They reclassified some of the rooms at AKV from Savanna View to Standard View because those rooms had a partially obscured view of a savanna. That reduced the points required to stay in those particular rooms which would have reduced the points for the resort as a whole. To balance things out, they increased point costs to compensate. For example, the cost to stay in a Savanna View 1BR went up over all except for Premier Season.
As noted, more of the units will be standard view thus raising the higher view points. My understanding is the restriction is actually that they can't change the allocation for a given "unit" which is usually a collection of rooms but can be a single villa esp for 3 BR units. For OKW and HH it's a building.
The don't own a timeshare as this is the nature of the beast, not only do they have the right, they have the obligation to reallocate to even out demand and usage across the year and unit options. And the reason they do it to manipulate members usage. It will never be perfect but they have to approximate it as best as possible.
While DVC has a lot of flexibility, timeshares by nature must consider a full week in many of their processes. The reality is that those of us that were doing S-F or similar were putting one over on the system. Not illegally but it was always too good to be true without a minimum stay associated that forced weekends or by forcing those wanting weekdays only to play second fiddle behind someone wanting a full week or longer.
You might be better off borrowing the difference for several years. Down the road, when going back again feels a little "old hat", take a year off and bank whatever is left.
Out of curiosity, did you not read this clause, or did you assume it would never happen?
We definitely did not understand this aspect when we went for our tour. Our guide handed us a 2009 points chart (YEP, 2009!!!) for BLT and told us simply, "And remember, with DVC, the required points for a resort never go up!" So, we looked at the week we typically travel to Disney, chose our number of points based on that, and signed. Our guide watched us during the entire process and never said anything about reallocation, even though she knew very well at that time that the points required for us to stay that week, even in 2010, were considerably different than the points listed on the chart she had just handed us.
I understand it costs you more points and you don't like that. However, there is a bigger picture here that dictates that the needs of the many overshadow the wants/costs of a few. Same for the free valet parking issue (although it's not contractual in any sense) and any other aspect of the system.
Maybe so but I'll have to take that chance as it's integral to any discussion of this or similar issues and it should make it more understandable for those affected negatively. I think it's fair to say one doesn't like it because of the personal impact, I think it's shows lack of understanding of the product (as well as several character flaws) to say "how dare they change that, they should never change anything that affects me negatively". I read you as the former to in between.
Exactly. You didn't know everything at tour time but gathered info in time to cancel if you needed. You have to look at timeshares in general as the sum of the parts first and the specifics second. I've alluded to my tour a few times over the past few years. We toured and were given info that was key to our decision but decided not to buy then. Shortly we had the opportunity to buy resale (one of the first if not the first not to a family member) and did so. This was an issue that is open for interpretation in the POS, I was given one interpretation at tour and later found the opposite interpretation was the one DVC worked from. I had documentation of the incorrect info. When I questioned it, they offered to buy my resale back and make me whole. I was inclined to accept their offer but my wife want to keep it so I told them no thanks. They earned my respect at that point and reaffirmed it along the way on several issues including with they way they handled some issues like when they told us there were grills at VB (there weren't at the time) and we had bought steaks for 9 people for 2 meals. We found out they'd given us the wrong info about a week out, again they were wonderful in their handling of the issue. While there have been some larger picture items that I feel they handled far less well overall more recently (AKV savannah view without animals, BWV BW view refurbishment, AKV concierge closed) I still have a positive impression of DVC overall. And they cont to be flexible with family situations, etc, something a system as large as DVC likely shouldn't do. Oh, and don't ask, I'm not going to reveal the exact issue involved
.
I don't think that this is necessarily true. After all, it's not like those point rentals are free---the cost is a disincentive. Indeed, for most people, one-time-use points are more expensive than borrowing, even under conservative assumptions about depreciation/amortization.
You think? As an example, OKW in Adventure season is 29 points for a 2BR weekday night for 2011---that's $435 at $15/pt. Rack rate on the room in Value season for CRO is about $620 after tax. That's an effective discount of only about 30%---you can get better deals than that from CRO.
Most people would only have to borrow a small percentage of their annual allotment each year. It's not hard to imagine that, after many years, one might be fine with taking a break from WDW. You could also alternate longer/shorter trips, etc. Alternatively, you could rent a larger chunk from another Member, and bank the excess forward each year, using just a little bit to augment your annual allotment.
. Oh well, just write it off as a Senior moment 
.
I have to apologize for my previous two posts. I thought this was a new thread, I didn't realize it had been started a ways back. I actually knew about the points change and when I had done my planning I had taken into account the increase in points. That's what I get for jumping in with both feet
Huh?
I don't believe one affects the other significantly. The reallocation is more about behavior than numbers. Essentially trying to discourage a certain number of people from choosing to reserve during a given time or season or weekday and encouraging them to reserve at times that have been under utilized. I would be willing to bet that the rental issue is a direct result of the reallocation rather than the reason for it. Basically a lot of people complained they were now short and DVC came up a way that is a win for everyone. The rental process should help with fees, control the cost of cash equivalent exchanges and aid in decreasing underutilized times as well as preventing many members from shortening their stay (a negative potential effect for some). What a given member does really doesn't matter, it's the averages that are the issue. If only 2-3% avoid a higher demand option they used previously and that same 2-3% shifts to a lower demand, you've shifted the totals by 4-6%.
$15 pp for 7 month points is not bad but certainly more than the inherent cost of owned points. I would think that most people would bank/borrow rather than renting points, esp since those points can be used 11 months out. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad price and it's lower than I would have guessed ($18-20 pp) but it's still more than one can get in rental routinely or the value of points already owned. I'm sure there will be someone who will make decisions to rent based on amassing points for a trip or saving higher demand points for later use but I doubt it'll be the norm. Also realize this option is subject to availability of both points to rent and units to reserve.
I would totally disagree with this line of thinking. DVC is a timeshare based on the principle of reallocation to even out usage and change in general. While it's only been used 3 times, it IS core to the underlying plan. IMO, people who are unhappy about things that are clearly part and parcel of the way a timeshare works (reallocation, valet issue) will not affect the decisions DVC has to make in any way as well as the group being upset enough to act on their feelings being essentially negligible in numbers. One of the first things I'd put on my list describing timeshares is THEY CHANGE over time. Anyone not willing to accept the risk that those changes will affect them negatively should not participate.While you may try to rationalize away the changes, your reasons are not what the DVC model was based on. Plain fact is they are messing with the original model and customers are not happy. People are speaking with their wallet, and Disney is now listening. However much damage has been done. Along with the erosion of member perks, price hikes for new resorts, any further points reallocation will be very bad for DVC. Jim Lewis, are you reading? You have been warned....
