Is "Walking a reservation" unethical?

[zavandor]

Ethics aside, instituting a fee would most likely significantly reduce the number of members who walk. IMO, the few who would be willing to pay a fee for each change would not cause much of a problem. YMMV.

This would leave the loophole open for a few... exactly as it is now. I think the vastly large majority of DVC members don't know what walking a reservation is. We're talking about moving the possibility of doing it from people who have the knowledge to people who have the knowledge and the money.

Not allowing cancellation within the first month is sort of the same solution. People who have more points than needed, could still walk the reservation. And I'm not thinking about particularly rich people, I'm constantly in banking mode, I could afford to keep a few nights booked and then reallocate the points later. This change would make me happy: I would be among the few to be able to walk a reservation, happy camper!

BTW, with fixed weeks, even walking at 11 months isn't 100% sure to get the night you want.

 

[skier_pete]

BTW, with fixed weeks, even walking at 11 months isn't 100% sure to get the night you want.

This is very true.

But again, the whole thing to remember is that with very rare exceptions, walking is completely unnecessary at 11 months. Maybe 1% of all reservations require walking, and probably even less than that. I recently booked Columbus day weekend in a value studio at AKV at 8 AM. No walking needed for one of the hardest room categories on one of the most popular weekends of the year. (There are only a total of EIGHTEEN rooms in this category.) I then ended up canceling that reservation, and rebooked for the following weekend, again at 8 AM. I DID walk that reservation one day, only because I was unable to get on the computer at 8 AM the day I wanted to start our trip. But again I could've gotten it at 8 AM.

So if I didn't need to walk on one of the hardest weekends of the year in one of the hardest to get room categories - when is exactly is walking even necessary??

My suggested solution - to a problem I don't even think is a problem - is not to prevent / charge for changes to a reservation right away, but allow a limited number of changes before a fee is charged. Perhaps you are allowed to make 4 changes to a reservation, after that a $50 fee is charged for any further changes. Either that or you have to cancel and rebook. It seems to me that it would be rare to make that many changes to a reservation.

 

[dcfromva]

Maybe this is the line we disagree on. I don't think it's allowed by the rules. The rule is 11 months. The implementation of the reservation system was changed to allow 11 months+7 days to "make things easier." They didn't change the rule, just the implementation.

If it wasn't allowed by the rules--it wouldn't be done. Walking is not done without the help of member services. Otherwise, member services would say, I'm sorry I can't do that.
Ever since this policy (booking based on arrival date) went into place, I have been able to get the room category I want about 2 weeks after the booking window opens always on a day here and a day there basis-- it requires checking inventory and wait-listing. Then, I call member services to stitch all my reservations together. Not optimum, for sure, but I think the popularity of these rooms and the limited amount of the rooms is always going to result in a lot of demand.

Now, I never have any trouble booking at the VGC as long as I book more than 7months (plus 1 week) in advance of the reservation. I've even booked at Christmas time and never had any trouble. (Now, less than 7 months is another story ) That is what I find surprising.

 

[Dean]

This is very true.

But again, the whole thing to remember is that with very rare exceptions, walking is completely unnecessary at 11 months. Maybe 1% of all reservations require walking, and probably even less than that. I recently booked Columbus day weekend in a value studio at AKV at 8 AM. No walking needed for one of the hardest room categories on one of the most popular weekends of the year. (There are only a total of EIGHTEEN rooms in this category.) I then ended up canceling that reservation, and rebooked for the following weekend, again at 8 AM. I DID walk that reservation one day, only because I was unable to get on the computer at 8 AM the day I wanted to start our trip. But again I could've gotten it at 8 AM.

So if I didn't need to walk on one of the hardest weekends of the year in one of the hardest to get room categories - when is exactly is walking even necessary??

My suggested solution - to a problem I don't even think is a problem - is not to prevent / charge for changes to a reservation right away, but allow a limited number of changes before a fee is charged. Perhaps you are allowed to make 4 changes to a reservation, after that a $50 fee is charged for any further changes. Either that or you have to cancel and rebook. It seems to me that it would be rare to make that many changes to a reservation.

Making each change a cancellation and rebooking makes it fair and simple for everyone as does instituting a fee. The combination is not a bad choice either.

 

[crisi]

You are right - I should've said that differently. By your ethical view it may be wrong to walk a reservation because you are "getting around the system as it is intended". By mine it is not.

But I guess that ruins the whole point of the thread. Or it answers the question is "Is it unethical to walk a reservation" is "It depends on your personal point of view".

However, when you accuse someone of being unethical, that tends to sting, because it's basically the same as saying you have bad morals/are a bad person. It comes down to the old "those without sin cast the first stone". If the worst thing you've ever done in your life is walk a reservation, you've led a pretty clean life.

In fact, there could be long discussions on Disney ethics. The discussions that used to go around about booking multiple ADRs were heated and nasty. Late Fastpasses were a close second. I would put "Walking" as a minor sin in the Disney book of "skirting the rules".

Yep, but part of establishing your own ethics is to understand those of others. Are you comfortable with your stance - if so, great. But maybe you haven't thought of something. Which is why in my first post I said "sometimes its pragmatically necessary" or something like that.

If you are doing something that someone is questioning whether its ethical or not, and you don't want it to sting when someone tells you they think it is, it might be best if you didn't open the thread. Its pretty clear from the thread title that someone is likely to answer "yes, it is."

 

[crisi]

Ethics aside, instituting a fee would most likely significantly reduce the number of members who walk. IMO, the few who would be willing to pay a fee for each change would not cause much of a problem. YMMV.

Along the same lines (and to accommodate those who take longer vacations), an alternative to a fee would be to refuse to drop nights during the first 30 days after a reservation is made if the reservation was made on the day the 11 month window opened. A member could add nights to a reservation made on the day the 11 month window opens, but not drop any until the 10 month window opens. To drop nights before the 10 month window, the entire reservation would have to be cancelled and rebooked.

FWIW, I do not anticipate DVC making any changes until they see that the practice is causing THEM a problem. I strongly believe that is why the booking changed to 11 months from check-in (was initially 11 months from check out). Day by day calling was putting a growing load on MS and resulted in unused nights as members cancelled vacation with "holes" in them.

IMO, walking is not yet at the point that DVC would feel compelled to address it. I'm quite sure that when/if they do, many of us will not like their solution.

Agree with all of this. Especially that when/if they do, many of us will not like their solution. Which is why, from a pragmatic standpoint, we should discourage walking unless its really necessary. Its going to be a problem when it takes too many call center cast members, too many member satisfaction team members to respond to complaints or when it has an unanticipated consequence that hits Disney.

(A fee creates the issue of those who are price insensitive having an advantage. And the 30 day drop favors those with enough points to invest in holding a long reservation. So neither solution is perfect, but either could be done).

 

[skier_pete]

Yep, but part of establishing your own ethics is to understand those of others. Are you comfortable with your stance - if so, great. But maybe you haven't thought of something. Which is why in my first post I said "sometimes its pragmatically necessary" or something like that.

If you are doing something that someone is questioning whether its ethical or not, and you don't want it to sting when someone tells you they think it is, it might be best if you didn't open the thread. Its pretty clear from the thread title that someone is likely to answer "yes, it is."

I like that a lot "part of establishing your own ethics is to understand those of others". I suppose that's what the OP was looking for. (S)he was feeling unsure as to how (s)he should feel about it morally, and wanted to see how other felt about it.

@MJ6987 wondering what as the OP you are feeling from this conversation. Has you felted swayed one way or the other?

Agree with all of this. Especially that when/if they do, many of us will not like their solution. Which is why, from a pragmatic standpoint, we should discourage walking unless its really necessary. Its going to be a problem when it takes too many call center cast members, too many member satisfaction team members to respond to complaints or when it has an unanticipated consequence that hits Disney.

This is exactly right - regardless of the morals of it, I agree that walking should be used in as limited amounts and only if absolutely necessary, which I've previously stated is very rare. If lots of people decide they need to walk a lot of the time, that's what will lead to the institution of further restrictions, which in all likelihood will help practically no-one.

 

[CarolMN]

..........(snip)....... from a pragmatic standpoint, we should discourage walking unless its really necessary. Its going to be a problem when it takes too many call center cast members, too many member satisfaction team members to respond to complaints or when it has an unanticipated consequence that hits Disney.

....(snip)........This is exactly right - regardless of the morals of it, I agree that walking should be used in as limited amounts and only if absolutely necessary, which I've previously stated is very rare. If lots of people decide they need to walk a lot of the time, that's what will lead to the institution of further restrictions, which in all likelihood will help practically no-one.

I completely agree with you and crisi on the need for walking - it's only very rarely necessary.

IMO, this is the DVC version of the Prisoner's Dilemma. More members would benefit if no one walked, but the individual believes he/she will lose out unless she/he walks their reservation. I predict that eventually, DVCMC will be forced to step in and "solve" this issue for DVCMC's benefit and for the benefit of the system as a whole. YMMV.

 

[zavandor]

If every member of DVC walk a reservation, would it be sustainable for MS? No, I think we can all agree.

However this is not happening. Because it's rarely necessary a part a few days of the year and only for a few categories. And because not everyone knows what it is and how to do it. If it will ever became a problem, then Disney would change the rules like it did in the past. Or probably they'll just change the website to allow changes, something that is well overdue. As the number of members grows, the break even point for investing the money into improving the system vs hiring more people to answer the phone get nearer and nearer, it's something that will be implemented anyway and will fix the problem of sustainability.

But the OP question is another: is it ethical? I don't agree about the Kant's method to say if something is ethical.
Is using a touring plan for the park unethical? Go to easywdw and read the excellent touring plans: he suggests to arrive 40 minutes before opening to be among the first people to enter the park. But what if everyone does it? Then we would need to arrive 50 minutes before opening. But then everyone would arrive 50 minuted earlier... Will we ever start lining up at park close the day before? No because the touring plan works because not everyone do it. So are people arriving 40 minutes earlier cheating others? Should they be forced to arrive at opening time? Or should they pay an extra to be allowed to line up 30+ minutes before opening? Is easywdw unethical? (well, given Josh's sense of humor someone might say so anyway).

Is walking a reservation cheating the system? Are people taking an unfair advantage against other members? I don't think so, everyone could do it, they're just playing with the rules to their advantage. Like anticipating crowds behaviour and use a touring plan.

So, a part the sustainability of a system where everyone walk a reservation (something that is not happening and we don't know if it will ever happen), IMHO walking a reservation is not unethical and I will do it if needed, until rules will allow it.

 

[Dean]

If every member of DVC walk a reservation, would it be sustainable for MS? No, I think we can all agree.

However this is not happening. Because it's rarely necessary a part a few days of the year and only for a few categories. And because not everyone knows what it is and how to do it. If it will ever became a problem, then Disney would change the rules like it did in the past. Or probably they'll just change the website to allow changes, something that is well overdue. As the number of members grows, the break even point for investing the money into improving the system vs hiring more people to answer the phone get nearer and nearer, it's something that will be implemented anyway and will fix the problem of sustainability.

But the OP question is another: is it ethical? I don't agree about the Kant's method to say if something is ethical.
Is using a touring plan for the park unethical? Go to easywdw and read the excellent touring plans: he suggests to arrive 40 minutes before opening to be among the first people to enter the park. But what if everyone does it? Then we would need to arrive 50 minutes before opening. But then everyone would arrive 50 minuted earlier... Will we ever start lining up at park close the day before? No because the touring plan works because not everyone do it. So are people arriving 40 minutes earlier cheating others? Should they be forced to arrive at opening time? Or should they pay an extra to be allowed to line up 30+ minutes before opening? Is easywdw unethical? (well, given Josh's sense of humor someone might say so anyway).

Is walking a reservation cheating the system? Are people taking an unfair advantage against other members? I don't think so, everyone could do it, they're just playing with the rules to their advantage. Like anticipating crowds behaviour and use a touring plan.

So, a part the sustainability of a system where everyone walk a reservation (something that is not happening and we don't know if it will ever happen), IMHO walking a reservation is not unethical and I will do it if needed, until rules will allow it.

Anything where a relatively small % of members can sabotage the efficiency of the system and the rest of the members is not a workable plan. When no one was doing it there wasn't much of an issue but I think we're seeing enough of an issue now that they'll have to do something soon. IMO it was predictable that this was not a sustainable option. Looking back at DVCMC's history, they drug their feet for a good 5 yrs before they did the second reallocation, one that was clearly needed for several years. The best time to have fixed this would have been up front.

 

[Sandisw]

I haven't read them all but I think there would be ways to limit the changes during certain seasons where walking is more likely to happen than others. I do like the idea that maybe no changes to start date for at least 30 days without a cancel/rebook, but I think given that one is booking 11 months out and things sometimes change in terms of dates, having it all be a cancel/rebook would diminish the flexibility of DVC. In terms of ethical, again, for me, if it is within the rules and what you are wanting is limited, then one has to decide how they feel about it. Would I walk? Yes, if I had to, but for the most part, I am okay with getting something at my home resort at 11 months and even if it isn't the right view or size, I will wait list and hope for the best.

 

[supersnoop]

they're just playing with the rules to their advantage.

In terms of ethical, again, for me, if it is within the rules

People keep saying its within the rules, but it's not. The rules say 11 months. The +7 days was added as a way to help members book their trip all at once, but it is beyond the rules. Exploiting a system implementation is not within the rules, even if it's allowed. That's where the question of ethics comes in. The system allows you to bend/break the rules to make things easier. Is it okay to use that feature beyond its intended purpose. And, no, walking was never an intended benefit.

 

[beer dave]

How about this-- just eliminate the view categories, make all the rooms at each individual resort the same amount of points per category (studio, 1 bed, 2 bed), and have a first come first served on view. Then when someone changed their arrival date, their request for view would fall into a new place in the line. The coveted standard or value rooms with low points would be eliminated. I bet no one would like that. Then there would be no reason to walk a reservation, because there would be no 9 to 12 point rooms to try to hoard. Club level at AKV would be request also-- the lucky few early bookers will get it for free.--- As long as you don't change your dates.......

 

[SuzanneSLO]

People keep saying its within the rules, but it's not. The rules say 11 months. The +7 days was added as a way to help members book their trip all at once, but it is beyond the rules. Exploiting a system implementation is not within the rules, even if it's allowed. That's where the question of ethics comes in. The system allows you to bend/break the rules to make things easier. Is it okay to use that feature beyond its intended purpose. And, no, walking was never an intended benefit.

I disagree that the +7 was "added" as an accommodation when DVC moved to a booking at 11 months from check-in date. The last thing DVC would have wanted with this change was single night bookings. In my opinion, eliminating this is why they switched from 11 months from check out to 11 months from check in.
My prediction is that the next change we will see is to allow booking stays longer than 7 nights at the 11 month window. As DVC stated when this change was made, 7 days was a some what random number and was meant to accommodate most member stays, which according to DVC at the time averaged 5 nights. Of course, while such a change would help a member who wants to stay 2 weeks or so, it wont stop those wanting to walk. -- Suzanne

 

[crisi]

People keep saying its within the rules, but it's not. The rules say 11 months. The +7 days was added as a way to help members book their trip all at once, but it is beyond the rules. Exploiting a system implementation is not within the rules, even if it's allowed. That's where the question of ethics comes in. The system allows you to bend/break the rules to make things easier. Is it okay to use that feature beyond its intended purpose. And, no, walking was never an intended benefit.

For me, there is a world of difference between ethical and legal (or within the rules). There are things that might be ethical that are not legal (until recently - having a same sex partner fell here) and things that are legal that are not ethical (being a racists - there isn't any rule that you can't be a racist - but it isn't an ethical stance to take in my ethical system - or in that of most people I know).

 

[beer dave]

Or better yet-- Remove the entire cost of the phone-in member services from our dues, divide out the total cost to a per minute cost. Anyone who calls to use the service, which really should be limited to the things we cannot do on line, will pay the per minute cost for the phone call. That way, the people who do not use the phone in service, will not have to pay. No one would have to worry about who is using more member services time for whatever reason. The pesky once a week phone call for modifying would no longer bog down all the members fees who do not like it. I bet my dues would go down about a penny a point.

 

[kristenrice]

I guess I am confused as to why this is a huge issue...

Let me use the marker example that a PP used...

All the pre-schoolers line up and enter the classroom at the same time. They will each be given paper and allowed to choose a marker. Now, Billy and Susie both want to use the purple marker. Billy takes it and sticks it in his pocket, forcing Susie to wait until he is done with it. Whether or not he uses it to color on his paper is irrelevant. He chose the purple marker which means Susie has to wait. That is not to say that Susie won't EVER get to use the purple marker...she just has to wait for it. In the mean time, she can choose other markers that are available, even if they weren't her first choice, or she can wait for Billy to return the marker to the box. Either way, Susie will get to use the marker, she just has to wait for it.

I see it the same way as the wait list. When walking a reservation, those "unwanted" days will eventually open up as they are dropped off the reservation. If someone gets on the wait list at the time their 11-month window opens, then they simply have to wait until the walkers "put down the markers". They can also monitor the availability and call if a day becomes available. This is exactly how it worked out for me when trying to book a difficult reservation. I was "locked-out" on the opening day of my 11-month window so I wait listed. Then, two days later, I looked at the availability and the first day was not available, presumably because someone walking it had dropped off the day. I called back the next day and I was able to get the rest of the week, thanks to the MS computer outage. I acknowledge that the wait list does not always work like it should (i.e. available days coming up on the website instead of being filled by the wait list) so that is also an issue.

I think the "ethical" issue arises because people are confusing walking (which is booking and CANCELLING) with booking and NOT USING the reservation. Is this any different than booking a week at your home resort with the intention of changing it at the 7-month window? If I booked a full week in a concierge studio at my home resort of AKV, but plan on changing it to a lake view room at BLT at 7 months, why is that not "unethical"? I've blocked off a room for 4 months with every intention of cancelling it.

For me, the bottom line is that it really doesn't matter to me if people walk or not. I can only control what I do and as long as no rules are being broken, I really don't worry about the choices other people make.

 

[crisi]

I guess I am confused as to why this is a huge issue...

Let me use the marker example that a PP used...

All the pre-schoolers line up and enter the classroom at the same time. They will each be given paper and allowed to choose a marker. Now, Billy and Susie both want to use the purple marker. Billy takes it and sticks it in his pocket, forcing Susie to wait until he is done with it. Whether or not he uses it to color on his paper is irrelevant. He chose the purple marker which means Susie has to wait. That is not to say that Susie won't EVER get to use the purple marker...she just has to wait for it. In the mean time, she can choose other markers that are available, even if they weren't her first choice, or she can wait for Billy to return the marker to the box. Either way, Susie will get to use the marker, she just has to wait for it.

.

In my Sunday School classroom, Susie often doesn't ever get the opportunity to use the purple marker unless I make and enforce a rule. There are multiple kids waiting for the few purple markers, the "waitlist" for markers is broken - Susie can claim it first, but if Billy hands it to his friend Robert, Susie still doesn't get it, and eventually we run out of time in the classroom. So we don't hold what we aren't using - there is no reason for Billy to hang onto a marker he isn't using until he needs that marker. When he wants it, then HE can wait for it.

Realistically, what happens with second graders - and with a few adults when talking about resources- is that some kids only want to color in purple. Other kids want to horde resources - some because they have concerns about scarcity, others because it annoys other kids (about half the Billys never use the purple marker in the end), some because they can - we try and teach a model of sharing resources, using only what you need, relinquishing what you don't need when you no longer need it - as well as making due - purple may be preferred, but yellow and orange are lovely colors as well because those are the values - values feeding into ethics and morals - that we hold as a religious community. I've been teaching second graders for a decade, and I've had a few kids who were seriously challenged with the idea that they couldn't/shouldn't grab ALL the glitter or every fuzzy pipecleaner - and thank god we got rid of snack - one of those kids would make snack miserable for everyone.

There is another example of this that came up in my life. I was taught that if you went through a buffet line early (not a restaurant, but a private event) you took small amounts of food to make sure that the people who came through last got to eat. If you went through late, you got what was left, which often meant you got "first dibs on seconds during your first helping" - the downside is that the chocolate chip cookies would be gone and you got stuck with the oatmeal raisin. I am involved in a girl scout camp where middle school and high school girls do tent camping under the supervision of some adults. Its girl scout tradition that the adults go first as a sign of respect. A few adults (those not involved in buying and preparing the food, who are well aware that there are not enough chicken legs for people to take three - its generally the ones that were there to increase the adult to girl count to meet the safety regulations in exchange for free camp for their daughters) were loading up their plates to heaping (and throwing out half the food they took) - while the girls at the end of the line we ended up making sandwiches for so they wouldn't go hungry. We buy plenty of food, but we assume people will be reasonable when they help themselves - and we are twenty minutes from a grocery store with a hundred girls - you don't just go grab some more food. And, the camp is designed to be affordable - we have plenty of food - we don't have plenty of extra food - that adds to the amount we'd have to charge for camp. There is no rule that says "going through a buffet you take a reasonable amount of food and keep in mind that there are 120 more people coming after you and this is all the food there is" - but it isn't ethical to let an eleven year old not have a brownie because you took three and threw out one. Next year, we are going to need to spell out buffett manners - not for the girls - for the adults. Once again, using resources well and consideration for others are Girl Scout values.

Both of these are examples where we shouldn't need a rule - people should be reasonable. And if one person is unreasonable - or has a real need for their behavior - the system still usually functions. But the behavior of one person is modeled by others (oh, I can take three chicken legs because she did - oh, Billy always grabs the purple marker, I'd better grab it first, - oh, I'm going to need to walk a reservation because that is how you get rooms), and eventually the system breaks down.

(And yes, we should have more purple markers. But they come in boxes with the orange markers and the yellow ones - and the cap gets left off them or they end up in pockets, and by the end of the year I have a tub with 20 yellow markers and two functional purple ones)

 

[beer dave]

For me, there is a world of difference between ethical and legal (or within the rules). There are things that might be ethical that are not legal (until recently - having a same sex partner fell here) and things that are legal that are not ethical (being a racists - there isn't any rule that you can't be a racist - but it isn't an ethical stance to take in my ethical system - or in that of most people I know).

In my Sunday School classroom, Susie often doesn't ever get the opportunity to use the purple marker unless I make and enforce a rule. There are multiple kids waiting for the few purple markers, the "waitlist" for markers is broken - Susie can claim it first, but if Billy hands it to his friend Robert, Susie still doesn't get it, and eventually we run out of time in the classroom. So we don't hold what we aren't using - there is no reason for Billy to hang onto a marker he isn't using until he needs that marker. When he wants it, then HE can wait for it.

Realistically, what happens with second graders - and with a few adults when talking about resources- is that some kids only want to color in purple. Other kids want to horde resources - some because they have concerns about scarcity, others because it annoys other kids (about half the Billys never use the purple marker in the end), some because they can - we try and teach a model of sharing resources, using only what you need, relinquishing what you don't need when you no longer need it - as well as making due - purple may be preferred, but yellow and orange are lovely colors as well because those are the values - values feeding into ethics and morals - that we hold as a religious community. I've been teaching second graders for a decade, and I've had a few kids who were seriously challenged with the idea that they couldn't/shouldn't grab ALL the glitter or every fuzzy pipecleaner - and thank god we got rid of snack - one of those kids would make snack miserable for everyone.

There is another example of this that came up in my life. I was taught that if you went through a buffet line early (not a restaurant, but a private event) you took small amounts of food to make sure that the people who came through last got to eat. If you went through late, you got what was left, which often meant you got "first dibs on seconds during your first helping" - the downside is that the chocolate chip cookies would be gone and you got stuck with the oatmeal raisin. I am involved in a girl scout camp where middle school and high school girls do tent camping under the supervision of some adults. Its girl scout tradition that the adults go first as a sign of respect. A few adults (those not involved in buying and preparing the food, who are well aware that there are not enough chicken legs for people to take three - its generally the ones that were there to increase the adult to girl count to meet the safety regulations in exchange for free camp for their daughters) were loading up their plates to heaping (and throwing out half the food they took) - while the girls at the end of the line we ended up making sandwiches for so they wouldn't go hungry. We buy plenty of food, but we assume people will be reasonable when they help themselves - and we are twenty minutes from a grocery store with a hundred girls - you don't just go grab some more food. And, the camp is designed to be affordable - we have plenty of food - we don't have plenty of extra food - that adds to the amount we'd have to charge for camp. There is no rule that says "going through a buffet you take a reasonable amount of food and keep in mind that there are 120 more people coming after you and this is all the food there is" - but it isn't ethical to let an eleven year old not have a brownie because you took three and threw out one. Next year, we are going to need to spell out buffett manners - not for the girls - for the adults. Once again, using resources well and consideration for others are Girl Scout values.

Both of these are examples where we shouldn't need a rule - people should be reasonable. And if one person is unreasonable - or has a real need for their behavior - the system still usually functions. But the behavior of one person is modeled by others (oh, I can take three chicken legs because she did - oh, Billy always grabs the purple marker, I'd better grab it first, - oh, I'm going to need to walk a reservation because that is how you get rooms), and eventually the system breaks down.

(And yes, we should have more purple markers. But they come in boxes with the orange markers and the yellow ones - and the cap gets left off them or they end up in pockets, and by the end of the year I have a tub with 20 yellow markers and two functional purple ones)

I am having trouble making the connection between fee loaders at your girl scout outing and DVC members booking rooms they paid for. If I bought 3 chicken legs and 3 brownies, I can throw them out if I want to. Not saying it is a wise choice, but it is an option. And are you against what someone else posted above-- making a 11 month reservation with the intent of cancelling at 7 months? It is the same thing-- holding something they don't necessarily want-- but the holding thing is pretty much a key part in a reservation. Someone takes a reservation, they then hold the reservation, and then they provide the accommodation. in the marker thing, using is the key. Billy and Suzie need to pay for a reservation for the marker with a designated time slot for it's use. Then we are on the same page.

 

[crisi]

I am having trouble making the connection between fee loaders at your girl scout outing and DVC members booking rooms they paid for. If I bought 3 chicken legs and 3 brownies, I can throw them out if I want to. Not saying it is a wise choice, but it is an option. And are you against what someone else posted above-- making a 11 month reservation with the intent of cancelling at 7 months? It is the same thing-- holding something they don't necessarily want-- but the holding thing is pretty much a key part in a reservation. Someone takes a reservation, they then hold the reservation, and then they provide the accommodation. in the marker thing, using is the key. Billy and Suzie need to pay for a reservation for the marker with a designated time slot for it's use. Then we are on the same page.

Likewise, using is the key for making an eleven month reservation and switching at seven - if you can't get what you want at seven, you are still going to use your eleven month reservation. You probably shouldn't do that if what you want is SSR in May with a VAKL Savannah view room as your second choice and OKW non HH as your third choice and are holding a BWV standard view room just in case there isn't any availability at your preferred resorts - that isn't reasonable, but if you are booking your home of BLT with the hope of getting VWL during early December and retaining your BLT reservation as a second choice, its a reasonable insurance policy.