Hate the new booking rules

[dclfun]

How did you know that it was "walking" that caused you to be unable to book a room? Was it the kind of reservation your were able to book last year using day-by-day? -- Suzanne

Yes, it was the same thing I was able to get last year booking day by day. The CM helping me also realized it and told me exactly which day to call to assure that I'd get the following week instead. ---Kathy

 

[tjkraz]

The difference is you are tying up days you do not intend to use, much different IMO.

Interesting to think that when someone complains that they were not able to get a reservation, one of the potential reasons is that someone else is tying-up a room while "walking" a reservation for different dates.

Not good.

Given that nothing can be done to really help AKV Concierge, it sounds like the "fair" thing for DVC to do is reinstate the Special Season lottery for Christmas to New Year's. That seems to be the source of almost all trouble at this point.

 

[CarolMN]

....Given that nothing can be done to really help AKV Concierge, it sounds like the "fair" thing for DVC to do is reinstate the Special Season lottery for Christmas to New Year's. That seems to be the source of almost all trouble at this point.

Be careful what you ask for - when the Special Seasons lottery was in existence, there was no home resort booking advantage. OKW owners had the exact same chance of getting a BWV NYE reservation as did BWV owners. It all depended on the luck of the draw. Lots of members would HATE that!

I personally do not think DVC will reinstate the SS lottery - DVC is just so much bigger than it was when the SS lottery was in existence.

Also, under the new system, no one was entirely shut out of their resort - even for NYE. Some may not have gotten their studios or GVs, but we did not have any reports that 1 bedrooms or 2 bedrooms were unavailable.

If walking becomes a serious problem, then I think DVC should stop allowing members to add to existing reservations on a day by day basis. So if you have an 8 night, 9 night or longer vacation, you book the first 7 nights and then wait until the window opens for the 8th night to book the rest. That would stop walking cold, but would remove the guarantee that those with a longer vacation will get the nights they need to stay in the same room.

Given the ability to add nights on a day by day basis, I don't see why DVC didn't just allow members to initially book up to whatever number of nights they need from arrival. Since the day by day method of adding nights guarantees you get what you want anyway, they might just as well allow it up front (or at least increase from 7 nights to 14 nights) and get rid of the extra calls. As long as the initial reservation can't be broken up into smaller reservations (with different names) without canceling and re booking, no need to worry about one long initial reservation being used for multiple spec rentals.

 

[Dean]

Interesting to think that when someone complains that they were not able to get a reservation, one of the potential reasons is that someone else is tying-up a room while "walking" a reservation for different dates.

Not good.

Given that nothing can be done to really help AKV Concierge, it sounds like the "fair" thing for DVC to do is reinstate the Special Season lottery for Christmas to New Year's. That seems to be the source of almost all trouble at this point.

That's one solution for certain times but doesn't address the issue overall. The main options to DVC to address the issue overall but in keeping with the current system is to limit the ability to drop and/or add days to a reservation. They could do any number of things such as many variations of minimum stay limitations but I think limiting the ability to change a given reservation is the simplest, easiest, best and most fair. Fees to change would work but making a change a cancelation/rebooking is likely the best and easiest and is in keeping with the way DVC does other changes like going from a 2 BR to a smaller unit. From a fairness standpoint it'd be the best choice regardless of this issue IMO.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

The difference is you are tying up days you do not intend to use, much different IMO.

There is really nothing that can be done to stop members from tying up days they don't intend to use; all DVC can do its raise the cost of doing so. If changes to a reservation cannot be made after booking, some members will still book nights they aren't sure they will need in order to be assured they will ge the nights they do need, leaving the room empty on those nights. I understand that this is pretty common with the Wolrdmark booking system. Such a system obvously benefits those who have lots of points and book cheaper rooms.

As I have stated before, I really don't care why I couldn't book at the 11 month window. All that matters to me is that I didn't get a reservation.

If the last room was booked so someone could bring their Great Aunt Tilly in case she decides to come or because they were walking the reservaiton, in either case the impact on me is the same. In theory, I would rather have the walker book the room because it should be cancelled within a few weeks and my WL has a good chance of coming thru. The room booked for Great Aunt Tilly may not be cancelled for 9 or more months, by which time I will have probably already made alternative plans. -- Suzanne

 

[Dean]

There is really nothing that can be done to stop members from tying up days they don't intend to use; all DVC can do its raise the cost of doing so. If changes to a reservation cannot be made after booking, some members will still book nights they aren't sure they will need in order to be assured they will ge the nights they do need, leaving the room empty on those nights. I understand that this is pretty common with the Wolrdmark booking system. Such a system obvously benefits those who have lots of points and book cheaper rooms.

Agreed but if the cost is even minimal, it will make people think twice and for many, not take that liberty. So it will free up availability just not necessarily every single possible room. I don't see DVC members letting points to to waste very often due to booking choices. Now if they are booked and plans change by a day or so, the changes I see happening may cause them to keep the room and waste a day here and there. That's OK because it still takes those points out of circulation and out of competition for future reservations.

As I have stated before, I really don't care why I couldn't book at the 11 month window. All that matters to me is that I didn't get a reservation.

If the last room was booked so someone could bring their Great Aunt Tilly in case she decides to come or because they were walking the reservaiton, in either case the impact on me is the same. In theory, I would rather have the walker book the room because it should be cancelled within a few weeks and my WL has a good chance of coming thru. The room booked for Great Aunt Tilly may not be cancelled for 9 or more months, by which time I will have probably already made alternative plans. -- Suzanne

The problem with walking then canceling from your standpoint is that the days come through one at a time and they will not hold the rooms for you. So if you're wait list is for several days, you still have a much lower chance of success than some others who are only looking for that day or two. And given the WL changes, you won't have the option of WL each day separately. I would agree that motivation should make no difference in either direction.

 

[maburke]

If walking becomes a serious problem, then I think DVC should stop allowing members to add to existing reservations on a day by day basis. So if you have an 8 night, 9 night or longer vacation, you book the first 7 nights and then wait until the window opens for the 8th night to book the rest. That would stop walking cold, but would remove the guarantee that those with a longer vacation will get the nights they need to stay in the same room.

Given the ability to add nights on a day by day basis, I don't see why DVC didn't just allow members to initially book up to whatever number of nights they need from arrival. Since the day by day method of adding nights guarantees you get what you want anyway, they might just as well allow it up front (or at least increase from 7 nights to 14 nights) and get rid of the extra calls. As long as the initial reservation can't be broken up into smaller reservations (with different names) without canceling and re booking, no need to worry about one long initial reservation being used for multiple spec rentals.

Both of these are MUCH better ideas than all of the minimum stay or charge for or limit changes ideas. Either one would stop walking. Now, people who arrive earlier would still get access to rooms before people arriving later, but at least you'd be assured that you weren't shut out by people who were walking, and booking days they don't expect to use.

 

[Dean]

Both of these are MUCH better ideas than all of the minimum stay or charge for or limit changes ideas. Either one would stop walking. Now, people who arrive earlier would still get access to rooms before people arriving later, but at least you'd be assured that you weren't shut out by people who were walking, and booking days they don't expect to use.

You can't keep people from adding to their reservation a day at a time without instituting a minimum stay. What you could do would be to make them wait to add the additional days until 11 months from that day, which would help some in SOME cases but likely not much. They could also change the 7 day limit to longer, as 10-14 days would be reasonable and I wouldn't be surprised to see this change at some point. Neither really address the issue of walking though other than in a very tangential way. If you decide you want to stop walking you've got to institute policies that specifically make it a poor choice or much more difficult (or both) for members to do. Both of these changes together (can't add on day by day, the possibility of a longer single reservation) barely scratch the surface and it's very likely that allowing a longer reservation without cancelation negatives would make it MUCH worse, not better.

 

[Maribel]

IMO, as always, is that walking (off all types) is something that will be stopped in the relatively near future (as in the next 2-3 yrs) and that the two main ways to do so are to institute a cancelation fee and make each change of a given reservation a cancelation and rebooking, which it should be anyway. It's no different than having a lockoff and not being able to drop half without a cancelation and rebooking. YMMV.

I don't think you are talking about the same thing here. When you drop or add a night to an existing reservation you are not changing the part in the middle, it stays the same.
When you change category (view or unit size) the whole thing changes, including the number of points per night. So when you had reserved a 2 bd lockoff and are now changing to a 1bd, the number of points used in the reservations will completely change and you will need to cancel and book over your room to free up the studio for someone else to reserve.
I don't think is fair that you will have to pay an additional fee for adding or dropping nights for exisiting reservations, neither that you have to completely cancel and rebook. Walking, if needed be, should be taken care of in a different way.
I wonder if they can do something like what they do with the 90+10 system for ADRs. I mean, it's my understanding that at 90 days of the beggining of your reservation you could make your ADRs for that day + 10 days forward, but the number of reservations available to make in advance is limited. That way, other people not staying @ a disney resort would have the chance to get something at the 90 day mark. This is specially important for places like CRT, otherwise the only ones that would be able to eat there are the ones staying at disney hotels.
They could do something similar with the check-in + 7 day, where they have a certain number units available for booking in advance freeing all of them at the exact 11 month or 7 month window.
What would happen in this case is, I think, for the units that don't have much of a problem, people will be able to make their ressies in one call, but for the hot ones some of the ones that arrive first will be able to book at once, and some others will have to do it day by day, competing with others that arrive later.
In that case, everyone will still have a chance to get what they want using the DBD system, although it will probably increase the number of calls, it won't be as much as they are getting right now and it is at least a way to make it fair for others that arrive later in the hot season.

 

[Dean]

I don't think you are talking about the same thing here. When you drop or add a night to an existing reservation you are not changing the part in the middle, it stays the same.
When you change category (view or unit size) the whole thing changes, including the number of points per night. So when you had reserved a 2 bd lockoff and are now changing to a 1bd, the number of points used in the reservations will completely change and you will need to cancel and book over your room to free up the studio for someone else to reserve.
I don't think is fair that you will have to pay an additional fee for adding or dropping nights for exisiting reservations, neither that you have to completely cancel and rebook. Walking, if needed be, should be taken care of in a different way.
I wonder if they can do something like what they do with the 90+10 system for ADRs. I mean, it's my understanding that at 90 days of the beggining of your reservation you could make your ADRs for that day + 10 days forward, but the number of reservations available to make in advance is limited. That way, other people not staying @ a disney resort would have the chance to get something at the 90 day mark. This is specially important for places like CRT, otherwise the only ones that would be able to eat there are the ones staying at disney hotels.
They could do something similar with the check-in + 7 day, where they have a certain number units available for booking in advance freeing all of them at the exact 11 month or 7 month window.
What would happen in this case is, I think, for the units that don't have much of a problem, people will be able to make their ressies in one call, but for the hot ones some of the ones that arrive first will be able to book at once, and some others will have to do it day by day, competing with others that arrive later.
In that case, everyone will still have a chance to get what they want using the DBD system, although it will probably increase the number of calls, it won't be as much as they are getting right now and it is at least a way to make it fair for others that arrive later in the hot season.

We are talking about the same thing. It didn't matter with Day by Day because everyone had to call the same day. Say you want S-Friday in Dec, 2009 but you call and book F-F then later drop the first 2 nights. You've tied up days at the end of your stay by canceling that you would not have tied up otherwise and likely would not have done if you could not cancel the first 2 days or had to pay a monetary penalty to cancel. And in all possibility you got a reservation you would not have had you simply reserved the dates you wanted on the day when that reservation could be booked. This is the very essence of walking, that you can cut in line without penalty.

IMO, anyone on the wait list should have access to your days FIRST if you want to make ANY changes to the dates that you could not make independent of that specific reservation. All the other points systems I know of do it this way and/or charge a penalty, sometimes both. It wasn't an issue until the 7 day reservation option which is much like the 90-10 dining reservation in many ways. Given the make up of the system, I don't think they could hold back any units like they do with dining.

As stated, the ONLY options I've seen thus far that directly and specifically target walking is to either make it so you CAN'T do it which making changes a cancelation and rebooking does OR institute a high enough financial penalty to make it not feasible for most to do it. The later is likely a slippery slope that many of us would rather than go down though personally I don't mind a pay as you play system that has extra fees as long as I get the benefits on the other end with lower dues if I don't use the applicable options. One other issue that comes to mind is to limit the number of times you can use this option such as the transfer rules to maybe once per master contract per year. That would still give those that really want that one option a chance to hedge their bets while significantly limiting those playing it to the hilt. The only question is whether they could enforce it this way with their computer system.

 

[Mattsmommy]

Given that nothing can be done to really help AKV Concierge, it sounds like the "fair" thing for DVC to do is reinstate the Special Season lottery for Christmas to New Year's.

Well I don't think that the special seasons lottery would be a good idea because that means that members that own at less desirable resorts like SSR would have the same advantage as everyone else.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Well I don't think that the special seasons lottery would be a good idea because that means that members that own at less desirable resorts like SSR would have the same advantage as everyone else.

Now for me... that comes back to one of the reasons we bought DVC.... total equality. Does not matter how many points or which home resort... we all had equal opportunity with the DBD system. I own at BWV and I don't give a hoot that SSR owners might have equal opportunity. 11/7... that's it.

But then again... maybe we should have a seniority rule... The more original the member the greater your window of opportunity.... Seems much more objective than determining which resorts have a certain class or status. I'm thinking something like for every year of ownership = a month of open window.

It just needs to be fair across the board... equal opportunity for all owners. DBD did that.

 

[tjkraz]

Well I don't think that the special seasons lottery would be a good idea because that means that members that own at less desirable resorts like SSR would have the same advantage as everyone else.

I agree a lottery system shouldn't bypass the Home resort priority. I assume that facet could be easily changed--just do the lottery independently for each resort.

It just needs to be fair across the board... equal opportunity for all owners. DBD did that.

Not to beat a dead horse but we had tens-of-thousands of members who had no idea that DBD bookings were even possible. DBD may have served many members well but it was NOT fair.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Not to beat a dead horse but we had tens-of-thousands of members who had no idea that DBD bookings were even possible. DBD may have served many members well but it was NOT fair.

Sorry, but ignorance does not mean its not fair. Every member has the same opportunity to ASK member services how they can go about booking.

 

[tjkraz]

Sorry, but ignorance does not mean its not fair. Every member has the opportunity to ASK member services how they can go about booking.

Why should members be expected to ask about policies which are explicitly defined in their member handbook? For 17 years DVC specifically told members they could book their home resort "11 months in advance of their check-out date." There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the policy to make it worth cross-checking with Member Services.

What the fans of DBD bookings need to realize is that their success was in part attributed to the fact that only a small subset of owners were even aware of the DBD booking possibility. If DVC had a posted policy which explained DBD bookings to all members, THEN it would have been "fair." But it also would have meant reduced success.

Whenever we see reports of people not being able to book something at 11 months, one undeniable fact is true--demand was greater than the supply of rooms. And the reason people could claim greater success under DBD was simply because there was less competition. Many DVC owners were following the published guidelines and waiting until 11 mos from the checkout date to call.

 

[jdg345]

The problem with walking then canceling from your standpoint is that the days come through one at a time and they will not hold the rooms for you. So if you're wait list is for several days, you still have a much lower chance of success than some others who are only looking for that day or two. And given the WL changes, you won't have the option of WL each day separately. I would agree that motivation should make no difference in either direction.

Well, you could always call DBD and see if any one day from your waitlist became available. You can even call multiple times per day to do this.

 

[jdg345]

Not to beat a dead horse but we had tens-of-thousands of members who had no idea that DBD bookings were even possible. DBD may have served many members well but it was NOT fair.

We disagreed on this then, and apparently still do. Just because people didn't know about it didn't make it unfair, they had every opportunity to do the same research everyone else did. Opportunity makes it fair, whether or not you took advantage of that opportunity is a whole separate issue. Unfair would be if I was allowed to do it one day by MS, and you called another day and were told you could not. That would be unfair.

For example, do you really think all 300,000+ DVC members know that you could book ADR's at 180+10? If they don't, then it's not fair.

Do all 300,000 DVC members know that there is an Epcot 4pm Pass? If not, then that's not fair to those who are spending more money just to go to dinner at Epcot, is it?

But, well, we may just need to agree to disagree on this point again ... er, still.

 

[Dean]

Well, you could always call DBD and see if any one day from your waitlist became available. You can even call multiple times per day to do this.

Certainly that might help some but there's no reason to and no way to put yourself next in line. It's simply luck of the draw when you call. And even then it wouldn't help unless you had the day before until you get to the reservation window for the last day. This is certainly not a fix for walking which I believe needs one.

 

[tjkraz]

We disagreed on this then, and apparently still do. Just because people didn't know about it didn't make it unfair, they had every opportunity to do the same research everyone else did. Opportunity makes it fair, whether or not you took advantage of that opportunity is a whole separate issue. Unfair would be if I was allowed to do it one day by MS, and you called another day and were told you could not. That would be unfair.

For example, do you really think all 300,000+ DVC members know that you could book ADR's at 180+10? If they don't, then it's not fair.

Do all 300,000 DVC members know that there is an Epcot 4pm Pass? If not, then that's not fair to those who are spending more money just to go to dinner at Epcot, is it?

But, well, we may just need to agree to disagree on this point again ... er, still.

In neither of your examples do the published policies fly run counter to the way the system is administered. That's exactly what was occurring with Day by Day reservations.

The policy was crystal clear in stating that reservations were to be made 11/7 months from the departure date. However it was administered much differently and only a small number of owners were privy to that fact.

To use your ADR example, if the official policy was "180 days in advance" and yet the +10 was also available just because someone happened to ask or read about it on the Internet, that would also be unfair. But the "+10" is both part of the official policy AND consistent with how ADRs are accepted.

The completeness and accuracy of communications must also be considered when deeming one thing "fair" or not.

A system is "fair" when it is administered in a manner consistent with the published policies. Such was not the case with Day by Day reservations.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Ok.. sooo many posts... can't read them all... Suzanne thanks for trying to explain to me (privately) about walking a ressie with just the two weekend days, but here is what it comes down for me...

If I want Christmas... my best and maybe only chance (NOW) of getting it is to book a seven nite vacation with Christmas on the last day, then walking it to the day I want. If you don't have the points to make a 7 nite ressie... too bad. Get more points.

No matter how you try to work the "walking"... the owners with enough points to cover a 7 nite ressie have the ultimate advantage... and the advantage steps down with each day.

DBD was the ultimate equalizer and the primary reason we bought into DVC 11 years ago.