Is "Walking a reservation" unethical?

[gracerussell]

Thanks! I should note that this Poly reservation would be for the busiest time of the year (Dec 28-Jan 1). But - I guess I can take my chances and cross my fingers. If it doesn't work out, who knows, maybe my BLT waitlist will come through or we can slide in at another resort for those days. I'll have a handful of options sketched out.

Since we don't own at Poly, I'm not able to walk until 7 months.

I'll have 150 points from 2015 and 160 points for 2016 to work with. We still need to grab a room at BLT for a handful of nights during the first half of our trip...just waiting a few more weeks for this transaction to be available. It's so frustrating when you see the nights you want are there, but you aren't able to book them yet!

 

[Dean]

Since we don't own at Poly, I'm not able to walk until 7 months.

In a sense you are. It's not the same or as guaranteed as doing so at 11 months but the same principles apply. You just find availability and book a full week then you either cancel and rebook as you go along or you call and add. If one has enough points you actually book a new reservation if available every couple of days then you cancel later. Effectively for each reservation you make you've shut out one potential member at the 7 month window. It's not perfect but it does improve your chances. This is the nature of walking and why I don't think DVC should allow it but as long as it's allowed, I don't see any issues with doing it.

 

[rfc0001]

In a sense you are. It's not the same or as guaranteed as doing so at 11 months but the same principles apply. You just find availability and book a full week then you either cancel and rebook as you go along or you call and add. If one has enough points you actually book a new reservation if available every couple of days then you cancel later. Effectively for each reservation you make you've shut out one potential member at the 7 month window. It's not perfect but it does improve your chances. This is the nature of walking and why I don't think DVC should allow it but as long as it's allowed, I don't see any issues with doing it.

Note, don't cancel and rebook unless the day your booking is available -- don't count on the fact you currently have it booked to grab the same night after you cancel it. Waitlists now fire instantly and can grab the night out from under you if you cancel and rebook

 

[jerseyduke]

Interesting thread.

I was unaware of the old day by day booking. If DVC went back to that, then I would sell my contracts. I am so not into the split stays, that the possibility of it becoming a regularity would ruin DVC for me. (It is certainly a great OPTION to have, as many do actually prefer it)

Sadly, If you want certain reservations (room type and time), in some places if you do not walk, you will not get it.

I purchased at the VGF, with the intent on early December. My biggest mistake, hands down, was not buying a fixed weed. I did not know about them, nor did my guide mention them.

I had 2 options - buy my fixed week direct at VGF, pay the new price, sell my old contract, eat the difference, or buy a 2nd contract at a different resort so I have a back up. I went with the later (Although I do hope to add more VGF points in the future to just be able to get a 1 BR....those do not ever seem to need to be walked).



As for mitigating the situation, would this not work?

Allow a member to book ANY of the 7 days that are 11 months out.
For example, if you want 12/1 - 12/8, and you call on 1/1, and only 12/2 - 12/8 are available, allow the member to book those dates.
That will essentially block the walkers.

I have noticed, while looking at the VGF at times out of curiosity, it is often the case that the first day is not available, but the rest of the week is.
And technically the first 6 days of the week could all be booked.

Going with the 12/1 - 12/8 desired stay, assume the 'walker' (any walking dead fans???) has 11/30 - 12/7. Currently the walker can call on 1/5 and change their ressie, as he is blocking 12/8 with his reservation.

If you make 12/8 available on 1/1 (11 months plus one week), then the walker would have to be on line at 8am on 1/1 to TRY to get it when it is up for grabs to all members.

It might not eliminate walking, but it would take away it's guarantee.

Or am I missing something obvious?

 

[ziravan]

Interesting thread.

I was unaware of the old day by day booking. If DVC went back to that, then I would sell my contracts. I am so not into the split stays, that the possibility of it becoming a regularity would ruin DVC for me. (It is certainly a great OPTION to have, as many do actually prefer it)

Sadly, If you want certain reservations (room type and time), in some places if you do not walk, you will not get it.

I purchased at the VGF, with the intent on early December. My biggest mistake, hands down, was not buying a fixed weed. I did not know about them, nor did my guide mention them.

I had 2 options - buy my fixed week direct at VGF, pay the new price, sell my old contract, eat the difference, or buy a 2nd contract at a different resort so I have a back up. I went with the later (Although I do hope to add more VGF points in the future to just be able to get a 1 BR....those do not ever seem to need to be walked).



As for mitigating the situation, would this not work?

Allow a member to book ANY of the 7 days that are 11 months out.
For example, if you want 12/1 - 12/8, and you call on 1/1, and only 12/2 - 12/8 are available, allow the member to book those dates.
That will essentially block the walkers.

I have noticed, while looking at the VGF at times out of curiosity, it is often the case that the first day is not available, but the rest of the week is.
And technically the first 6 days of the week could all be booked.

Going with the 12/1 - 12/8 desired stay, assume the 'walker' (any walking dead fans???) has 11/30 - 12/7. Currently the walker can call on 1/5 and change their ressie, as he is blocking 12/8 with his reservation.

If you make 12/8 available on 1/1 (11 months plus one week), then the walker would have to be on line at 8am on 1/1 to TRY to get it when it is up for grabs to all members.

It might not eliminate walking, but it would take away it's guarantee.

Or am I missing something obvious?

Far easier would be to place a 30 day hold on any reservation that uses the 11 month window to book days past the window. Any change within 30 days would need to be a cancel/rebook.

The only problem there is if I want 3 nights and use the 11 month window to book 7 and grab those 3 nights, then I'd end up tying up the first 4 nights for a month. Of course, a more robust waitlist program would ensure that redistribution of those nights at 10 months were fair.

 

[maburke]

As for mitigating the situation, would this not work?

Allow a member to book ANY of the 7 days that are 11 months out.
For example, if you want 12/1 - 12/8, and you call on 1/1, and only 12/2 - 12/8 are available, allow the member to book those dates.
That will essentially block the walkers.

I have noticed, while looking at the VGF at times out of curiosity, it is often the case that the first day is not available, but the rest of the week is.
And technically the first 6 days of the week could all be booked.

Going with the 12/1 - 12/8 desired stay, assume the 'walker' (any walking dead fans???) has 11/30 - 12/7. Currently the walker can call on 1/5 and change their ressie, as he is blocking 12/8 with his reservation.

If you make 12/8 available on 1/1 (11 months plus one week), then the walker would have to be on line at 8am on 1/1 to TRY to get it when it is up for grabs to all members.

It might not eliminate walking, but it would take away it's guarantee.

Or am I missing something obvious?

Is this not just the same as day-by-day booking at 11 months +7 days? You'd have to call every day of your 11 months + 7 day window to piece together your reservation. That's what you just said you'd sell your contracts to avoid.

 

[jerseyduke]

Is this not just the same as day-by-day booking at 11 months +7 days? You'd have to call every day of your 11 months + 7 day window to piece together your reservation. That's what you just said you'd sell your contracts to avoid.

I see your point, and yes, I suppose that is true, as you could then walk a reservation in a different manner, but it would be harder to do, and not guaranteed.

However, I could call 1/1 to make a 7 day reservation at 12/1. (This was my concern, a one shot deal)

Perhaps I misunderstand the day to day notion that was mentioned, I took it to mean that if i wanted to go 12/1-12/8, I had to call 1/1 and book 12/1, call 1/2 to book 12/2. (In effect there was no way to guarantee a continuous reservation at the opening of the 11 month mark)

My thinking was, if someone has a room from 11/27 - 12/4 that room can not be used for a reservation on 1/1 for 12/1-12/8 (this is how walking works). So come to the point where the walking reservation is 11/30-12/7, the walker must then get 12/8 on 1/1 on line at 8 am with the rest of the world, hence the walk is not guaranteed.

Currently, that room is blocked, and can not be booked for 12/8, so as long as the walker calls MS by 1/7 the room is blocked and walkable.

So yes, it would be a day to day booking system to block walkers should people want to, which would hopefully diminish the frequency. But you can still book a week at a time at 11 months.

Currently, walking at your home resort is fool proof should someone desire to do it. If you make its effectiveness questionable, then it's frequency might diminish greatly, that was the idea behind the thought.

 

[maburke]

I see your point, and yes, I suppose that is true, as you could then walk a reservation in a different manner, but it would be harder to do, and not guaranteed.

However, I could call 1/1 to make a 7 day reservation at 12/1. (This was my concern, a one shot deal)

Perhaps I misunderstand the day to day notion that was mentioned, I took it to mean that if i wanted to go 12/1-12/8, I had to call 1/1 and book 12/1, call 1/2 to book 12/2. (In effect there was no way to guarantee a continuous reservation at the opening of the 11 month mark)

My thinking was, if someone has a room from 11/27 - 12/4 that room can not be used for a reservation on 1/1 for 12/1-12/8 (this is how walking works). So come to the point where the walking reservation is 11/30-12/7, the walker must then get 12/8 on 1/1 on line at 8 am with the rest of the world, hence the walk is not guaranteed.

Currently, that room is blocked, and can not be booked for 12/8, so as long as the walker calls MS by 1/7 the room is blocked and walkable.

So yes, it would be a day to day booking system to block walkers should people want to, which would hopefully diminish the frequency. But you can still book a week at a time at 11 months.

Currently, walking at your home resort is fool proof should someone desire to do it. If you make its effectiveness questionable, then it's frequency might diminish greatly, that was the idea behind the thought.

I really think what you're describing is just day-by-day at 11 months, 7 days. Yes, you can book 7 days at 11 months out, but if it's a tough reservation, people will have been booking it day-by-day for 7 days at that point.

I actually hate walking, and am one of the minority here that thinks it is unethical to book a room that you have no intention of using. But the current system is still better than day-by-day.

 

[jerseyduke]

I really think what you're describing is just day-by-day at 11 months, 7 days. Yes, you can book 7 days at 11 months out, but if it's a tough reservation, people will have been booking it day-by-day for 7 days at that point.

I actually hate walking, and am one of the minority here that thinks it is unethical to book a room that you have no intention of using. But the current system is still better than day-by-day.

Yes, I get what you are saying. I was just looking at it from a totally different angle! But it would indeed amount to a day by day system, which would be horrid

 

[Dean]

Yes, I get what you are saying. I was just looking at it from a totally different angle! But it would indeed amount to a day by day system, which would be horrid

It could also be outside of the POS allowance depending on how it might be implemented.

 

[jerseyduke]

It could also be outside of the POS allowance depending on how it might be implemented.

Also true. Guess it really is not worth the effort of a solution.

However, IF Disney has good IT, they should be able to track reservation walking and maybe reallocate points to mitigate it as well. Then again, I do not know how much a reallocation affects things. I want to go when I want to go, so it would not change my behavior, but I do not know about others.

 

[Dean]

Also true. Guess it really is not worth the effort of a solution.

However, IF Disney has good IT, they should be able to track reservation walking and maybe reallocate points to mitigate it as well. Then again, I do not know how much a reallocation affects things. I want to go when I want to go, so it would not change my behavior, but I do not know about others.

I remain of the opinion that it is a problem and it should be fixed and that there's a good chance they will address it eventually. I also believe that trying to fix it but allow people to do make changes some for free will not be effective and will cause more problems than it helps. IMO the only ways to fix it are to make ALL changes a cancelation and rebooking plus the possibility of change fees. But I do think they could reasonably allow up to 14 days to be reserved at one time rather than 7. Still, there's no way to fix every situation, nothing will ever be perfect and the current system is better than the original day by day option.

 

[skier_pete]

Still, there's no way to fix every situation, nothing will ever be perfect and the current system is better than the original day by day option.

This is my biggest concern. Some of the ideas to fix the problem would actually make the process worse for many people. For instance that idea of requiring every change to be a cancel and rebook would probably stop the walkers, but would also force the rest of us to lose our reservations when we need to cut short our trip by a day. Instead, people would learn instead of booking for a week, they would book multiple 1 or 2 day stays, that could then be cancelled and would be easier to waitlist if they were lost. That's why I prefer the idea that you either allow a limited # of changes to a reservation before needing to cancel. Or after a certain # of changes start charging a fee. It would at least discourage unnecessary walking.

I continue to argue that walking is only necessary for a miniscule % of reservations, and therefore it's less of a problem then the people around here think.

 

[rfc0001]

There's no workable "fix" here IMO -- even if you didn't allow changes, people could just make separate reservations for each additional day, then cancel the days they don't need. It all comes down to cost (effort) and benefit. Booking is hard enough at 7 months as it is with people booking 7 days out, it would be madness if they moved to a system where you could only book 1 day at a time (which effectively is the same thing as walking, just everyone would be forced to do it). There is some upside to walking too -- it results in a lot of fluxuation in availability, allowing waitlists to fill if you miss the 7 month window exactly at 8AM. I've had many waitlists subsequently fill in the week after the 7 month window.

 

[jerseyduke]

There's no workable "fix" here IMO -- even if you didn't allow changes, people could just make separate reservations for each additional day, then cancel the days they don't need. It all comes down to cost (effort) and benefit. Booking is hard enough at 7 months as it is with people booking 7 days out, it would be madness if they moved to a system where you could only book 1 day at a time (which effectively is the same thing as walking, just everyone would be forced to do it). There is some upside to walking too -- it results in a lot of fluxuation in availability, allowing waitlists to fill if you miss the 7 month window exactly at 8AM. I've had many waitlists subsequently fill in the week after the 7 month window.

Walking does not really apply to 7 month reservations. You can only walk to prevent other 7 month people. Anyone who has that resort has their home can come in and steal your thunder.

If there was no walking, those rooms you refer to would have been available from the beginning.

Also, many wait list requests get filled right around the 7 month mark, because that is when people switch resorts. (eg. you WL boardward. at 7 months a person with your dates from boardwalk gets Bay lake, so he switches, boardwalk opens...not because of walking)

 

[Dean]

This is my biggest concern. Some of the ideas to fix the problem would actually make the process worse for many people. For instance that idea of requiring every change to be a cancel and rebook would probably stop the walkers, but would also force the rest of us to lose our reservations when we need to cut short our trip by a day. Instead, people would learn instead of booking for a week, they would book multiple 1 or 2 day stays, that could then be cancelled and would be easier to waitlist if they were lost. That's why I prefer the idea that you either allow a limited # of changes to a reservation before needing to cancel. Or after a certain # of changes start charging a fee. It would at least discourage unnecessary walking.

I continue to argue that walking is only necessary for a miniscule % of reservations, and therefore it's less of a problem then the people around here think.

IMO there are 3 areas of concern with Walking. It ties up rooms that the member doesn't intend to use, it creates more work for MS and therefore more costs and it only applies to a given situation. The best fix is to make all changes a cancelation and rebooking. With online reservations this won't fix it totally unless they match against the wait list first. While it's true someone will get those rooms, it's often not going to be the one who should have been next in line.

 

[jerseyduke]

IMO there are 3 areas of concern with Walking. It ties up rooms that the member doesn't intend to use, it creates more work for MS and therefore more costs and it only applies to a given situation. The best fix is to make all changes a cancelation and rebooking. With online reservations this won't fix it totally unless they match against the wait list first. While it's true someone will get those rooms, it's often not going to be the one who should have been next in line.

Until people with legitimate changes lose their reservations. IMHO, a system where a person wanting to add or delete a night can lose their entire reservation is a lot worse than a system in which walking occurs.

I sure would not want to be the cast member who would have to explain that when it happens. Although i am sure it would improve my expletives vocabulary.

"Family of 8 with airfare paid for loses entire reservation at Disney World because they wanted to add a night" is not a good headline (and not just because it is too long to be a headline)

 

[Dean]

Until people with legitimate changes lose their reservations. IMHO, a system where a person wanting to add or delete a night can lose their entire reservation is a lot worse than a system in which walking occurs.

I sure would not want to be the cast member who would have to explain that when it happens. Although i am sure it would improve my expletives vocabulary.

"Family of 8 with airfare paid for loses entire reservation at Disney World because they wanted to add a night" is not a good headline (and not just because it is too long to be a headline)

That's just it, in my view there are no legitimate changes that should allow you to hold what you have and make changes without risking losing it. You take your chances if you change. The purpose would be specifically to put you at risk so that if there was a wait list you would lose those days, to keep people from holding thing they don't intend to use and to reduce the number of calls to MS. This is the way timeshares work and the way DVC works in almost all other situations.

 

[hayesdvc]

Just to make sure I am not missing anything. Is there any reason to walk a reservation if many days in the time frame you are attempting to walk to is already not available ?

 

[Dean]

Just to make sure I am not missing anything. Is there any reason to walk a reservation if many days in the time frame you are attempting to walk to is already not available ?

Sure, it'll improve your chances. Those days not available may open up due to others walking. Even getting one or 2 days is a head start and improves once chances of success later including using the wait list options.