I really miss having an 'equal' shot at getting my reservations

[Dean]

I don't believe that any change in a reservation should mean that it be cancelled & re-booked, or that a fee be charged to do it. I still don't see how either of these are best for the group. There are more practical solutions that would prevent walking a reservation, while not penalizing the members who have to make changes to their travel dates down the road.

Someone had mentioned putting a freeze or hold on a reservation for a period of time, which would mean no changes could be made to the reservation during that time period. Another option is to limit the number of changes that can be made to a reservation. For instance, any changes more than 3 times would require either a cancellation/rebooking or a change fee be charged.

Either of these ways would prevent walking, but would still allow the "innocent" members to modify their reservations if needed in the future.

Limiting changes by number wouldn't help much if at all. A freeze only helps if it's long enough to prevent walking, and serves the same purpose as changes being a cancelation and rebooking. Plus any freeze model not linked to changes being a cancelation and rebooking would have to be for several weeks or more anyway. IMO, any change that prevents multiple calls to MS for a given planned reservation is potentially a benefit to the group as a whole, obviously the specifics would govern a given issue. IMO, any system that tries to retain these options for one group over another is fatally flawed and I include any system looking at the number of changes the same way in addition to being almost impossible to keep up with from a system standpoint.. Any plan to correct walking has to essentially prevent walking in essentially every case. Also, IMO, allowing walking moves the member automatically out of any innocent category. To me there are NO situation where walking is a reasonable option for the system to allow. The only change that I would see as reasonable would be that of adding additional days without dropping other days and even then, only when those days are open for bookings by themselves (at 11 months, not 11 months plus a week).

Lest you be confused, this is not sour grapes on my part. I can assure you that I am quite capable of using the current rules to my advantage over almost every other member if I chose to.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think it's common enough to affect availability at a given time for certain situations. IMO, it's a one or the other issue. Either it's not common enough to have any effect on the system or it is common enough to have effects. If it's the latter, which I think is clearly the case......

What are the indicators that make you feel it is a common practice?

 

[Dean]

What are the indicators that make you feel it is a common practice?

It's a combo of things. Partly it's based on info obtained from DVC, partly based on posts on this BBS and other places. But it really doesn't matter how common it is, only whether it has any significant effect on the system. Quite a few people post they do it or plan to. Overall it's likely less than day by day would be at the same time but given it's effect on the system (blocking rooms not intended to be used), I think it's an important component.

Let me be clear, to me this is a philosophical question, one I hold the system responsible for. I have no problem with people walking, day by day, etc as long as the system allows it, I simply don't feel that the system should allow it. IMO, it doesn't matter whether the system intended it or not. As I've noted, I do believe that up to 14 days at a pop is better than just 7 but feel either is reasonable.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It's a combo of things. Partly it's based on info obtained from DVC, partly based on posts on this BBS and other places. But it really doesn't matter how common it is, only whether it has any significant effect on the system. Quite a few people post they do it or plan to. Overall it's likely less than day by day would be at the same time but given it's effect on the system (blocking rooms not intended to be used), I think it's an important component.

Let me be clear, to me this is a philosophical question, one I hold the system responsible for. I have no problem with people walking, day by day, etc as long as the system allows it, I simply don't feel that the system should allow it. IMO, it doesn't matter whether the system intended it or not. As I've noted, I do believe that up to 14 days at a pop is better than just 7 but feel either is reasonable.

That's interesting that DVC has recognized it. I think I read just as many posts of people who won't walk as I do those that will. And I haven't thought that it affected as much as day by day did but I had no more than my perception to base that on.

With the 14 day booking is that just to eliminate more calls on the system?

 

[Dean]

That's interesting that DVC has recognized it. I think I read just as many posts of people who won't walk as I do those that will. And I haven't thought that it affected as much as day by day did but I had no more than my perception to base that on.

With the 14 day booking is that just to eliminate more calls on the system?

It really doesn't matter how many don't, only how many do. A fairly small minority who do so consistently can have a major affect.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Tim...I've seen this same comment several times in this thread. I disagree that the two strategies are "equal" when it comes to how they work.

Under DbD strategy, no one booked days that they didn't intend to use. It was just a quicker way to snatch up available days but everyone who wanted that same day had the exact same timing in when they could get it.

With the walking strategy, people intentionally book days they have no intention of using. To me, that is the inherent unfairness of the strategy.

We can live with whatever Disney's rules are, but I do disagree that the current system is an improvement over the old one as far as fairness goes.

Right on! DBD still put everyone on the same page at 9:00 AM. Walking doesn't, because you have no idea when someone is "opening up" those days they don't want. At least with DBD everyone was in the same boat at the same time. Now with walking, some jump ship while others who wanted the reservation have already had to leave the boat for a different plan. That's the part that isn't fair in my book.

 

[tjkraz]

Right on! DBD still put everyone on the same page at 9:00 AM. Walking doesn't, because you have no idea when someone is "opening up" those days they don't want. At least with DBD everyone was in the same boat at the same time. Now with walking, some jump ship while others who wanted the reservation have already had to leave the boat for a different plan. That's the part that isn't fair in my book.

And I'd say it's equally unfair that:

1. In order to book 7 nights for certain dates/resorts/views you had to be on the phone at 9am eastern (6am west cost, 3am Hawaii, 10pm Japan, etc) for 7 straight days. Many people simply CANNOT do that and it's an important consideration when determining what is truly "fair".

2. There was a very real chance that even those booking DbD would not get all of their consecutive days. There's something to be said for guaranteeing an entire week's trip in one phone call.

3. The day-by-day system was never formally published / acknowledged by DVC. Sure Internet-enabled followers had a better chance of getting a room DbD. That's because tens-of-thousands of members never knew the possibility existed. DVC's member handbook and other guidelines simply stated "11 (7) months from check-out." Hardly "fair" if not all members are aware of a process.

I would much rather see them patch some of the holes in the current system rather than waxing nostalgic for the days of 1 trip = 7 phone calls.

 

[dianeschlicht]

And I'd say it's equally unfair that:

1. In order to book 7 nights for certain dates/resorts/views you had to be on the phone at 9am eastern (6am west cost, 3am Hawaii, 10pm Japan, etc) for 7 straight days. Many people simply CANNOT do that and it's an important consideration when determining what is truly "fair".

2. There was a very real chance that even those booking DbD would not get all of their consecutive days. There's something to be said for guaranteeing an entire week's trip in one phone call.

3. The day-by-day system was never formally published / acknowledged by DVC. Sure Internet-enabled followers had a better chance of getting a room DbD. That's because tens-of-thousands of members never knew the possibility existed. DVC's member handbook and other guidelines simply stated "11 (7) months from check-out." Hardly "fair" if not all members are aware of a process.

I would much rather see them patch some of the holes in the current system rather than waxing nostalgic for the days of 1 trip = 7 phone calls.

Tim, you are absolutely right about them needing to patch the holes instead of going backwards. I'm hoping that once we have TRUE online booking, maybe we'll be able to book specific villas, and it will be easy to check ANY time in any timezone. Of course, you still have to have a start and end, so I'm assuming that would be midnight. That, in fact might be an advantage for those in Hawaii etc.

 

[Granny]

I would much rather see them patch some of the holes in the current system rather than waxing nostalgic for the days of 1 trip = 7 phone calls.

I was not "waxing nostalgic" for the DbD days. I was just opining that I think it was a more even playing field.

I don't particularly want to go back to that system. I agree that I'd prefer them to improve the current system to make walking reservations harder to do.

And while on-line reservations sounds nice, I don't have a lot of confidence that Disney's IT group will get it right. Much less complex programming than on-line reservations has had more than its share of bugs from them.

 

[nunzia]

I was not "waxing nostalgic" for the DbD days. I was just opining that I think it was a more even playing field.

I don't particularly want to go back to that system. I agree that I'd prefer them to improve the current system to make walking reservations harder to do.

And while on-line reservations sounds nice, I don't have a lot of confidence that Disney's IT group will get it right. Much less complex programming than on-line reservations has had more than its share of bugs from them.

Right..no confidence that will work well if at all..

 

[tjkraz]

I was not "waxing nostalgic" for the DbD days.

Wasn't referring specifically to you. There are plenty of comments on this thread suggesting that DVC should go back to DbD. I'd rather see us take another step forward rather than going backward.

And while on-line reservations sounds nice, I don't have a lot of confidence that Disney's IT group will get it right. Much less complex programming than on-line reservations has had more than its share of bugs from them.

Some bugs are to be expected. When we look at the volume of enhancements rolled out in the last 18 months (on-line check-in, dining reservations, new trip linking enhancements), glitches have been relatively minor. Also from the stories I have read, CMs appear to be doing a good job of helping customers through the hurdles.

A lack of confidence in Disney IT isn't exactly the greatest justification for staying in the dark ages. Worst case there may be a few glitches out of the gate which impact a very small number of members. A month or two later those concerns will be long forgotten.

 

[dianeschlicht]

And while on-line reservations sounds nice, I don't have a lot of confidence that Disney's IT group will get it right. Much less complex programming than on-line reservations has had more than its share of bugs from them.

I think we all feel that way, Granny. If they do it right though, it should be an easier process. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Granny]

Some bugs are to be expected. When we look at the volume of enhancements rolled out in the last 18 months (on-line check-in, dining reservations, new trip linking enhancements), glitches have been relatively minor. Also from the stories I have read, CMs appear to be doing a good job of helping customers through the hurdles.

A lack of confidence in Disney IT isn't exactly the greatest justification for staying in the dark ages. Worst case there may be a few glitches out of the gate which impact a very small number of members. A month or two later those concerns will be long forgotten.

I guess we've taken this thread off topic, though the "equal chance on reservations" will pertain to on-line booking too I suppose. It will be interesting to see how Disney manages it.

I'm not suggesting that Disney forego technology advances. I just wish they would thoroughly test their upgrades before releasing them. On-line booking is going to be very complicated if it has all the same functionality as one could perform by calling MS. At the end of the day, it should be a great improvement.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I guess we've taken this thread off topic, though the "equal chance on reservations" will pertain to on-line booking too I suppose. It will be interesting to see how Disney manages it.

I'm not suggesting that Disney forego technology advances. I just wish they would thoroughly test their upgrades before releasing them. On-line booking is going to be very complicated if it has all the same functionality as one could perform by calling MS. At the end of the day, it should be a great improvement.

Unfortunately there is no way to " thoroughly" test in the real world environment. I look forward to online booking. The "new" advantage I now see is those technology savy will get thier reservations sooner. No better way to learn than under fire!!