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

[MiaSRN62]

I agree that owners with 230 points will see no significant effect.

We have 250 and we're definitely feeling an adverse crunch.

Sunday is generally almost always an icky day, but Saturday is never worse than "middle", and usually better than that. Friday is better than average everywhere but Studios, where it's pretty bad.

Respectfully disagree....we ALWAYS avoid Saturdays because whenever we're there, it is historically the worst day in the parks. Really feel the locals flood in then. We find Sunday much better. And we have traveled in Aug, Nov, Dec and Feb mostly, though we have been there other months as well over the last 15 years.

Maria

 

[Brian Noble]

My understanding is that those day-by-day rankings were taking by monitoring wait times at the top attractions in each park, each day of the week, for several different periods of time.

Unless they didn't do that correctly, I'd put a lot of faith in them.

 

[Muushka]

I agree that owners with 230 points will see no significant effect.

We have 250 and we're definitely feeling an adverse crunch.

Too funny. I saw this and thought the same thing.
We have 225 points and now need 280 points to vacation the way we had planned.

I need to let it go, stop reading this thread!

PS I really wanted to sell our points, but my husband just can't let them go right now.
Maybe if they go up just a tad bit more.....

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Yes, they could have informed membership as you suggest. But historically, including the 1996 reallocation, there has been no such communication...there is no reason to believe that would change now.

The 1996 reallocation was also substantial, it simply didn't get the attention this one is getting. At least I think taking OKW studios from 69 points a week to 80 ponts a week in Adventure Season in 1996 was a substantial change.

This post made me think more that DVC just hasn't made the move into the information age. Back in 1996 the internet use was minimal compared to 2010. And there were far fewer DVC members. Most if not all people would have learned of the changes when they received their planners or called to book a reservation and then didn't have any centralized places to express their displeasure.

Just because they have disseminated information in a certain way for almost 15-20 years doesn't mean it works as well anymore nor should be done that way any longer. People's reactions to how the point change affects them won't change but Disney continues to exacerbate the reaction with those affected and others by not being forthcoming and timely with the announcements.

I don't think it's unreasonable for us to hope - or maybe even expect them to change, although with DVC they do appear to be further behind than most everyone else. And more stubborn about it.

I think what you are remembering is the guaranteed maximum number of points to reserve a particular type of accommodation for ONE night.

I don't have the documents in front of me but 88 points for an AKV Grand Villa sticks in my head for some reason.

That is to say that the POS states something similar to: "No matter what changes are made to the point allocations for vacation homes you will always be able to reserve at least one night of the year in a Grand Villa for 88 points."

So to take it to the extreme, they could set up the charts such that one single night of the year for a GV is 88 points and all other nights are 1500 points.

Ah - that's it although different than what I was remembering. So I'll always have enough points for at least one night! At least if I could manage to reserve that night.

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Too funny. I saw this and thought the same thing.
We have 225 points and now need 280 points to vacation the way we had planned.

I need to let it go, stop reading this thread!

PS I really wanted to sell our points, but my husband just can't let them go right now.
Maybe if they go up just a tad bit more.....

Face it, no matter how many points you have...if you travel on weekdays -- you need more points now.

My point was that it requiring members to own 230 points is unrealistic and just too many points given some owners vacation habits.

 

[Dean]

Yes, I have a level of distrust based upon certain issues over my 18 years in the Club. Management should have been more transparent with the members over the point change. They knew the desired change they were trying to achieve before the 2010 point chart was disclosed. There is no reason they could not have informed us of what the final point chart (assuming 2011 is it) was going to look like prior to starting the process so that members could make appropriate add-on decisions or sell their interests if the Club no longer worked for them.

While I agree they could have, I can certainly see why they wouldn't publish the info until they had to. Timeshares are hisorically tight liped about such changes.

Hubby and I keep discussing it as this thread continues, and for us there are problems with Disney's foresight. When you make a system in which weekends are so much more, how can you not assume that this will make the other nights that are cheaper, more desirable? It's not rocket science, so, why did they let it happen for this long? Of course, by doing this, you are going to have weekdays being harder to book, and then weekends are at less occupancy. Not hard to see that they created a potential imbalance...

As people have pointed out, they've done things along the way in regards to this, yet now, when points are at an all-time high, they make major changes?

As we all know, it's much easier to make corrections in baby steps, but vastly changing things is much harder to deal with.

I have to imagine that DVC has some pretty smart people in charge, so again, I ask, what was their true intention with making weekends so high, and why did they let it go on this far?

We are enjoying this discussion, and learning lots about the little intricacies of DVC that we didn't know a lot about.

Tiger

The need to balance the points ands the inherent costs involved combined with the idea this should have been done several years ago leave no time for minor changes and wait and see. If they had changed in 2001 as I feel they should have, they likely would have only needed one change now and it would have been smaller, likely around the 2011 only change. I guess I ask had they ended up the same place but changed in 2001 and again in 2010 or 2011, would it hve made any difference.

If my suspicions of another change are accurate, I think it'll make many people wish for the rebalancing instead.

We have 250 and we're definitely feeling an adverse crunch.

I'm sure even some people at 1000 or more will feel some changes. I have 433 and it will affect me negatively.

 

[drewmisha]

Agreed. My springbreak for 2009/2010 needed only 68 points for gcv now needs 104 points... That is ~a 50% increase because they changed seasons.

With all the talk about minimum stays, hope DVC management won't require it in DLR as it historically is a short stay resort.

Too funny. I saw this and thought the same thing.
We have 225 points and now need 280 points to vacation the way we had planned.

I need to let it go, stop reading this thread!

PS I really wanted to sell our points, but my husband just can't let them go right now.
Maybe if they go up just a tad bit more.....

 

[MiaSRN62]

I'm sure even some people at 1000 or more will feel some changes. I have 433 and it will affect me negatively.

Agreed Dean...don't doubt that at all. I was just remarking that I didn't feel :
"owners with 230 points will see no significant effect"

I just can't agree with that poster's particular comment because I feel the effect for us is significant.

Maria

 

[El&Asmom]

Dean, I have seen many people comment about the possible minimum night stay being a possible change in the system. I guess I don't understand how a point based system could do this. Effectively it would require a minimum point threshold for membership. DVC has been selling 100 pt member buy ins. If they implemented a minimum of even a 3 or 4 night stay, many people would be unable to use there membership without an add on. Plus it would make banking and borrowing a nightmare.
If DVC made this change, we would have to seriously consider the advantage to owning this timeshare. We thought we would be in it until the end, but it would so negatively affect the way we travel, we would likely have to sell.

 

[helenk]

Agreed. My springbreak for 2009/2010 needed only 68 points for gcv now needs 104 points... That is ~a 50% increase because they changed seasons.

With all the talk about minimum stays, hope DVC management won't require it in DLR as it historically is a short stay resort.

I would think that the Spring Break range could change each year, depending on when Easter falls.

 

[arthur06]

I am a fairly new member, but I really dont get ALL the fuss over this... I mean I get some of the fuss ....

People on the DIS are very knowledgable and informed... they find great ways to maximize there points and there uses... I know that this will be no different in the future...

Worrying is like a rocking chair, gives you something to do, but doesn't get you anywhere!

 

[BroganMc]

I also believe if you made weekday and weekend points identical you would create too much demand for weekends, as everything being equal people would rather include weekends in their travel, because those are days you do not have to take off work and kids are out of school.

Weekend use is also affected by whether you fly or drive. Most DVC owners are from the East Coast. Here in MD, you can drive down in 1-2 nights. It's a lot cheaper to drive than fly, especially if you have a family of 4-6. So many would take the weekend to travel and stay at Disney during the weekdays.

Under these terms, you'd leave on a Friday or Saturday after work/school, arrive for Sunday check-in, then leave Friday for the drive home by Sunday. 2 out of my 3 siblings almost always drive down because it's cheaper with their family size. Only one routinely flies and rents a car.

Long weekend trips really only work for locals who are within short driving distance, and people who can afford to fly.

For us, we opt to check in on Sunday or Monday because it allows us to use the weekend to travel. We check out on Friday for the same reason. That's when we drive down. If we're going for a short 3-4 day holiday trip, we fly. Every year we make 2 driving trips (staying 12+ days) and 1-2 flying trips (3-4 days).

Disclosure: With 660 points I'm able to manage this point reallocation well. In fact better in 2011 than 2010 as many of my studio weeks went down in points. Ironically, the night I lost in 2010 due to studio reallocation I got back in 2011. Instead, I lost a 1BR night which I don't care to make up. It just means I'll fly down for one less day a year.

Is there any proof that a usage problem exists that warrants correction? Where is the concrete evidence to support the point changes? Has there been anything but conclusory statements that a problem is present? Management has such a cavalier attitude toward the membership; yet, they are supposed to be acting in our best interests.

That is an issue of transparency. Fact is, the company has been playing fast and loose with its trustworthy reputation the last few years. But I think this is true for Disney corp as a whole. The corporate culture there has been in lockdown "say nothing and protect yourself" mode for several years. It's something I've heard on the ground from CMs becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the organization.

I guess the truth is, DVC owners must be aware that despite protests there is no impartial evidence to support the reasons for these changes. So what you need to consider is whether the program, with all the changes, continues to serve you.

There are many timeshares in Orlando that offer cheaper and sometimes better accommodations than anything Disney offers. Is the DVC hassle really worth EMH and onsite transportation?

 

[photobob]

I am a fairly new member, but I really dont get ALL the fuss over this... I mean I get some of the fuss ....

People on the DIS are very knowledgable and informed... they find great ways to maximize there points and there uses... I know that this will be no different in the future...

Worrying is like a rocking chair, gives you something to do, but doesn't get you anywhere!

Arthur there is a big difference between worry and anger. The five night stay I had in 2008 for 150 points will be 190 in 2011, that is a heck of a jump. I own 180 which means I'll probably never use those accommodations again. I personally can't currently cough up another $5,000 just to put me back where I was!

 

[puntagordabob]

Dean, I have seen many people comment about the possible minimum night stay being a possible change in the system.

We would sell in a split second if they did that.... we are Local to WDW 92 hours and 20 minutes drive) so for us we usually do a 1 week stay as our main trip...but 1 night stays are very common the rest of the year as we like to run up when we can... if a minimum stay is implemented it would destroy the flexibility we enjoy.

Also I am not certain DVC can do that since of all the zillion things they say in the contract that they can do, I dont recall anything like that being in there. Also, even if they did have some loophole in there I believe the mass exodus of members into the resale market or for those who have loans simply defaulting would be incredible....

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Arthur there is a big difference between worry and anger. The five night stay I had in 2008 for 150 points will be 190 in 2011, that is a heck of a jump. I own 180 which means I'll probably never use those accommodations again. I personally can't currently cough up another $5,000 just to put me back where I was!

Bob:

You can borrow those 10 points for a long time before you run out of points.

 

[hakepb]

We would sell in a split second if they did that.... we are Local to WDW 92 hours and 20 minutes drive) so for us we usually do a 1 week stay as our main trip...but 1 night stays are very common the rest of the year as we like to run up when we can... if a minimum stay is implemented it would destroy the flexibility we enjoy.

Also I am not certain DVC can do that since of all the zillion things they say in the contract that they can do, I dont recall anything like that being in there. Also, even if they did have some loophole in there I believe the mass exodus of members into the resale market or for those who have loans simply defaulting would be incredible....

The "flexibility" is a major selling point, so I do not see DVC contemplating to implement such a policy when they are in active sales, but I have read the 5 night minimum stay in my POS, and the ability to declare some holidays special holidays with minimum length bookings...

 

[BroganMc]

The "flexibility" is a major selling point, so I do not see DVC contemplating to implement such a policy when they are in active sales, but I have read the 5 night minimum stay in my POS, and the ability to declare some holidays special holidays with minimum length bookings...

Only time I see them implementing minmum stays are when they really don't care about membership turnover. Like toward the end of a resort's life.

The clause is in the contract, but using it would be economic suicide. I don't think the execs are that stupid.

If they are, then it just means a great many small point contracts will flood the resale market and help lengthen my already long stays. Darn good thing I like staying at SSR so much. Also good that I don't have all my eggs in the DVC basket. Ironically, every time DVC does something stupid it makes me feel even smarter for owning Marriott too.

 

[Chuck S]

I guess the truth is, DVC owners must be aware that despite protests there is no impartial evidence to support the reasons for these changes.

That it quite a blanket statement. Do you know for a fact they don't have true statistic and data to warrant a change? I would certainly bet that they do, considering they collect data on almost everything else. Just because they choose not to publish the data publicly does not mean it does not exist, simply that they consider proprietary, as do other vacation venues. A visit to Celebration would likely turn up some data, but they wouldn't let you copy or disseminate it to everyone.

 

[Metsoskil]

That it quite a blanket statement. Do you know for a fact they don't have true statistic and data to warrant a change? I would certainly bet that they do, considering they collect data on almost everything else. Just because they choose not to publish the data publicly does not mean it does not exist, simply that they consider proprietary, as do other vacation venues. A visit to Celebration would likely turn up some data, but they wouldn't let you copy or disseminate it to everyone.

I agree with most of this. I'm sure they have some data that they are basing the changes on. You can make numbers say just about anything you want, and I'm sure they have numbers that say what they want them to say. It would be stupid legally to not have that.

But you have to admit that they've got a pretty good deal. If they wanted to change things around for their own financial benefit (not saying they did - just hypotheticall speaking, even if I have hunches), they could do it based on "what's best for the membership" and then say that the data they based those changes on is "proprietary", and couldn't be released to the public. It makes it very hard for anyone to scrutinize their decisions.

I enjoy my membership, and despite the changes that have made it less valuable to me I will continue to own and vacation at WDW. But, I don't for a second trust that a large corperation (Disney or otherwise) is doing what is best for me (or us, collectively), whether it is legally mandated or not. They are doing what is best for them.

 

[Dean]

Agreed Dean...don't doubt that at all. I was just remarking that I didn't feel :
"owners with 230 points will see no significant effect"

I just can't agree with that poster's particular comment because I feel the effect for us is significant.

Maria

I was agreeing with you on that point. I suspect Diane's point was more that those with more points would have more options than they really wouldn't have an effect. It could have also been that those with more points are more likely to stay over weekends where they'd tend to see less effect or even a positive effect.

Dean, I have seen many people comment about the possible minimum night stay being a possible change in the system. I guess I don't understand how a point based system could do this. Effectively it would require a minimum point threshold for membership. DVC has been selling 100 pt member buy ins. If they implemented a minimum of even a 3 or 4 night stay, many people would be unable to use there membership without an add on. Plus it would make banking and borrowing a nightmare.
If DVC made this change, we would have to seriously consider the advantage to owning this timeshare. We thought we would be in it until the end, but it would so negatively affect the way we travel, we would likely have to sell.

There are many points systems that require a full week or more in some situaitons. Many of those give priority for full week reservations over shorter ones. Many just have a minimum stay, with Bluegreen it's 2 days. BG has gone the other way allowing shorter reservations be made at the same time as longer ones. In DVC's situation they have a statement in the POS they can institute a min stay of 5 days. They could simply say the min stay if 5 days or they could get fancy and say that it had to include a weekend. OF course you could see many variations with 3 days likely being the lowest allowed.

Other options that would carry some of the same effects would be to allow a priority for longer reservations which they already do in a very minor way. They could make reservation changes a cancelation and rebooking rather than letting you add and drop a single day. As I read the POS, all of this would be allowed but some would be more open for interpretation than others.

You're right in that some of the options could orphan some contracts and/or owners. DVC would have to have some way to handle this but it might mean allowing them to upgrade or offering to buy it back at a set price. I don't think they'd have to make allowance to the rules for those owners long term though.

Weekend use is also affected by whether you fly or drive. Most DVC owners are from the East Coast. Here in MD, you can drive down in 1-2 nights. It's a lot cheaper to drive than fly, especially if you have a family of 4-6. So many would take the weekend to travel and stay at Disney during the weekdays.

Under these terms, you'd leave on a Friday or Saturday after work/school, arrive for Sunday check-in, then leave Friday for the drive home by Sunday. 2 out of my 3 siblings almost always drive down because it's cheaper with their family size. Only one routinely flies and rents a car.

Long weekend trips really only work for locals who are within short driving distance, and people who can afford to fly.

For us, we opt to check in on Sunday or Monday because it allows us to use the weekend to travel. We check out on Friday for the same reason. That's when we drive down. If we're going for a short 3-4 day holiday trip, we fly. Every year we make 2 driving trips (staying 12+ days) and 1-2 flying trips (3-4 days).

From a rules and system standpoint it really doesn't matter why a given person is avoiding weekends, that they are is the issue. I suspect most are doing so because of the points structure, many of those were still staying but paying for weekends in other ways than points.

That is an issue of transparency. Fact is, the company has been playing fast and loose with its trustworthy reputation the last few years. But I think this is true for Disney corp as a whole. The corporate culture there has been in lockdown "say nothing and protect yourself" mode for several years. It's something I've heard on the ground from CMs becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the organization.

I guess the truth is, DVC owners must be aware that despite protests there is no impartial evidence to support the reasons for these changes. So what you need to consider is whether the program, with all the changes, continues to serve you.

There are many timeshares in Orlando that offer cheaper and sometimes better accommodations than anything Disney offers. Is the DVC hassle really worth EMH and onsite transportation?

To me I don't see anything that affects their reputation significantly. It may be a little different than in the past few years but nothing that is shady or underhanded. YMMV.

Arthur there is a big difference between worry and anger. The five night stay I had in 2008 for 150 points will be 190 in 2011, that is a heck of a jump. I own 180 which means I'll probably never use those accommodations again. I personally can't currently cough up another $5,000 just to put me back where I was!

While I realize it's a fairly large change from where you were, still your 180 pt contract will get you that stay that's now 190 pts. With borrowing, you'd lose one stay of such nature every 18 years. I realize you were likely using the extra points for other things previously and those extra points are gone. However and as noted, there are 2 points that apply. Other members were supplementing those stays in some ways and this usage was part of the reasons that forced the change. I was right there with you but realized all along that it was too good to be true long term and I am surprised it lasted this long.