I agree with Dean that whatever position we have on rentals we are only competing with other DVCer's in making reservations. However, I know that when I purchased I thought correctly or incorrectly that I would be making vacation plans in competition with other DVC'ers making vacation plans. That is the risk I thought I was assuming. That was a fair playing field. The use of points by each member to maximize their families enjoyment was to be expected. I believe that we are heading into trouble if a significant number of members chose to use their points to maximize their profits rather than for their personal enjoyment.
Ebay Rentals
- Thread starter gscott8075
- Start date
drusba
I went to Iowa once, and it was closed.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 1999
- Messages
- 14,858
OK, lets play more statistics based on a review I did from disclosure documents when for some reason I was crazy enough not to be doing something else:
1. The total number of points sold at OKW is approximately 7.7 million. At BWV about 4.9 million. Total membership at OKW is about 26,500, at BWV about 18,000. (Those numbers count joint owners like husband and wife as one.) Thus average number of points per owner at OKW is 290, at BWV 272. That average does not tell how many bought only 150 points at either resort; nevertheless it would appear that most owners buy far more than 150.
2. The point structure at OKW was based on everything being a 2BR unit or GV--in other words the total points sold approximately equals (and is actually a little less than) the total number of points it would take to reserve all rooms all year long as 2BR's (and the GV's). The point structure at BWV was based on 149 rooms being 2BR's (the lock-offs), 130 1BR (dedicated not lock-off), 97 studio (dedeicated not lock off), and 7 GV's. Thus the total points sold is close to (and a little less than) the total points it will take to reserve all those units for the entire year with the 149 2BR lock offs being reserved only as 2BR.
3. As we are aware the lock-off units at OKW and BWV can and often do get broken down for reservation purposes as studio and 1BR. The combined number of points it takes to reserve a studio plus the number of points it takes to reserve a 1BR equals a number greater than the number of points it takes to reserve a 2BR. As a result, if theorectically all the 2BR lock-offs at both resorts were reserved all year long as studio and 1BR by only the members of the resort, you would actually have a lot of availability left over after all points are used up because they are using up more points for a 2BR unit as split up than would be used for the 2BR under the original structure for determining total number of points to be sold. As a result, that a lot of people may demand studios based on having a low number of points probably should not, in and of itself, have a significant impact on availability except on other people looking for the same size room, because availability of other units like the 1BR will actually increase beyond what all the owners could reserve in a year.
4. Now the figures get interesting and point to what could really cause too many people trying for rooms at the same time. There are 104 weekend days (Fri and Sat) per year, 261 others. However, at OKW, 48% of all points that can be used at the resort apply to weekend nights; at BWV it is 41%. In other words, if everyone at OKW avoided weekends and instead went only for Sun to Thurs, you would almost have double the demand for weekday nights than the point structure allows for available rooms. It would be somewhat better at BWV. DVD once reported when the issue of shifting weekend points came up that weekend occupancy was in the 70 to 80% range compared to close to 95% to 100% for weekday. That was a few years ago before renting became an activity on e-bay or here. They also mentioned at some point that that had improved. However, it does not take much shifting from weekend to weekday to assure that demand will outstrip supply, particularly when only 52% of all points apply to weekdays at OKW and 59% at BWV. Therefore an argument can possibly be made that renting only weekdays (even if it is only 3% of the rooms as suggested above) can have a significant impact on other owners' ability to get rooms at the same time since even without renting the demand is likely greater than or close to the supply. Thus every room that goes to a renter could easily be a room that another owner wants and cannot get.
1. The total number of points sold at OKW is approximately 7.7 million. At BWV about 4.9 million. Total membership at OKW is about 26,500, at BWV about 18,000. (Those numbers count joint owners like husband and wife as one.) Thus average number of points per owner at OKW is 290, at BWV 272. That average does not tell how many bought only 150 points at either resort; nevertheless it would appear that most owners buy far more than 150.
2. The point structure at OKW was based on everything being a 2BR unit or GV--in other words the total points sold approximately equals (and is actually a little less than) the total number of points it would take to reserve all rooms all year long as 2BR's (and the GV's). The point structure at BWV was based on 149 rooms being 2BR's (the lock-offs), 130 1BR (dedicated not lock-off), 97 studio (dedeicated not lock off), and 7 GV's. Thus the total points sold is close to (and a little less than) the total points it will take to reserve all those units for the entire year with the 149 2BR lock offs being reserved only as 2BR.
3. As we are aware the lock-off units at OKW and BWV can and often do get broken down for reservation purposes as studio and 1BR. The combined number of points it takes to reserve a studio plus the number of points it takes to reserve a 1BR equals a number greater than the number of points it takes to reserve a 2BR. As a result, if theorectically all the 2BR lock-offs at both resorts were reserved all year long as studio and 1BR by only the members of the resort, you would actually have a lot of availability left over after all points are used up because they are using up more points for a 2BR unit as split up than would be used for the 2BR under the original structure for determining total number of points to be sold. As a result, that a lot of people may demand studios based on having a low number of points probably should not, in and of itself, have a significant impact on availability except on other people looking for the same size room, because availability of other units like the 1BR will actually increase beyond what all the owners could reserve in a year.
4. Now the figures get interesting and point to what could really cause too many people trying for rooms at the same time. There are 104 weekend days (Fri and Sat) per year, 261 others. However, at OKW, 48% of all points that can be used at the resort apply to weekend nights; at BWV it is 41%. In other words, if everyone at OKW avoided weekends and instead went only for Sun to Thurs, you would almost have double the demand for weekday nights than the point structure allows for available rooms. It would be somewhat better at BWV. DVD once reported when the issue of shifting weekend points came up that weekend occupancy was in the 70 to 80% range compared to close to 95% to 100% for weekday. That was a few years ago before renting became an activity on e-bay or here. They also mentioned at some point that that had improved. However, it does not take much shifting from weekend to weekday to assure that demand will outstrip supply, particularly when only 52% of all points apply to weekdays at OKW and 59% at BWV. Therefore an argument can possibly be made that renting only weekdays (even if it is only 3% of the rooms as suggested above) can have a significant impact on other owners' ability to get rooms at the same time since even without renting the demand is likely greater than or close to the supply. Thus every room that goes to a renter could easily be a room that another owner wants and cannot get.
![dvcis.gif]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwdwinfo.com%2Fsites%2Ffamily%2Fdvcis.gif%5D&hash=9008600b1721524a38903b3b2010d0a9)
Good attempt at analysis but flawed, drusba.You neglect to factor in how many people actually rent these points out. As stated in my previous post, the number of renters are dismally small.
Example: If there were 30 rentals per week. Assuming that the renters want to get the most out of their points, they would rent about 150 points for 5 weekdays stay at a 1 bedroom.
30*150*52 weeks = 234000 pts.
So that means at most the renters would displace 234000 weekday points away from DVCers.
Using your numbers, 7.7 million OKW and 4.9 million BWV points...
Divide 234,000 by 12.6 million points. That amounts to 1.8%!!!!!!
AT MOST, renters would only affect about 3% of DVC owners.
And your analysis also does not prove that Disney will change its point structure based on the number of renters these days.
All numbers aside, I think most people bought DVC for their own enjoyment. The effects of renters are greatly exaggerated and we need not cry "The sky is falling." Just yet....
OKW 8/00, OKW DVC 2/01
[This message was edited by ttsui01 on 03-23-01 at 05:04 PM.]
Example: If there were 30 rentals per week. Assuming that the renters want to get the most out of their points, they would rent about 150 points for 5 weekdays stay at a 1 bedroom.
30*150*52 weeks = 234000 pts.
So that means at most the renters would displace 234000 weekday points away from DVCers.
Using your numbers, 7.7 million OKW and 4.9 million BWV points...
Divide 234,000 by 12.6 million points. That amounts to 1.8%!!!!!!
AT MOST, renters would only affect about 3% of DVC owners.
And your analysis also does not prove that Disney will change its point structure based on the number of renters these days.
All numbers aside, I think most people bought DVC for their own enjoyment. The effects of renters are greatly exaggerated and we need not cry "The sky is falling." Just yet....
OKW 8/00, OKW DVC 2/01
[This message was edited by ttsui01 on 03-23-01 at 05:04 PM.]
Caskbill
<font color="blue">DVC-Operations<br>DVC-Planning<
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2000
- Messages
- 7,189
It's apparent that some people just don't get it. Rich has tried to explain it, but some fail to hear. Maybe a couple of examples....
1. In the 1970's the Japanese started sending more cars to the U.S., where they had about 3% of all sales. Asked if he was worried, a senior US Auto executive laughed it off and said he'd start to get worried when it got to 8%.
By the early 1990's, it was over 40%! And at the cost of tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.
2. Every year, there are dozens of major sporting events that many would love to attend when our favorite team wins the right or is invited to play, for example in College football bowl games. However, there are people and businesses out there who buy thousands of tickets to these games, many of them the best tickets in the house, before the two teams chosen to play are ever announced, knowing that they can sell them (translation: scalp) to the true fans who can no longer get any good tickets.
This is the true analogy to those who consistently rent their DVC points. To them it is a matter of making a profit. This is definitely a disservice to the rest of us.
I don't know the true solution any better than anyone else, but there are some rules already, including commercial use of renting out points.
The problem is how do you not hurt the occassional owner who needs to rent or wants to gift points to a friend or family, yet still stop the total abuse by others. Here's some thoughts:
1. Every owner registers a credit card number with DVC (a card that is issued in the OWNER'S name and address)and that card is always used for any charges incurred by the occupants, whoever they may be. How many renters would trust those they rent to with that?
2. Ammend the rental rules that allows only 20% (or any other number agreed upon) of points can be rented out. For example, if you had 200 points, you could only rent out 40 points a year, or all 200 points once every 5 years and nothing else in the in-between years. Those who rent out 100% of their points every year would be stopped. But for everyone else who purchased the property mainly for their own use, it would be of no consequence.
As to the democracy argument, it is simply not true. This is a contract argument, not a democracy argument. What someone is allowed to do is based on contracts and nothing to do with this being a free society. In real estate there are already thousands of zoning laws and covenants that pertain to all sorts of issues. Someone cannot just buy the house next to mine and turn it into a factory claiming it's a free society. It I wanted to live next door to a factory, I'd buy into an Industrial Zone, not into a Residential Zone.
When I purchased DVC I was informed this program was for the use and enjoyment of the family-owners so they could take vacations at WDW. Commercial use of points was not allowed. So please do not try to defend those who are currently ignoring the rules as they currently exist.
And before I get chastised by the board moderators, let me address the original post: If a rental goes for $17/point it does even more of a disservice as it only encourages others to start thinking more of making profits by renting themselves. At almost $14 above the OKW maintenance fees, one would only have to rent less than 5 times (based on the old $67/point purchase price which would have been the highest anyone would have paid for OKW) before their original investment was paid for. That would be 100% return in 5 years, definitely better than the stock market.
IMHO
Caskbill
1. In the 1970's the Japanese started sending more cars to the U.S., where they had about 3% of all sales. Asked if he was worried, a senior US Auto executive laughed it off and said he'd start to get worried when it got to 8%.
By the early 1990's, it was over 40%! And at the cost of tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.
2. Every year, there are dozens of major sporting events that many would love to attend when our favorite team wins the right or is invited to play, for example in College football bowl games. However, there are people and businesses out there who buy thousands of tickets to these games, many of them the best tickets in the house, before the two teams chosen to play are ever announced, knowing that they can sell them (translation: scalp) to the true fans who can no longer get any good tickets.
This is the true analogy to those who consistently rent their DVC points. To them it is a matter of making a profit. This is definitely a disservice to the rest of us.
I don't know the true solution any better than anyone else, but there are some rules already, including commercial use of renting out points.
The problem is how do you not hurt the occassional owner who needs to rent or wants to gift points to a friend or family, yet still stop the total abuse by others. Here's some thoughts:
1. Every owner registers a credit card number with DVC (a card that is issued in the OWNER'S name and address)and that card is always used for any charges incurred by the occupants, whoever they may be. How many renters would trust those they rent to with that?
2. Ammend the rental rules that allows only 20% (or any other number agreed upon) of points can be rented out. For example, if you had 200 points, you could only rent out 40 points a year, or all 200 points once every 5 years and nothing else in the in-between years. Those who rent out 100% of their points every year would be stopped. But for everyone else who purchased the property mainly for their own use, it would be of no consequence.
As to the democracy argument, it is simply not true. This is a contract argument, not a democracy argument. What someone is allowed to do is based on contracts and nothing to do with this being a free society. In real estate there are already thousands of zoning laws and covenants that pertain to all sorts of issues. Someone cannot just buy the house next to mine and turn it into a factory claiming it's a free society. It I wanted to live next door to a factory, I'd buy into an Industrial Zone, not into a Residential Zone.
When I purchased DVC I was informed this program was for the use and enjoyment of the family-owners so they could take vacations at WDW. Commercial use of points was not allowed. So please do not try to defend those who are currently ignoring the rules as they currently exist.
And before I get chastised by the board moderators, let me address the original post: If a rental goes for $17/point it does even more of a disservice as it only encourages others to start thinking more of making profits by renting themselves. At almost $14 above the OKW maintenance fees, one would only have to rent less than 5 times (based on the old $67/point purchase price which would have been the highest anyone would have paid for OKW) before their original investment was paid for. That would be 100% return in 5 years, definitely better than the stock market.
IMHO
Caskbill
Interesting topic.
The few DVCers I've talked to usually only stay at DVC Sun-Thurs, then do All-Stars or a moderate on the weekend, so I don't think this concept is endemic to renters.
The reason why renters only go Sun-Thurs is obvious. I've read that other timeshares, like Vistana for instance, don't have a point differential between weekdays and weekends. If I'm a renter, I can't justify paying a weekend point rate that would work out to be higher than staying in a deluxe. Why would I? Disney must have envisioned this scenario, at least amongst its own renters, when it laid out the point structure. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised.
Also, I thought DVC members were part owners, but it doesn't seem that way. If I own a cottage, I can rent it out all I want. I don't see why owning points is different. Say you had a week specific timeshare where you were penalized for banking it or letting it go that year. If you truly own that week, can't you rent it out if you want? This concept of a true ownership interest in Disney sounds tenuous from what I've read.
Also, curious. Disney seems to rent out DVC resorts to the general public and the room rates seem the same for weekdays and weekends, yet the DVCers are charged far more for staying on the weekends. This sounds inequitable.
If the DVCers actually own the resort, why does Disney have the right to rent out those rooms to the general public?
The few DVCers I've talked to usually only stay at DVC Sun-Thurs, then do All-Stars or a moderate on the weekend, so I don't think this concept is endemic to renters.
The reason why renters only go Sun-Thurs is obvious. I've read that other timeshares, like Vistana for instance, don't have a point differential between weekdays and weekends. If I'm a renter, I can't justify paying a weekend point rate that would work out to be higher than staying in a deluxe. Why would I? Disney must have envisioned this scenario, at least amongst its own renters, when it laid out the point structure. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised.
Also, I thought DVC members were part owners, but it doesn't seem that way. If I own a cottage, I can rent it out all I want. I don't see why owning points is different. Say you had a week specific timeshare where you were penalized for banking it or letting it go that year. If you truly own that week, can't you rent it out if you want? This concept of a true ownership interest in Disney sounds tenuous from what I've read.
Also, curious. Disney seems to rent out DVC resorts to the general public and the room rates seem the same for weekdays and weekends, yet the DVCers are charged far more for staying on the weekends. This sounds inequitable.
If the DVCers actually own the resort, why does Disney have the right to rent out those rooms to the general public?
/
The only reason there is a difference between weekend and weekday points was to avoid people who live close to WDW consistently booking the weekends and making it difficult to book a week's stay. If renting or low point use overuses the weekdays it will still make whole weeks hard to come by. When this becomes the case (as it may be already) DVC will need to adjust the points to even out the days and/or make weekdays higher than weekends 
If you own a vacation cabin in the woods you do not impact others as readily as in a condo. When you only own a tiny fraction of the condo, regulations (i.e., zoning) need to be in place to be sure everyone is guaranteed an enjoyable experience.
If you are not renting on a commercial basis there should be no concern about driving prices higher or safeguards being put in place at DVC. There must be some truth to Caskbill's concerns since the reason there is a cap on the number of points someone can own is to prevent them from being able to throw the rental system out of whack.
DVC should monitor rentals and if they see it negatively affecting the majority of owners they should do something to correct the problem.
Disney has the "right" to rent out rooms for two reasons. 1. Is to keep the rooms filled to keep our yearly dues at a reasonable level. 2. That is how we are able to use non-DVC vacations. We trade our accomodations to Disney for them to rent.
[This message was edited by PamOKW on 03-24-01 at 09:28 AM.]
[This message was edited by PamOKW on 03-24-01 at 09:41 AM.]
If you own a vacation cabin in the woods you do not impact others as readily as in a condo. When you only own a tiny fraction of the condo, regulations (i.e., zoning) need to be in place to be sure everyone is guaranteed an enjoyable experience.
If you are not renting on a commercial basis there should be no concern about driving prices higher or safeguards being put in place at DVC. There must be some truth to Caskbill's concerns since the reason there is a cap on the number of points someone can own is to prevent them from being able to throw the rental system out of whack.
DVC should monitor rentals and if they see it negatively affecting the majority of owners they should do something to correct the problem.
Disney has the "right" to rent out rooms for two reasons. 1. Is to keep the rooms filled to keep our yearly dues at a reasonable level. 2. That is how we are able to use non-DVC vacations. We trade our accomodations to Disney for them to rent.
[This message was edited by PamOKW on 03-24-01 at 09:28 AM.]
[This message was edited by PamOKW on 03-24-01 at 09:41 AM.]
Dasha
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Nov 13, 1999
- Messages
- 300
Renters are evil because they wish to make money?
Therefore Disney is evil for selling DVC for such a great profit for themselves. Or do you normally pay $676,000 ($13,000 times 52 weeks) for a 1 bedroom condo in Orlando?
So why stop at renters? If Disney would only sell 50% of a resort and only take cash reservations 6 month out, all the reservation problems would be solved.
And if evil Disney took only a reasonable profit and sold points at $20/pt, then everyone could buy and we would eliminate renters.
But renters are being capitalistic, which is the foundation of America. And if you think we going to sit here and listen to you criticize America, well you have another thing coming (perhaps a visit from John Belushi's ghost?)!
And its not even April 1st . . . . .
Therefore Disney is evil for selling DVC for such a great profit for themselves. Or do you normally pay $676,000 ($13,000 times 52 weeks) for a 1 bedroom condo in Orlando?
So why stop at renters? If Disney would only sell 50% of a resort and only take cash reservations 6 month out, all the reservation problems would be solved.
And if evil Disney took only a reasonable profit and sold points at $20/pt, then everyone could buy and we would eliminate renters.
But renters are being capitalistic, which is the foundation of America. And if you think we going to sit here and listen to you criticize America, well you have another thing coming (perhaps a visit from John Belushi's ghost?)!
And its not even April 1st . . . . .
Dean
DIS Veteran<br><a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis
- Joined
- Aug 19, 1999
- Messages
- 39,228
I don't believe the issue of "commercial" is simply one of defining a profit, it would need to be a formal business to fit in that arena in my book. To say that the current rules would prevent renting for a "profit" is simply ludicrous. I don't think that anyone's assumption that there wouldn't be renting has any bearing on this discussion, it was simply their assumption. As was so eloquently described on this board recently, this is a contractual discussion and as a contract, no substantial changes can take place over the rules in place at the time of initiation of the contract. Also, legally, DVC couldn't prevent one from renting what they own anyway irregardless of what rules might be enacted unless they changes the zoning that would prevent any rentals including theirs. And though DVC may be the 600 lb gorilla, the FTC is larger and more powerfull still as is the state regulatory agency. I have an aquaintance that works in the agency in FL that regulates timeshares and I get the impression that when the state says jump, the timeshare developer says how high on the say down.
As for comparing to renting another timeshare, the comparision would be to other points systems or at least floating week systems where one owner is in competition with other owners. I've seen many discussion in timesharing about reserving the most desirable weeks to use, rent or exchange and I've never seen anyone post the angle that the owner should hold back and let others get first crack if one isn't reserving for personal use, except fot DVC. Maybe someone would like to go over to the Timeshare users group and post the question there and see what type of responses are given. The idea that any member who is playing within the rules should sacrifice so it's easier for other owners to get what they want is just beyond me. Maybe DVC should adjust the points but I suspect that if they do it won't be because of renting and that more people will be upset than will be happy with any changes.
I concur that the weekday usage is not a problem of rentals but of the points structure. The current differential is simply too high. It should be somewhere in the neighborhood of about 50%-75% higher, not 150% higher like it currently is. I think the weekend differential is there for many reasons to include but not limited to those of us that live fairly close by. Many would go for 9 days with 2 weekends if the points were more comparable. Also while in the active selling phase, it appears they can rent out weekends more easily than weekdays.
DVC should monitor rentals but their options are limited. Since the right to rent is contractual and any commercial blockage isn't likely legal anyway, they would have a hard time affecting renting directly. Their options would be to institute rules that affect all members not just the renters. Things like only the member can stay if the reservation is made at 7-11 months out. Minimum stays of 3-5 days, must be F-S or M-F stays and the like. The reality is that we are all in competition with other members for any reservation with any membership related reservation and whether that competion is for rental, exchange or personal use is irrelevant as long as all are following the rules and we've established that renting is within the rules.
Dean
As for comparing to renting another timeshare, the comparision would be to other points systems or at least floating week systems where one owner is in competition with other owners. I've seen many discussion in timesharing about reserving the most desirable weeks to use, rent or exchange and I've never seen anyone post the angle that the owner should hold back and let others get first crack if one isn't reserving for personal use, except fot DVC. Maybe someone would like to go over to the Timeshare users group and post the question there and see what type of responses are given. The idea that any member who is playing within the rules should sacrifice so it's easier for other owners to get what they want is just beyond me. Maybe DVC should adjust the points but I suspect that if they do it won't be because of renting and that more people will be upset than will be happy with any changes.
I concur that the weekday usage is not a problem of rentals but of the points structure. The current differential is simply too high. It should be somewhere in the neighborhood of about 50%-75% higher, not 150% higher like it currently is. I think the weekend differential is there for many reasons to include but not limited to those of us that live fairly close by. Many would go for 9 days with 2 weekends if the points were more comparable. Also while in the active selling phase, it appears they can rent out weekends more easily than weekdays.
DVC should monitor rentals but their options are limited. Since the right to rent is contractual and any commercial blockage isn't likely legal anyway, they would have a hard time affecting renting directly. Their options would be to institute rules that affect all members not just the renters. Things like only the member can stay if the reservation is made at 7-11 months out. Minimum stays of 3-5 days, must be F-S or M-F stays and the like. The reality is that we are all in competition with other members for any reservation with any membership related reservation and whether that competion is for rental, exchange or personal use is irrelevant as long as all are following the rules and we've established that renting is within the rules.
Dean
Doctor P
<font color=navy><font color=navy>Chocolate covere
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2000
- Messages
- 6,550
The word commercial, by definition (I just looked it up), means "having profit as a general aim." Rent means to "exchange use of ones property for a payment." Thus, one could argue that renting for a profit, in and of itself, constitutes a commercial venture. The IRS definiton of rental for tax purposes is actually an irrelevant argument in that the primary reason for that tax law is not an alternative definition of commercial or profit making activity (it is actually grounded in another tax law principle that I won't bore you with).
One can make a strong argument that $10 is not renting for profit (as is supported by the posts on this thread). Moving up the ladder some, one could easily argue that, by definition, one is engaging in a commercial activity (I am not arguing that but one could!)
If you don't think this distinction is made, just look at the laws related to resale of tickets and the definitions of scalping and requirements for licensing of ticket brokers in most jurisdictions. Other than in the immediate proximity of some venues, reselling a ticket at or below face value generally does not run afoul of any of the restrictions on resales or scalping in most jurisdictions
One can make a strong argument that $10 is not renting for profit (as is supported by the posts on this thread). Moving up the ladder some, one could easily argue that, by definition, one is engaging in a commercial activity (I am not arguing that but one could!)
If you don't think this distinction is made, just look at the laws related to resale of tickets and the definitions of scalping and requirements for licensing of ticket brokers in most jurisdictions. Other than in the immediate proximity of some venues, reselling a ticket at or below face value generally does not run afoul of any of the restrictions on resales or scalping in most jurisdictions
Sorry, but this is a completely false statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As evident by the DVC point system, we can basically assume that they would like most of the DVCers to take up the weekdays instead of weekends. [/quote]
The reason the point system is set up with weekends being so high, was to deter local people from joining and only using weekends. This would make it impossible for others to get full week vacations.
Now that renting is so virulant, the problem is going to be the other way. People that want full weeks now only have weekends available very often. I think dsruba's analysis has shown that your claim that renting is not a problem is not valid.
I don't want to see the points evened out during the week. THere are a lot of floidian DVCers that WILL just fill up DVC resorts on the weekend. I also enjoy my vacation the way I do it now, I wouldn't want to be forced into doing anything by people that are not following the spirit of the contract.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx,This has failed every time it has been tried, why do we still have liberals?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As evident by the DVC point system, we can basically assume that they would like most of the DVCers to take up the weekdays instead of weekends. [/quote]
The reason the point system is set up with weekends being so high, was to deter local people from joining and only using weekends. This would make it impossible for others to get full week vacations.
Now that renting is so virulant, the problem is going to be the other way. People that want full weeks now only have weekends available very often. I think dsruba's analysis has shown that your claim that renting is not a problem is not valid.
I don't want to see the points evened out during the week. THere are a lot of floidian DVCers that WILL just fill up DVC resorts on the weekend. I also enjoy my vacation the way I do it now, I wouldn't want to be forced into doing anything by people that are not following the spirit of the contract.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", Karl Marx,This has failed every time it has been tried, why do we still have liberals?
Gary K. D.
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 22, 1999
- Messages
- 1,345
The flexibility in the DVC program that allows for all of the uses and abuses mentioned here and in other posts relating to E-bay or renting is a major factor that allows Disney to incrementally increase the per point prices as the 2042 clock is spiralling downward. That flexibility is also a factor in driving the resale price and demand higher. We have that flexibility to thank for putting a small profit in our pockets should we chose to sell and the certainty that there will be many buyers who are willing to pay our price. For all of it's faults (to some) or virtues (to others), it is still one of the best run timshare programs on the market. Before we press the call for change, beware that the resultant product may be far worse than the present system. We may all be stuck with points on which we have paid taxes and maintainence that will go unused because we have insisted that the rules be changed to "punish" the less than 1% of the membership who actively engage in renting or auctioning their points
Leave well enough alone. All in all, everything works pretty well. As a DVC member, I like the fact I can get some extra points to round out a reservation when I'm short. I'll probably get some more points at the end of the year since this is happening more often. It also means I'll probably be more likely to rent some of my extra points out when I have a busy year and can't use them all.
As far as renting impacting my ability to get the reservation I want, it hasn't. Maybe I'm lucky or just a good planner.
As far as renting impacting my ability to get the reservation I want, it hasn't. Maybe I'm lucky or just a good planner.
Tinker Bell
BWV 2001
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2001
- Messages
- 73
Ttsui01 -
I think you are missing the point on the weekday vs. weekend point levels.
If all the days were of the same point cost then local folks who can easily take weekend trips (because they are local) would tend to use a disproportionate share of their points (more than 2/7) on weekend rentals. Folks from out of town who need to plan longer trips would tend to have more even demand across the week (although still probably a bit more on the weekends). The net result is excess demand on the weekends and unused capacity on weekdays. The point system currently in place was designed to smooth out this demand.
It now appears that there is excess demand for weekdays and extra capacity on weekends. It is a reasonable argument the renting contributes to this imbalance (because of the greater profit to DVC members to rent weekdays). Given that DVC is sold to a 96% occupancy rate a few % change in member behavior could create an imbalance in the system.
I don't know that it has, but I think you are too quick to dismiss the possibility.
Tinker
I think you are missing the point on the weekday vs. weekend point levels.
If all the days were of the same point cost then local folks who can easily take weekend trips (because they are local) would tend to use a disproportionate share of their points (more than 2/7) on weekend rentals. Folks from out of town who need to plan longer trips would tend to have more even demand across the week (although still probably a bit more on the weekends). The net result is excess demand on the weekends and unused capacity on weekdays. The point system currently in place was designed to smooth out this demand.
It now appears that there is excess demand for weekdays and extra capacity on weekends. It is a reasonable argument the renting contributes to this imbalance (because of the greater profit to DVC members to rent weekdays). Given that DVC is sold to a 96% occupancy rate a few % change in member behavior could create an imbalance in the system.
I don't know that it has, but I think you are too quick to dismiss the possibility.
Tinker
Dean
DIS Veteran<br><a href="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis
- Joined
- Aug 19, 1999
- Messages
- 39,228
I think several people are saying the same things in different ways and from different sides. I suspect most of us want to see the points structured in such a way that the demand for different days of the week and times of the year are equal. Sure there are those out there that bought a certain number of points just for a certain length of stay and would be adversely affected. Actually DVC has a legal fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the demand is pretty equal across the board and make the changes discussed if need be.
I suspect we all agree that there should be a differential weekends to weekdays, the questions is what is the ideal differential. None of use know for sure and even DVC with all of their usage info would only be giving an educated guess if any changes are made. I would expect any changes to be in fairly small increments whether it's looking at points by season or day or the week.
Dean
I suspect we all agree that there should be a differential weekends to weekdays, the questions is what is the ideal differential. None of use know for sure and even DVC with all of their usage info would only be giving an educated guess if any changes are made. I would expect any changes to be in fairly small increments whether it's looking at points by season or day or the week.
Dean
-
New BIG Disney Cruise Line Savings for Disney Visa Cardholders!
-
New Details on 'The Exorcist: Believer' at Universal Horror Unleashed
-
Disney Vacation Club Members: $250 Onboard Credit & More Savings!
-
Flavors of Florida Returns to Disney Springs this Summer
-
NEW Disney Gift Card Deals and More
-
Vintage Disney Shopping: Chloe's Treasure Thursday
-
Even MORE Disneyland 70th Merchandise NOW Available
New Posts
- Poll
- Poll
