I'm not sure I agree with your "presumption of at least 7 night trips." Unless the minimum allowed for a week-long stay in every villa size and season, it's a weak presumption.
I know the minimum was once 230 but I'm not certain about 240 or 270.
I don't know that Disney has ever formally stated their intent in selecting the min sales. I'm sure they chose a number hoping to give optimum profit. Basically the most sales for the least amount of cost, staff, ect. I've seen it stated many times that the earliest number of 230 was selected as a marketing ploy tying the buy in to exchange options. This would make sense due to the initial exchange system in place with RCI at the time where you had to first deposit a week and a 2 BR choice AND a 1 BR magic was 229 points.
Nope, we've never paid cash for any rooms - we refuse since we've already paid almost $40,000 to DVC. When I said "...paid for weekends," I was referring to the fact that we've always paid the high point costs for weekends. Since I'm a teacher, and can only go during school breaks, we do long trips in July with at least 1 weekend, and some years, we've included 2 weekends.
Although 15 points is only a minimum amount, it is still 15 points - it means a night in a studio, should we take 2 vacations (as we are doing this year), instead of just one super long one, or, it means knocking off 1 night as we will do next year.
Hope this better clarifies what I was talking about, Tiger
It does, when I read that you'd beedn "paying for weekends for 5.5 years", I took that as paying cash. Then your affect should be very small overall but not zero, as you point out.
The reality is, as some have pointed out, that those who pay weekends have been subsidizing others. This is true in terms of maint costs of the entire system.
Hmmm...what else could someone do for a couple days if the reallocation has left them short on points?
There are lots of choices for one who has been negatively affected. Here is a partial list, I'm sure we could come up with more. The possible variations are endless.
- rent points
- pay for transfer points
- pay cash for some days hopefully with discounts. It might be an opportunity to try something else.
- buy non DVC timeshares to use for non DVC trips but possibly to even trade into DVC at times. Can also use for non DVC Orlando trips.
- Rent off site (Condo or Timeshare).
- Go other places, lot of good deals right not.
I predict in 3-5 years we'll see a few posts from some that say this is this was a great change for them because it forced them to look at other options and they are pleased with those other options.
Honestly....last year and this year, there is alot of sarcasm coming from some people.
Maybe, I don't recall a lot. However there is a very firm belief by some of us that members should have known the risks, when I say it, it's not being sarcastic, it's what I truly believe. Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone could say, yest I knew it was a possibility but I didn't think it would really happen. To me this is a black and white issue of what was written in the legal paperwork. You may take it differently, I think you did on the thread last year, but there is NO sarcasm intended from me.
The issue as I see it has been that DVC did not keep up with it's responsibility to reallocate points based on the actual reservation patterns. 1996 certainly made some changes, but as each subsequent resort was opened there was a missed opportunity to make further changes instead of instilling the "unchangeable" attitude in many members who now find themselves in a position of needing to revamp travel habits or purchase more points. These past 2 years, DVC has found it necessary to play catch-up regarding having the
point charts reflect actual reservation utilization.
Exactly. As I noted previously, my info suggests that the 2001 points chart should have reflected a change, had it done so and was successful, another change may not have been needed or would have been a much smaller impact. It would also have sent the message that they could/would change the points IF needed rather than imply they would not by their inactivity.
It is Disney's legal duty to maintain the overall value and efficiency of DVC for members. It is sad that in order to balance demand for rooms and keep the DVC resorts near 100% full 365 days/year, a point reallocation has made it hard for folks who wanted to enjoy cheap weekdays. It is also sad that some members took the word of guides over the printed documentation. But Disney would not be fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities if the status quo had been maintained. As DVC has grown it seems that the imbalance has been exacerbated. I am hopeful that the new points charts will result in more members getting the rooms they want and more waitlists being filled. If the demand for rooms still doesn't even out, I expect and WANT DVC to fix it. Someone's points will inevitably go to waste if rooms continue to be vacant.
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?
