Elephant in the room....

[bwvBound]

The problem is that walking is going to get worse and not better as more people feel the need to do it. Instead of walking maybe one or two weeks ahead of the 11 month window they really want you could have people walking as soon as their UY points allow. As an example if I wanted a CL at AKL my home resort what would stop me from walking a reservation from Jan 7 ( DVC site has this as my 11 month window as of this morning) to right before my UY month which is June?

I haven't thought this out entirely, but areas I'd be concerned for include banking windows (will I miss a banking date because I have points tied up in walking?) and the question of a reservation spanning/crossing a UY (difficult to impossible, right?). So why would you walk something "from now to your UY month"??

Again, I didn't through the exercise ... just bounced the idea to see which concerns I'd want to verify/validate/test.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Ex DVC Member here, bui truly believe the only fair way to book is the the old method. Booking back from reservation.

Yes, it was day to day, but it was fair.

But day by day was also circumventing what the actual rule was. You were to book 11 months from check out. So then it was awful because if you followed what actually was the rule you could get blocked by those breaking the rule and booking day by day. And even if you booked day by day you'd often end up with holes in your reservations for certain room types - like value, concierge, BWV standard studios. The exact same ones that still cause the issues today. At least now, booking from day of check in, you don't end up with the holes in the reservation - you know right away if you have the entire stay or if you need to choose a different room or view category to book and then waitlist. I detested day by day - it was awful. Walking doesn't bother me.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

But day by day was also circumventing what the actual rule was. You were to book 11 months from check out. So then it was awful because if you followed what actually was the rule you could get blocked by those breaking the rule and booking day by day. And even if you booked day by day you'd often end up with holes in your reservations for certain room types - like value, concierge, BWV standard studios. The exact same ones that still cause the issues today. At least now, booking from day of check in, you don't end up with the holes in the reservation - you know right away if you have the entire stay or if you need to choose a different room or view category to book and then waitlist. I detested day by day - it was awful. Walking doesn't bother me.

I’m confused.... Day by day is exactly what I’m talking about, and was well within the rules. Everyone had an equal shot.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I’m confused.... Day by day is exactly what I’m talking about, and was well within the rules. Everyone had an equal shot.

The actual booking direction was to book from your planned day of check out. Day by day was not technically doing that. It was similar to walking in that way if you booked day by day. Where it differed was that you were not holding days you did not intend to stay but it was creating a drain on MS because it required modifying reservations daily. Plus there was added angst because your room was not locked in and if others got into the phone queue could get your room and leave gaps in your stay. I remember the outcry about that very well.

Then it got so bad that people were recommending that to be safe people book SSR day by day.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

The actual booking direction was to book from your planned day of check out. Day by day was not technically doing that. It was similar to walking in that way if you booked day by day. Where it differed was that you were not holding days you did not intend to stay but it was creating a drain on MS because it required modifying reservations daily. Plus there was added angst because your room was not locked in and if others got into the phone queue could get your room and leave gaps in your stay. I remember the outcry about that very well.

Then it got so bad that people were recommending that to be safe people book SSR day by day.

Loved it, but not against the rules. It was basically extending your reservation by a day, everyday.
With day by day at least there was a limit on it. You started with your first day, and ended with your last. You couldn’t start “day-by-daying” six months ahead of time. Also you had a fair chance for every individual day, whereas now people are tying up days they will never use.

Regardless, just expressing my opinion.
It’s no longer my fight.

 

[weheartdisney07]

I hate the walking thing. But as an owner at AKV there are times I wish to book a 2BR value or a club level studio, both of which are nearly impossible to book (even during slow times) and this is really the only way. I have pondered this situation over and over again and the best I could come up with was to prohibit changes to arrival dates for the following 10 days after it was initially made (maybe only if 10 months or more from arrival). Then allow unlimited changes after that. That would seemingly prevent walking while allowing later adjustments to travel plans.

Love this idea! That is very smart.

 

[gillep]

Love this idea! That is very smart.

This rule would certainly cause people to lose the room they want if they have to make a legitimate change in that 10 day period. For the rooms that go fast and require walking, that 10 day waiting period could completely shut the owner out of a needed modification. Those who travel with other people or extended families know that even when everyone claims they have locked down dates things can still change at any moment. I still prefer walking to this suggested cure.

 

[Bearval]

I haven't thought this out entirely, but areas I'd be concerned for include banking windows (will I miss a banking date because I have points tied up in walking?) and the question of a reservation spanning/crossing a UY (difficult to impossible, right?). So why would you walk something "from now to your UY month"??

Again, I didn't through the exercise ... just bounced the idea to see which concerns I'd want to verify/validate/test.

Say you want a CL studio at AKL (your home resort) for a popular time like December 2020 and your UY is June. You could technically begin your walk in July 2019 by making a reservation for June 2020 and walk your way to December 2020. You are not crossing a UY and if you have to cancel you are still in the banking window for those points. Of course your walk could be broken by the room being taken out for maintenance but if isn't your good and not breaking any current rules.

 

[bwvBound]

Say you want a CL studio at AKL (your home resort) for a popular time like December 2020 and your UY is June. You could technically begin your walk in July 2019 by making a reservation for June 2020 and walk your way to December 2020. You are not crossing a UY and if you have to cancel you are still in the banking window for those points. Of course your walk could be broken by the room being taken out for maintenance but if isn't your good and not breaking any current rules.

Ah, thanks for the example. I had read it your original post as "from now to your UY month" whereas your example shows walking a new reservation "from the beginning of your UY to your intended date." Inverted direction. Understood.

 

[CarolMN]

Say you want a CL studio at AKL (your home resort) for a popular time like December 2020 and your UY is June. You could technically begin your walk in July 2019 by making a reservation for June 2020 and walk your way to December 2020. You are not crossing a UY and if you have to cancel you are still in the banking window for those points. Of course your walk could be broken by the room being taken out for maintenance but if isn't your good and not breaking any current rules.

If someone is willing to go through all that for a hotel room, let her have it. IMO, that's just nuts!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Loved it, but not against the rules. It was basically extending your reservation by a day, everyday.
With day by day at least there was a limit on it. You started with your first day, and ended with your last. You couldn’t start “day-by-daying” six months ahead of time. Also you had a fair chance for every individual day, whereas now people are tying up days they will never use.

Regardless, just expressing my opinion.
It’s no longer my fight.

We'll just disagree it was within the rules any more than walking is. As I mentioned the only real difference was not holding a night you did not intend to use but there were probably more people holding entire rooms they never intended to use.. DVC actually said they were addressing it because too many people were booking day by day instead of from check out and too many people were ending up with holes in their reservation. ie - not what the rule was. If they had online modification maybe they wouldn't have because they felt it was a big cost to MS which it wouldn't be now but there still would be the issue of holes in reservations. That's what I like sooooo much more about the current system. You know if you have your room or not for your stay. That people have found a way to utilize that to insure a particular room during a busy time means far less to me than competing day by day by day for the room I'm trying to book. That was really just adding stress that was unnecessary. Big point holders were at a definite advantage in day by day as they could risk holes in the reservation more and just book an entire backup room while they waitlisted and tried to get a day or two they had missed out on.

 

[Grumpy6264]

I don't see how the size of contract makes one more or less "worthy" of booking a studio. Small contracts can only book every few years, so the off years there is no competition from them at all.

I agree completely with you there. To me the root cause is that Bungalows and Cabins have skewed the availabilty due to the number of points that are flooding the system. I would bet that most of the people that have Polynesian, Copper Creek and to some extent Aulani, do not have any intention to stay in the high priced rooms. You can stay 7 days in a Copper Creek studio for the same points as one night in a Cabin. So up to seven members could be trying to book studios for every cabin.

DVC should have either not built the cabins or bungalows; or made them their own resort and resort class and only allow those points to be used on other bungalows and cabins.

 

[bwvBound]

DVC should have either not built the cabins or bungalows; or made them their own resort and resort class and only allow those points to be used on other bungalows and cabins.

Hmm, too restrictive for my preferences. Perhaps, if put into a different resort class, trading between "specialty units" and "conventional units" could be conducted as metered exchanges which must balance at specific intervals? FWIW, I love booking the Treehouse Villas (not particularly high points) and the occasional splurge on a Cabin.

 

[Grumpy6264]

Hmm, too restrictive for my preferences. Perhaps, if put into a different resort class, trading between "specialty units" and "conventional units" could be conducted as metered exchanges which must balance at specific intervals? FWIW, I love booking the Treehouse Villas (not particularly high points) and the occasional splurge on a Cabin.

I agree it would be way too restrictive. The Treehouse Villas don't throw the system out of wack, but the huge number of points for the cabins and bungalows do. We usually book 2BR villas, and this doesn't affect us too much, but in the near future I can see the DW and I going down and wanting a studio, so I am keeping my eye on things.

With the current price of points, I don't know how average families could afford a decent size contract. We bought 235 points in 2010 and I don't know if we would be able to justify the cost today. It's not that we couldn't do it, it would just be hard to justify. It would be a shame if families who only wanted to go for a week every two or three years were priced out of that option because of minimum contract sizes.

If they had created the cabins and bungalows as their own resort, then they could have set a minimum contract size higher (say 600 points). This would make it more likely that the people who bought into those resorts would use those resorts. You could still allow points to be used like they are today, but if I paid for a large contract at a specialty resort, you can bet I would stay there unless there were extenuating circumstances.

 

[bwvBound]

The Treehouse Villas don't throw the system out of wack, but the huge number of points for the cabins and bungalows do.

Agreed ... but I tend to think that if we consider Cabins and Bungalows to be "specialty units" (my word for them), that should also include VB Beach Cottages, Treehouses and other "stand alone" units. One as to draw a line somewhere and it seems odd, to me, to start with Bungalows as an arbitrary point in time w/out making it retroactive ...?

FWIW, I strongly agree that the Bungalows skewed the system in a negative (harmful) fashion. Too many points are generated by these and similar plays (Cabins and whatever comes down that line) and sold to folks who had not intended to book the high-point specialty units.

Unfortunately, in a points system, the very thing that makes a system flexible can also make it difficult to use. I feel for those who only own sufficient points for a studio stay at their favorite resort but they must be willing to either let their points expire unused or book a shorter stay in a larger unit, a different season, a different location, etc. As I said earlier, flexibility needs to work both ways.

 

[Pooh12863]

If someone is willing to go through all that for a hotel room, let her have it. IMO, that's just nuts!

That's where this is headed eventually as more and more people start walking.

 

[weheartdisney07]

This rule would certainly cause people to lose the room they want if they have to make a legitimate change in that 10 day period. For the rooms that go fast and require walking, that 10 day waiting period could completely shut the owner out of a needed modification. Those who travel with other people or extended families know that even when everyone claims they have locked down dates things can still change at any moment. I still prefer walking to this suggested cure.

I agree it would hurt those people. However, it would force people to lock down those dates earlier and secure their plans. It would kind of be like, well I cannot change my dates so I need a concrete answer now. I don’t believe many people are changing their days in that 10 day period.

 

[Memorymakerfor4]

Allow 3 online modifications in a 7 day period. If you need an additional change within those 7 days you are required to call in to MS. This would still allow people to modify as much as they wanted, but give an advantage to people who actually want to book the day their 11 month window opens. I could book my stay quickly online while you dial in.

 

[weheartdisney07]

Allow 3 online modifications in a 7 day period. If you need an additional change within those 7 days you are required to call in to MS. This would still allow people to modify as much as they wanted, but give an advantage to people who actually want to book the day their 11 month window opens. I could book my stay quickly online while you dial in.

Or even after 2 changes they have to call MS. You should not legitimately have to change your reservation more than that.

 

[Grumpy6264]

Agreed ... but I tend to think that if we consider Cabins and Bungalows to be "specialty units" (my word for them), that should also include VB Beach Cottages, Treehouses and other "stand alone" units. One as to draw a line somewhere and it seems odd, to me, to start with Bungalows as an arbitrary point in time w/out making it retroactive ...?

FWIW, I strongly agree that the Bungalows skewed the system in a negative (harmful) fashion. Too many points are generated by these and similar plays (Cabins and whatever comes down that line) and sold to folks who had not intended to book the high-point specialty units.

Unfortunately, in a points system, the very thing that makes a system flexible can also make it difficult to use. I feel for those who only own sufficient points for a studio stay at their favorite resort but they must be willing to either let their points expire unused or book a shorter stay in a larger unit, a different season, a different location, etc. As I said earlier, flexibility needs to work both ways.

bvdBound, I agree with everything you say. For me is what can DVC do to keep this from getting worse. That is a tough question, I don't think that you can retroactively separate the "specialty units" that are already built. But if they build more of them in the future, I would like to see them built as a separate specialty resort. That way they could probably impose different limits, like higher minimum point requirements for contracts. We are already seeing that they are positioning themselves for this with the changes to resale of the Riviera resort. I think if you had to buy 600 or 800 points to buy into a resort of cabins or bungalows, you would be more likely to use it that way. Maybe not all the time, but most of the time. That would help to reduce the strain on the system for the rest of us.

By setting a higher minimum point requirement for "specialty resorts", you wouldn't affect the normal DVC member. People could still splurge for a night or two once in a while, but the only people affected would be the high rollers who have the resources to afford staying at one of these "specialty resorts" on a regular basis. My guess is they would be buying enough points for a week anyway, so it probably would have little to no impact.