Is "Walking a reservation" unethical?

[miTnosnhoJ]

I think the whole purpose of DVC is to shift your focus from "Holy Cow, I'm spending $5000 for a vacation!" to "I'm playing a competitive game against all these other people in how to spend my points."

 

[ziravan]

I think the whole purpose of DVC is to shift your focus from "Holy Cow, I'm spending $5000 for a vacation!" to "I'm playing a competitive game against all these other people in how to spend my points."

Booking a timeshare is in fact a competition. Just like an example earlier of getting event tickets, or waiting in line Black Friday, or any other "first come, first served" benefit.

Knowing the rules and using them to your advantage isn't unethical. It seems like the elemental argument here is equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. If, all other opportunities being equal, I use the rules to my advantage, that's simply not unethical.

I don't feel ethically obligated to share an equality of outcome with somebody less motivated than me. (In fact, this is why I can afford DVC and WDW in the first place.)

1. If I know that having a certain credit card or membership will get me access to event tickets before the public, and I make the effort to be part of that group, so be it. I don't owe somebody unwilling to make the same effort as I did an equal outcome.

2. If I decide to camp out 3 days before Star Wars is released (or the hot Black Friday sale), I don't owe the guy that walked up at 11:59 a cut in line.

3. If I buy a fixed week, I don't owe an 11 month booker (or walker) an equal shot at my reservation.

And,

4. If I walk a reservation, I don't owe anybody else an equal outcome because everybody else has an equal opportunity.

See. We aren't 2nd graders. We bought a product with a first come, first serve outcome and clear rules on how to proceed.

Breaking the rules would be unethical. Following the rules? I don't owe anybody a purple marker and I'm only ethically obligated to securing it for myself, if that's my desire and worth using the current rules to pursue.

Ensuring that everybody gets to take turns with the purple marker is worth teaching 2nd graders. When they grow up and pay $20K for those markers, and agree to first come first serve as the rules, first come, first serve becomes the only ethical outcome.

Whether you agree that walking a reservation is intended or not, first come first serve is certainly the design of the program.

Sharing, per rule, need not occur. Ergo, nothing unethical about using the rules of a system (even if loophole) to obtain the outcome of the system (first come, first serve - not a loophole, rather the design).

In a first come, first serve system, sharing is not part of the design and so, not sharing isn't unethical.

 

[supersnoop]

Is using the left line wrong because others are not aware that there are 2 lines?

To some extent, yes. It would be appropriate to inform the others waiting in line that there are two lines before walking up ahead of everyone.

 

[zavandor]

I have walked a reservation (a couple TBH) and I'm proud of it. I spend my time on these boards to understand the system and use the rules to my advantage.
Like people spending time to learn RCI and trade into DVC paying a fraction of the DVC cost. I'd like to do it but I don't have the time and the will to learn a second system. Good for them.

If everyone will walk a reservation DVC will finally give us the possibility to modify reservations online.
Of course the very next day the system will crash because of a bug and every reservation will be cancelled, but that's a different story.

 

[davper]

If everyone will walk a reservation DVC will finally give us the possibility to modify reservations online.

This is what I think will happen instead of Disney closing a so called 'loophole'. This or start charging 5 or $10 to change a reservation. The 'loophole' isn't costing Disney money other than the cost associated with an increase in call volume.

 

[dcfromva]

I can't say it is unethical. It is allowed by the rules--it's just something I have to plan for when I make a reservation. In previous years I noticed that the inventory eventually came available as a day here and a day there. My procedure was (and is) to reserve the dates that popped up and WL the individual days that were missing.
So, yesterday the 2 days I waitlisted for next year's OCT visit came through and I now have 6 reservations for the 6 nights I wanted. (The WL took about a week to come through). So, next I will call member services and get the reservations combined. In the past, member services automatically combined some of these ressies when the WLs came through, but it didn't work this time.
Honestly, I would rather not go at such a busy time (Columbus Day weekend), but it is one of the few times that I can reliably plan on my extended family having an extended weekend off, so I feel like I have to try.

 

[ziravan]

Somebody who won't walk because they find it unethical or distasteful is giving first choice to those who will. Whether you agree with walking or not, it's a feature of the current system.

This is a first come, first serve system.

To voluntarily give up a prime place in such a system by refusing to walk may not be unethical, but I don't find it noble or particularly ethical, either.

This is not a cheap system. I believe members have an ethical obligation to maximize their memberships. To do otherwise is unilateral disarmament.

I just booked my 2016 F&W Epcot Resort week. I don't care if another member doesn't get that purple marker as a result, nor should I.

If DVC closes that loophole, I can guarantee another will pop up in its place. There will always be advantages that well informed members can use to gain priority over lessor informed members. It's the nature of the system.

 

[skier_pete]

I'd argue that there are moral issues involved. Each call to MS costs money - walkers make more phone calls than the average person, and the burden of that cost falls on the membership as a whole. You are also taking something you don't intend to keep, keeping it from someone who may want to use it. Its like when someone in my 2nd grade Sunday School class grabs one of the few purple markers and holds onto it while they color with one of the plentiful blue markers - they aren't using it - they are holding it for "in case they want to use it." In Sunday school, we teach that behavior is "not nice" - which is the second grade equivalent of unethical.

I don't think your analogy is all that great for a few reasons, but particularly I think "holding the marker" may be rude but I wouldn't call it unethical. Stealing the marker so no one could ever use it again would be unethical. And besides, are you really arguing that we should apply your 2nd grade rules of ethics to our lives?

The fact is that bringing ethics into the equation is a tricky business - since every person has a different view of what is unethical. Some people would consider taking a sugar packet from a restaurant to use later in your room as being unethical. Others would say that "I paid for my meal which allows me access to that sugar packet. Though I didn't use it during my dinner, I will use it none-the-less." and to them that would be perfectly ethical. IS it stealing (unethical) or a purchased item (ethical)? Is it harming the restaurant (and it's employee's) or is it not?

Back to walking: By claiming it is unethical - you are setting a moral rules that are not defined by Disney that go beyond the established business practice rules. By what right do you (or anyone else) have to state that there are moral rules that supercede the actual rules? In this case, I have a harder time arguing that using walking to get a room is doing harm to someone. You and all the other owners have paid for the same rights to have a room available. Those rooms have to be booked within the rules of Disney. However, if the system is set up in such a way that I have to do something beyond just calling at 11 months in order to book my room, and the other person is ignorant of / choose not to use that option, I have no moral obligation to that other person not to do it myself.

Another example of this was the old "Late Fasspass" argument - Disney's rules allowed people to use the old paper Fastpasses after the time stamped on it. Thus, some people took advantage of this. Others screamed "unethical". At first, it wasn't a problem doing it, but eventually it BECAME a problem. To the point that Disney corrected the problem.

You can choose not to walk a reservation due to your own moral compass, but me I think it is unfair to berate people for taking advantage of the way the system works. If it really becomes a problem - if it's costing significantly more money for the MS, or if it becomes a point where no-one can ever book anything - then Disney should address it. I think you have the full right to complain to Disney that the system doesn't work as it should, but I don't think it really is a ethical issue.

 

[supersnoop]

I can't say it is unethical. It is allowed by the rules

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.

Dining reservations have always been advertised as 180 days + length of stay. But the system was implemented as 180+10, regardless of length of stay. Now, people are upset because they finally figured out how to limit you to your actual length of stay. The rule has never changed, but the implementation has.

Therefore, I stand firm that it's a loophole; an implementation that does not conform to or enforce the rule, and which people use to their personal advantage.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

By many appearances I think it still looks like most times people are walking they probably don't need to. The notes that people who aren't walking but are blocked out are getting their rooms a day or two later or their waitlist quickly comes thru seems to display that.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

I think the problem with the previous booking method-- 11 months from check out-- from DVC's point of view was it resulted in lots of "unintentional" split stays, as members were unable to book a weeklong stay in the same room. This created lots of extra expenses at the resort level AND the also meant the stay was less enjoyable for the member.

If the current system, as used by the Members, ends up causing the same phenomena, I would expect that DVC will make changes. Until then, I don't expect to see any change. -- Suzanne

 

[Maddysdaddy]

Not sure where I come down on this issue. I am curious as to whether people's views change if the hypothetical of walking a reservation out from a week or two in advance of the actual stay, to walking a reservation for six months or a year, so the member can get what they want during F&W or New Year's?

 

[ziravan]

Not sure where I come down on this issue. I am curious as to whether people's views change if the hypothetical of walking a reservation out from a week or two in advance of the actual stay, to walking a reservation for six months or a year, so the member can get what they want during F&W or New Year's?

I think flexibility is a key to my enjoyment of the system. I haven't walked and don't see myself doing so. It's not worth it to me - which isn't the same as saying its unethical.

In your example, you are probably only talking about a few room types that could ever require such extremes: OKW GV, esp near HH, BWV standard, AKV concierge and perhaps value, and VGF studio. That's less than 1/2 of 1% of all inventory and there's essentially no difference between walking for 2 weeks or 6 months because those rooms aren't going to be readily avail at 11 months anyway:

The walkers will be competing amongst themselves.

My opinion, if it's worth it to someone to walk for six months to get what they want: more power to them. The system will always reward those willing to work the system.

 

[Dean]

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.

Dining reservations have always been advertised as 180 days + length of stay. But the system was implemented as 180+10, regardless of length of stay. Now, people are upset because they finally figured out how to limit you to your actual length of stay. The rule has never changed, but the implementation has.

Therefore, I stand firm that it's a loophole; an implementation that does not conform to or enforce the rule, and which people use to their personal advantage.

I agree it's a loophole, an unintended option but one that has been allowed to continue by DVC. It's not a rule per se but more of the interpretation and evolution of a rule. IMO it's not appropriate for them to allow it and I feel philosophically that EVERY change should be a cancelation and rebooking. I'm also OK with a fee to change/cancel as well. I do agree that those that learn the rules and put effort will do better and I think that's OK as long as the rules they are using are appropriate unto themselves. IMO this one is not.

I think the problem with the previous booking method-- 11 months from check out-- from DVC's point of view was it resulted in lots of "unintentional" split stays, as members were unable to book a weeklong stay in the same room. This created lots of extra expenses at the resort level AND the also meant the stay was less enjoyable for the member.

If the current system, as used by the Members, ends up causing the same phenomena, I would expect that DVC will make changes. Until then, I don't expect to see any change. -- Suzanne

IMO this change with prevention of walking is far better than the old system. Even with walking it might be better.

Not sure where I come down on this issue. I am curious as to whether people's views change if the hypothetical of walking a reservation out from a week or two in advance of the actual stay, to walking a reservation for six months or a year, so the member can get what they want during F&W or New Year's?

IMO it's no different. I can't think of another timeshare that allows such an option and I deal with several different systems. Maybe someone else knows of another system that doesn't make changes a cancelation and rebooking.

 

[skier_pete]

Not sure where I come down on this issue. I am curious as to whether people's views change if the hypothetical of walking a reservation out from a week or two in advance of the actual stay, to walking a reservation for six months or a year, so the member can get what they want during F&W or New Year's?

If someone really is THAT hot on getting a standard BWV room for NYE that they spend a year calling MS every six days for something that they are likely to get without any problem at 11 months, then good for them.

One of the big takeaways from this is: Walking is almost never, ever necessary to get what you want at 11 months. With the exception of maybe Concierge level at AK some parts of the year, and some value/standard studios certain weekends of the year, you are really just wasting your time walking. (Walking for a 7-month stay, while do-able, isn't a guarantee of getting the desired outcome, so I dismiss that.)

 

[crisi]

Back to walking: By claiming it is unethical - you are setting a moral rules that are not defined by Disney that go beyond the established business practice rules. By what right do you (or anyone else) have to state that there are moral rules that supercede the actual rules?.

Yeah, thats sort of what ethics is about, and why philosophers discuss ethics and you can do a PhD in ethics and why there are dozens of ethical systems from Hedonism to Utilitarianism to Libertarianism. I don't think this is at all unethical if you have a hedonistic ethical system. I think its unethical according to a Kantian view.

Ethics isn't about what is allowed according to rules.

And of course I have a right to state that there are ethical considerations - someone asked my opinion. Ethics are all about opinion. Ethical question - is killing a child Hitler OK if you know he is going to grow up to be Hitler? No, its murder and against the law. Yes, because child Hitler will go on to be the focal point for killing millions. No, because whether its murder or not is immaterial, its wrong to kill a child - but perhaps the answer would be different if you asked if I would kill a 22 year old Hitler.

(ETA, wiki has 111 pages of ethical theories - you can certainly find one to justify walking a reservation or murdering Hitler - and one that says its unethical.)

 

[skier_pete]

And of course I have a right to state that there are ethical considerations - someone asked my opinion. Ethics are all about opinion.
(ETA, wiki has 111 pages of ethical theories - you can certainly find one to justify walking a reservation or murdering Hitler - and one that says its unethical.)

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".

 

[zavandor]

If DVC closes that loophole, I can guarantee another will pop up in its place. There will always be advantages that well informed members can use to gain priority over lessor informed members. It's the nature of the system.

Exactly.
They won't ever be able to make any change a cancel and rebook, because there are people visiting for more then a week: these would have to add nights to an existing reservation on a regular basis. Should they introduce a cancellation fee? Then people with a lot of points could simply walk by booking a lot in advance and cancel only when they've booked the whole reservation (paying the fee only once). Or people with more money than sense could continue to walk day by day. Would this system be more ethical than the actual one?

 

[CarolMN]

Exactly.
They won't ever be able to make any change a cancel and rebook, because there are people visiting for more then a week: these would have to add nights to an existing reservation on a regular basis. Should they introduce a cancellation fee? Then people with a lot of points could simply walk by booking a lot in advance and cancel only when they've booked the whole reservation (paying the fee only once). Or people with more money than sense could continue to walk day by day. Would this system be more ethical than the actual one?

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.

 

[beer dave]

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.

I strongly agree. And about DVC's primary goal to be to fill the resorts. Walking does not leave holes like the day by day did. The only holes are stretches of nights shortly into the 11 month window. Not a given up on reservation after a few months or more of waitlist.