Back to the real world here is a balanced verison of AKV if if were just changed for the weekday/weekend realignment (if misses by little)

weekday weekend
value value
adv ch dr mag pre blt adv ch dr mag pre
8 8 9 12 15 st 11 11 12 14 19
18 21 22 25 31 1br 21 28 31 34 45
24 28 29 32 43 2br 29 33 34 38 50
gv

standad standard
adv ch dr mag pre blt adv ch dr mag pre
10 11 12 15 19 st 12 13 14 17 23
21 24 27 31 36 1br 25 27 29 33 43
29 30 34 38 52 2br 34 36 39 47 58
gv


savana savana
adv ch dr mag pre blt adv ch dr mag pre
13 15 16 18 24 st 15 17 18 21 27
25 26 28 33 42 1br 37 40 43 49 64
36 39 42 49 66 2br 43 47 50 60 74
74 78 89 104 125 gv 84 88 101 120 143
cl cl
adv ch dr mag pre blt adv ch dr mag pre
16 17 19 20 28 st 19 20 21 23 32
34 36 39 44 57 1br 38 41 45 50 65
46 49 53 60 78 2br 53 55 61 68 89

This is 1 point less per night for every type and size unit

 

[UConnJack]

I don't know if this has been touched on, I didn't get through all 47 pages of the thread, but I am wondering if/how this is going to affect rentals? A lot of rentals seemed to be 5-night weekday stays, since the cost savings for the people renting was so significant and people were eager to take advantage of it. Now that that value has been diminished, I think fewer people are going to rent in general. Why take on the risk and restriction if the payoff isn't as great? Not saying its good or bad, but I think it may have an affect. There is still value for people renting, especially larger units vs. what CRO charges, so I don't think renting will dry up, but might it have an affect?

I am pretty sure it will affect spec and commercial renting in particular, especially on sites like Ebay, as those are usually predominately 5-day week rentals.

As for prices, I don't see it affecting prices much, unless this causes rental demand to significantly decrease.

 

[UConnJack]

For me personally, our trips are so variable, that these changes won't affect us too much. We sometimes take long weekends, sometimes 5 days, sometimes 7, 9, etc. I can understand why some people are annoyed, but I do think it will ultimately prove to be better for DVC and its membership overall.

 

[MiaSRN62]

There is no reason at all to feel guilty about anything as ALL members regardless what days of the week they choose to use DVC points have opportunity to use those points as they wish according to the resort, dates and villa type they wish to occupy.

As for the what you were told at signing - nothing is in "tiny print" - it is all clearly stated in the POS but unfortunately, many never feel it important to review those documents before signing or even after signing during their rescision period where they can back out of the contract if desired. To be clear, the point charts can (and have) changed, but to-date there are still no minimums imposed for stays.

Those who have chosen to use points on weekends in the past are finding less costly stays and those who chose to use them primarily for weeknights are finding more costly stays - but the parameters and flexibility of the DVC program have not changed at all. I can certainly understand the disappointment of those who find their stays costing more points this year and again next year. We were affected the same way back in 1996 and chose to add more points at that time.

Doc...to you and others who addressed that people like me should not feel guilty. Believe me.....I mostly do not. Really....popping on these allocation threads and reading certain comments/posts is what makes one feel like that. And I refer to the "tiny print" because the sales presentation doesn't even make an attempt to address the nitty gritty policies and changes that can occur. That's all. I know it's clearly stated in the POS. But I think you know what I mean and won't explain it further. It's covered up by the hype, that's all I was saying.

And thanks for understanding the disappointment. It can be a rare thing to find-----"understanding" or empathy that is. Lots of time I've seen the weeknight primarily crowd met with sarcasm and lectures (you know, "you shoulda known better" yada yada and fingers wagging etc). Not saying anyone here directly said or insinuated this. Just making a broad generalized observation between last year and now this year's thread on allocation.

Again...that's all I was saying. In fact, I would not have posted to this thread at all if I was not met with that here. Certain posts here and there incite an emotional defensive mechanism because said general posts are peppered with the same. And yes, Doc, I truly get that all this is within DVC's rights/realm. I never disputed that. Respectfully, I had issue with other topics.

I think what people are saying is that the bookings were too skewed towards weeknights, so the whole point of this reallocation is to balance those scales. They are not trying to MAKE you stay on weekends, but rather to allow you to, without a huge penalty.

Tisbit....thank you....I fully understand that as well. I guess I was thinking along the lines of mandatory minimum stays and whether or not those will require a weekend or part of a weekend stay ? Just sitting tight to see what the future holds because nothing much is gonna suprise me anymore.


Maria

 

[Petraman]

Only one suggestion. Don't let the 2-year olds comments bother you. They are entitled to their opinion, but last I checked, we paid for our points, we were told (in essence) this would not happen, and so we are stuck with few options.

Buy more points
Go less days
reserve smaller units
skip years

All the things we were told would not happen.... Oh well

The name calling aside which I assume is directed at those of us that feel it was appropriate to make the changes...

Actually my comment was given to a person who clearly had felt insulted by another who hadn't attempted to clarify their point, they just made IMO and obviously the opinion of the Poster a rude comment followed by a nice to rub it in. Exchanging "personal observation" should be embraced, sadly many think it is about insults and jibes (they think they are playing an online video.... "Gotcha sucka"). I appreciate your posts (and others who may disagree with my view), sometimes you bring good insight, sometimes I disagree completely...but hey, it's ok if you disagree with me, I still like you

I can't say what you were told, but you were given legal documentation to state otherwise, correct? To me, that caries far more weight. IN general, don't take the statements of a timeshare person as fact if not backed up in writing in a legal format and that includes Disney. My usual approach is represented here. How do you know a timeshare salesperson is lying, ...their lips are moving.

Yes, they did and the truth is we accepted those documents as written. Yet I am confident that many people who got those docs, read as carefully as their legal skill level allowed, may have never seen this scenario. So let's just leave it at "I can't say what you were told", because you are right you weren't there.
Could we have been cynical (my wife was thoroughly embarassed by the grilling I gave the guy)? ... Yes
Could we have seen this coming if I had more understanding of how this works? ... Yes
Should we be careful about who we do business with on timeshares? ... Yes
Should we sometimes just make good choices, pick quality companies, ask questions and then trust that the people sitting across the desk are telling you all the truth ... I say yes
I try to trust people, try to ask the right questions, and then live with the results.
That has been my approach to life and it too has served me well.

BTW, you are correct in pointing out we should all make sure it is in the legal document and not take the agent's word for it. I remember sitting in his office hounding him on this one topic of how the points as a whole would never change so whatever I bought today would meet our needs for the future, he took me right to the document and read me the section. The problem was I don't think either one of us fully understood that this scenario that we have faced for these past 2 years was possible. Let me say categorically, I DO NOT feel my agent lied to me or purposefully deceived me. I genuinely think he believed it when he said our purchase as it was would meet the need we had as we described it to him.

No doubt any reallocation has the potential to change plans if one is too close on points. One options is to buy more points or change habbits. For those who slated S-F only stays (like me), there have been large changes over the past year. Still one should have known it was a risk and that's especially true if they were combining the 3 risk factors of Adventure/Choices seasons, smaller unit, weekday only.

Very good point Dean. Truth is, the sky is not falling and we still have choices. They may not be the choices we felt we were "promised", and they may require us to move from our comfort zone, but we still own a part of the "Dream", right?

In general those that were aimed at 5 nights either knew or should have known it was a risk. It's interesting the indignant reaction of some of those taking advantage of the system to their advantage.....

Dean, keep an open mind...
Just as it would have been unfair for me or others to call you a "2 year old" for disagreeing with us (which I wasn't, really), it is truly unfair for you to insinuate that anyone who came to WDW M-F only was taking advantage of the system, and now whining because they got caught. There are many out here like myself, who simply don't have the flexibility to travel whenever we want. I bought DVC specifically to travel M-F long before I was "smart enough" to know it was good for my point usage. I told my agent this is how we vacation and there probably will never be a change. I saw in your post you were in Cabo on a trip and looking at another timeshare. Man that is great I wish I was there! So it sounds you may own more than one timeshare? Looking at more ( or just getting the freebee hehe...)? It seems alot of folks on the board here have multiple timeshares... multiple vacation weeks... multiple options. That is fantastic! I would love to have more options.... but here's the thing, we simply don't. We get one week a year to dedicate to Disney. We love the Disney thing and the memories it has created for us and our girls are priceless. Bottom line: I don't go M-F to "abuse" the system, I genuinely have no real choice, and I am confident I am not the only DVC owner in this same boat.