Is Disney getting priority over DVC members on rooms?

[lark]

The reciprocal clause specifically states "accommodations" and "Vacation Homes" It makes no mention of points. It states, in part, "the total number of accommodations available for Club Member reservation for any given Use Day will never exceed the total number of Vacation Homes existing within the Vacation Ownership Plan on that Use Day."

Thanks. Good stuff. What, though, is the definition of Vacation Ownership Plan? Isn't that just the entire DVC resort system?

That langauge, at least the part you've quoted, doesn't seem to me to preclude DVC from making non-declared rooms available at resort 1, so long as it kicks to CRO a corresponding "accomodation" in another resort.

At the end of the day, I'm still not sure I've seen a satisfactory explanation for how it is that VGC can go without selling rooms for cash through any outlet that I can find. They don't even publish rates. Yet it's full and not even half declared. I also have my suspicions that resorts that are operating, but have not declared all their points (like BLT) are really half full of cash customers. Something else would seem to be going on.

 

[DVCGeek]

At the end of the day, I'm still not sure I've seen a satisfactory explanation for how it is that VGC can go without selling rooms for cash through any outlet that I can find. They don't even publish rates.

I've wondered about that myself @ VGC, and am still pondering what's been said so far in this thread. Not sure I completely understand how the mechanics work with booking rooms and partially declared resorts; I thought I saw something where undeclared rooms could be traded in for member use somehow, but I'm at WDW right now and don't have any paperwork remotely handy (nor am I awake enough) to get details of what I'm thinking about...

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Do you think that CRO guests get rooms with better views?

 

[wdrl]

Do you think that CRO guests get rooms with better views?

Although a conspiracy theorist might subscribe to that thought, I really don't think that is happening. A lot of DVC members have reported getting rooms with great views at BLT (see work2play's wonderful thread on BLT views and rooms at http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2257082). Sure, some members who booked MK views have complained about being assigned a low floor, but there are also a good number of members who have been assigned rooms on high floors. Keep in mind that when BLT opened less than 40% of it was declared for the membership, so the odds were that some CRO cash guests would get great views, too.

 

[wdrl]

Thanks. Good stuff. What, though, is the definition of Vacation Ownership Plan? Isn't that just the entire DVC resort system?

That langauge, at least the part you've quoted, doesn't seem to me to preclude DVC from making non-declared rooms available at resort 1, so long as it kicks to CRO a corresponding "accomodation" in another resort.

In section 1.48 of the Preamble of the BLT Declaration of Condominium, Vacation Ownership Plan is defined as "the arrangement pursuant to Florida Law, this Declaration and the Membership Agreement where an Owner receives an Ownership Interest under which the exclusive right of use, possession or occupancy of all Units in the Condominium circulates among the various Owners of Ownership interests on a recurring basis during the term of the plan." (emphasis added)

The operative phrase is "in the Condominium." My ownership interest is limited to only the resort in which I have a real estate interest. Although DVC allows me to use my points at other resorts in the DVC system, I do not have an interest in those other resorts. As a BLT and AKV owner, I can't vote on issues pertaining to VWL, SSR, OKW, etc. Even my access to those other resorts is only a privilege that DVC can revoke at any time.

Legally, there is no way that Disney could make non-declared rooms available to DVC members at one resort by exchanging a room at another resort. If that happened, there would be a firestorm amongst members that would make the issues of valet parking and point chart allocations look like a lovefest. How do you think the BCV and BWV owners would react if 50 of their rooms were taken away from them so that BLT owners could book 50 of the undeclared BLT rooms?

Does any of this make sense?

 

[Dean]

While I "get" the fact that their are two pools of rooms (since DVC members dont all 100% of the points in each resort), if unreserved DVC rooms can shift to CRO why can't CROs shift back when DVC has excess demand? It would seem equitable to me.

They will let the rooms sit empty rather than giving them to DVC in any way. As noted they might be able to recoup certain rooms that were truly DVC owned and given to CRO but that's about it. That isn't to say they couldn't do it but I've never seen an indication that they would.

Do you think that CRO guests get rooms with better views?

Likely the opposite, DVC members are better able to specify what they want. Unfortunately within a booking category DVC doesn't do a very good job of honoring requests, think Southwest airlines seating arrangements.

 

[dismedvc]

They will let the rooms sit empty rather than giving them to DVC in any way. As noted they might be able to recoup certain rooms that were truly DVC owned and given to CRO but that's about it. That isn't to say they couldn't do it but I've never seen an indication that they would.

Most of those rooms you see available for cash may have already been booked using points - only the member isn't staying in them. Instead they are staying in a DCL stateroom. Or in the GF Sugarloaf Concierge. Or the Ft Wilderness Campground. Or an Adventures By Disney trip. They swapped out the room they would have booked for a non-DVC Disney vacation.

So they have already been used by points and cannot be reserved using points a second time.

While that room can not be booked a second time using points (if it remains a "traded-out" room), the member who traded it out did not specify they were trading out that specific room on that particular date; CRO just somehow "selected" that room on that date. If it later turns out CRO does not rent that room on that date, so it is going to sit empty, if there is demand for it on that date from a diferent member, why can't that room be put back into member inventory and move the "trade out" to a different night at a future date.

That would seem to be a "win" for all concerned, since the member gets the room they want on the date they want and CRO gets a room they may actually be able to rent in the future rather than one that ends up sitting idle.

 

[tjkraz]

While that room can not be booked a second time using points, the member who traded out never specifically traded that room on that date, so if it is going to otherwise sit empty, and there is member demand for it, why can't it be put back into member inventory and use the trade out for a different night at a future date.

That would seem to be a "win" for all concerned, since the member gets the room they want on the date they want and CRO gets a room they may actually be able to rent in the future rather than one that ends up sitting idle.

IMO, the reason they don't do this is because DVC would have to pay the piper at some point. Cash demand for DVC accommodations really is quite low, even with AP and other discount codes. If DVC keeps pulling back CRO rooms, then they owe even MORE rooms to CRO. When does CRO finally get satisfied?

What you are suggesting would only work if CRO was given a disproportionately high number of villas during periods with peak demand. I don't think that would sit well with members. Better to give CRO 1% of all villas year round rather than giving them 0% on many dates and 5% during Thanksgiving and Christmas (just to throw out some fictional numbers.)

Disney accepts the fact that CRO will only be able to rent out a fraction of the rooms it is given. That's why the trade values are so high and a $95 admin fee is stacked on top.

 

[Brian Noble]

I'm still not sure I've seen a satisfactory explanation for how it is that VGC can go without selling rooms for cash through any outlet that I can find.

Well, the owner of the undeclared inventory can do whatever it wants with it---including giving it to DVCMC for some unspecified compensation, or even none at all. I can't imagine why they would do that, though. The best I can come up with is that they want to give the impression that if you want to stay in the Villas, you *must* buy into DVC, because renting is not an option. This might make sense if title to the undeclared inventory rests with DVD---they might decide that the potential future sales benefits are outweight by the lost rental revenue.

It's also possible that there are differences between the statutes governing timeshares in California vs. Florida that are at play here as well.

 

[Dean]

While that room can not be booked a second time using points (if it remains a "traded-out" room), the member who traded it out did not specify they were trading out that specific room on that particular date; CRO just somehow "selected" that room on that date. If it later turns out CRO does not rent that room on that date, so it is going to sit empty, if there is demand for it on that date from a diferent member, why can't that room be put back into member inventory and move the "trade out" to a different night at a future date.

That would seem to be a "win" for all concerned, since the member gets the room they want on the date they want and CRO gets a room they may actually be able to rent in the future rather than one that ends up sitting idle.

As I said, they will let it sit if it doesn't rent rather than giving it back for points and as a member, you likely want that to happen since if they give it back, they'll likely take something else for later in essence using the points twice.

 

[dismedvc]

As I said, they will let it sit if it doesn't rent rather than giving it back for points and as a member, you likely want that to happen since if they give it back, they'll likely take something else for later in essence using the points twice.

It seems to me that anytime a DVC room goes unused, it is bad for the owners, and I (probably naively) feel I am an owner, even if it is just a small percentage owner. However, Dean is one of the frequent posters on this board who seems to understand DVC far better than I do, so I won't argue with his logic.

 

[tjkraz]

It seems to me that anytime a DVC room goes unused, it is bad for the owners, and I probably naively feel I am an owner, even if it is just a small percentage owner.

From a practical standpoint the room actually IS being used by a member. In essence, a member's points were used to reserve DVC villas which were then traded to CRO in exchange for a cruise, Adventures by Disney trip or some other non-DVC option.

I know that a room sitting empty seems wasteful (?), but it may help to understand that some DVC members is actually "using" the room in the strictest sense of the word. It's just that he/she traded away his right to OCCUPY the room.

On a related note, consider that cash guests do not book nearly as far out as DVC members. At many resorts having an unbooked DVC villa (points inventory) 60 days out is virtually unheard of. But CRO is still taking reservations from people just days before they will arrive. Giving unbooked villas back to DVC would certainly harm CRO in the long run.

Lastly, Disney has been known to use vacant DVC villas as overflow properties. It similar to cruise lines where DCL will pretty much take as many Cat 11 and 12 bookings as they can get, and upgrade folks accordingly. Better to get $1000 for a cabin rather than let $1500 cabins sit empty due to lack of demand. There are times where Disney has been known to upgrade guests from Value and Moderate resorts to available Studio and One Bedroom villas. Keeps the revenue flowing and is a creative way to introduce folks to the benefits offered by Deluxe/Villa accommodations. I'm sure Disney has made more than a few DVC sales as a result of these upgrades.

 

[silmarg]

There are times where Disney has been known to upgrade guests from Value and Moderate resorts to available Studio and One Bedroom villas. Keeps the revenue flowing and is a creative way to introduce folks to the benefits offered by Deluxe/Villa accommodations. I'm sure Disney has made more than a few DVC sales as a result of these upgrades.

Indeed, we got upgraded to SSR from POP this past August. While I was considering DVC before I got the upgrade - and was thinking SSR via resale...

Having stayed there has cemented my desire to buy at SSR.

While Disney wont directly profit from the DVC purchase, they will enjoy many years of ticket and schwag sales.

 

[Dean]

It seems to me that anytime a DVC room goes unused, it is bad for the owners, and I (probably naively) feel I am an owner, even if it is just a small percentage owner. However, Dean is one of the frequent posters on this board who seems to understand DVC far better than I do, so I won't argue with his logic.

As noted, an empty room is not necessarily an unused room.

 

[dismedvc]

On a related note, consider that cash guests do not book nearly as far out as DVC members. At many resorts having an unbooked DVC villa (points inventory) 60 days out is virtually unheard of. But CRO is still taking reservations from people just days before they will arrive. Giving unbooked villas back to DVC would certainly harm CRO in the long run.

Lastly, Disney has been known to use vacant DVC villas as overflow properties. It similar to cruise lines where DCL will pretty much take as many Cat 11 and 12 bookings as they can get, and upgrade folks accordingly. Better to get $1000 for a cabin rather than let $1500 cabins sit empty due to lack of demand. There are times where Disney has been known to upgrade guests from Value and Moderate resorts to available Studio and One Bedroom villas. Keeps the revenue flowing and is a creative way to introduce folks to the benefits offered by Deluxe/Villa accommodations. I'm sure Disney has made more than a few DVC sales as a result of these upgrades.

Great points Tim: As DVC members we generally book our DVC accommodations 11 months out. This year we are in Florida for two weeks, with Disney scheduled in the middle. However, my Daughter's plans changed, and she has to leave earlier than planed. I am trying to add a Disney DVC day on the front end of what we had previously booked. (That day is less than a week out, and there is CRO availability on that day.) If that CRO room does get used, even if it is for a "overflow" upgrade I would not mind, however, if it sits empty that would seem bad.

I will keep calling, and if the room we want becomes available a day or two before we use it, I will probably never know if it was a CRO return or another member just happened to cancel. I am fairly sure even the DVC member who in the strictest sense is “using” the room, but traded away his/her right to occupy that room, would rather see it used by someone rather than sit empty, even if that has no financial impact on their trade

 

[Onetrue]

Yes they used to do this all the time at the Grand Californian, I would call up to get a room and they would say they were booked. But then you call the hotel and they were wide opened. They would only budge after talking to a manager. Not cool.