Leverage: anyone considering SSR purchase:

[lenshanem]

You are right crisi. (Wow, what an incredible memory!) My oldest is also allergic to peanuts and we have to keep EpiPens with us at all times. We also have some new issues we are dealing with right now, too. And I have encountered your scenario many times. I guess what makes me so angry about all of this is that I'm being accused of being some kind of uncompassionate person. Like I said I'm totally understanding of anyone who has special needs (even from a personal aspect), no matter what they may be.
If I knew when I booked no nonsmoking or no studios with tubs were available I would pick another resort or dates. That actually frees up more room for those that don't care. I don't understand why that makes me terrible. I am thankful my children aren't in wheelchairs, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also like a tub to bathe them in on a long vacation. (Despite the fact my youngest who has tubes would be screaming bloody murder if I stuck her in the shower, but that is another story. Why she does that, I don't know!) It is not meant as an insult and I really resent anyone accusing me of that. I hope that makes sense cause I'm spending too much time on the computer.

 

[Sammie]

I'm not sure whether you work for DISboards or Disney itself. If you are a DISboards cast member, it doesn't matter much what either you or I think. As you point out, what matters is the opinion of the decision-makers, and neither you nor I are in that category at DVC.

If you work for Disney, however, the "We don't care. I don't care." attitude is precisely the reason people need to go over the head of the Orlando folks - IF they have a real, actual experience (not hypothetical) which fails to meet their standards. If the line operational Disney people don't care (and I've NEVER seen that attitude expressed in all my visits to WDW), then you really do need to tell Burbank about it -- not wail about it on the DISboards. That was the crux of my previous post.

With regard to the current system, I'm fine with it too. But I don't have a special needs child, or a serious medical issue. The real world is that you and I are extremely fortunate. Many people do have those issues, and they are not trivial issues.

Also, I run a business and I know that no matter what system you have for anything, there is always room for improvement. That's how companies get better, and bigger, and more profitable. That is one of the secrets of the Disney story - they never stop trying to get better. The day you are content to rest on your laurels is the day the business starts going downhill.

I don't work with the Disney reservation/room assignment system every day, and therefore, I don't know technically how the system could be improved. But a lot of talented Disney CM's do. I'd be willing to bet that if it became important to Disney corporate offices, some bright CM would come up with an improvement to meet the kinds of needs that have been discussed here. If they can do the things they do at WDW, I have every confidence they can solve a simple ressie system issue. We're talking about tinkering around the margins of the already workable system, not throwing the whole thing out.

And rest assured, they'll solve it without adding costs - they don't have enough price elasticity to go passing additional costs on to their customers, either DVC or cash customers. That silly idea has been the ruination of more businesses in the last few years than just about any other misguided notion - you just can't pass increased costs on to customers, the marketplace simply will not tolerate it. Orlando is one of the most competitive markets in the world, and every time they raise costs to anyone one penny, business goes elsewhere, stays get shortened, etc. People have a certain amount of money to spend on vacation, and if they have to spend more on lodging, that's just a little less they'll spend on trinkets or in the theme parks - so Disney will make improvements without raising costs.

I have a lot more confidence in Disney than some on these boards. They are very good at what they do, and I am confident they can fix anything, provided the decision-makers are aware that there is an opportunity for improvement.

I assure Deb & Bill speak for themselves only. They do not represent these forums or certainly not Disney.

However I can assure you Disney has read this thread, as it does many on Internet forums. And they do care.

But basically it comes down to you can please all the of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all the people all of the time.

 

[MiaSRN62]

TCPluto states:

If you don't understand how your vociferous bashing of the H/A rooms can make a handicapped person feel, I doubt I can enlighten you. The message you send about how awful it is for you and your family, can, and is (often), interpreted differerently by those with disabilities.

I'm most certainly not trying to take sides, but I honestly don't see how Shan, or anyone else for that matter, has bashed or insulted anyone with disabilities in any of her posts ? I've read through the entire thread over a span of a few days. I went back and found this post from Shan :

About the tub... We don't HAVE to have one, but it would be nice. I bathe my kids at home, don't use the shower. (My youngest has tubes and gets kinda freaked out.) I never knew when I joined DVC that this would even be a concern. Personally, I've never had to deal with such a concern in all my past travels. I've always had a tub in my rooms without asking. I think it would be correct for DVC to mention this when you join. I think wanting a tub in your room is a reasonable want, I don't understand the logic of it being bad of me to want one. I'm not trying to be rude to others.

I see it as, a HA room just doesn't work for her family and their needs ? How is this bashing ? Her kids are used to a certain routine and she simply wants to be able to accomodate the needs of her family on her vacation ? Young kids really need and expect a routine. I know when I traveled with my three kids when they were younger we had to bow to their needs (meal times, naps, pool breaks etc) more so then than I do now that they're older if we wanted to have a pleasent vacation experience. I see it as a legitimate expectation of Shan and many others. Nowhere in any of the DVC videos, literature, pictures, tours are any of us shown a HA room and explained that we might have a 25% chance (or whatever) of getting one. Maybe some people would have decided differently about purchasing had this been devulged ? I toured DVC twice over a period of 4 years and it was never mentioned we might get a HA room ? I just don't see why some people here are being made to feel guilty for no good reason. TCPluto, with due respect, if you are being insulted by some peoples' desire to accomodate their families needs, I am certain the statements were no where near intended that way ? I'm just not seeing any bashing or insulting of people with disabilities here in regards to the HA rooms ? Just as I don't mean to insult smokers when I say I desire a NS room and become physically ill if I have to stay in a room where smoking was evident ? No bashing.....not putting down anyone's lifestyle.....just a reasonable expectation of getting a NS room since this is our lifestyle and routine ? Hope this post doesn't insult anyone---it's not meant to---just wanted to say that I feel these are reasonable requests by Members. If there is insulting or bashing made against those with disabilities, I feel it's going to have to be quoted here for me to see it because I don't ? What I do see, is a few people being made to feel guilty or selfish for making certain requests based on legit reasons

 

[sjdisneywedding]

I changed my mind, I dont think these requests should be guarenteed at 11 months. they should be guarenteed at any point.

Why they can't do this(or won't).

- Unused rooms are sold to the general public.
- Check in can be any day of the week.

Ex. All rooms booked on Thursday for 1 week except two rooms, one smoking, one non-smoking.

Sam from San Diego checks in next day on Friday, wants non-smoking, for 6 days, paying cash(at $250 per night). You are going to check in on Sunday, wanting non-smoking, having booked 11 months ago.

Does the hotel:

A) Not let Sam check in
B) Tell Sam take the smoking or go find another room
C) Give Sam the non-smoking room

Hmm, let me think.....Hey, must be "C" since Disney shareholders are going to wonder why they are turning down $1500.

The goal of Disney/DVC is to maximize room usage. Why do you think they have AP rates, because they like AP'ers, no, they want those rooms filled. Until the buildings go completely non-smoking, there is a chance you will get non-smoking.

WHAT! this is another issue. so its ok that the dvc'er can be moved into the smoking room when he or she booked 11 months ago, but not the cash guest who is walking up checking in that day. Are you kidding me?

clearly the answer should be B: With guarenteed requests met, there wouldnt even be this situation, because there would be EXACTLY 1 room available, since the non smoking room is already booked by the dvc member

This happens everywhere, you walk up, ask for room availability and they simply tell you what they have left. If its a smoking room then ohh well, you are the one who waited until the last minute to check in.

its amazing to think that the dvc member actually could get less priviledges at a dvc resort than a non member.

 

[SoCalKDG]

If I knew when I booked no nonsmoking or no studios with tubs were available I would pick another resort or dates.

OK, tons of pages, most stating the same thing. Lets go off the assumption that they can't make a guarentee(which I believe is the case, for completely financial reasons, which is what share-holders would appreciate). Even if you don't agree, stay with me here anyways.

What is some advice for people that get a smoking room or HA room?

For a HA room, what can be done? Can suitcases be stacked and used as a table? Other places to store stuff? How about adjusting the shower so water doesn't flood the place? Child proofing?

If you get a smoking room, what can be done? Can you request a shampooing of the carpet? Does Fabreze work(my sister quit smoking and she says it works wonderfully)? Does the $25 to switch rooms allow you to switch resorts as well if the resort is full?

 

[lllovell]

I am one that doesn't understand WHY once X number of non-smoking rooms are gone, you aren't told. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me and if there are SOOOO many smoking rooms that this is a constant problem, then maybe there are more smoking rooms than actual smokers? Perhaps this is something DVC needs to look into as well. A survery of the membership. How many of you smoke? How many want a smoking room? Then see what percentages are actually needed and change accordingly.

As for shareholders - there aren't any! We are the shareholders for DVC. I don't see how it would cost me any money if I could be guaranteed a non-smoking room at booking time. I think we should have first rights over cash payers as well. They subsidize the maintenance and cash balances for OUR benefit, not the other way around!

 

[MiaSRN62]

its amazing to think that the dvc member actually could get less priviledges at a dvc resort than a non member.

sjdisneywedding,
I've seen this at my Vistana timeshare also. I think alot of times, they feel they've already "reeled" you in as a member/owner and then start to go out of their way to please the "cash guest" who they hope will decide to buy in once they see what wonderful accomodations they have. RCI exchangers at Vistana are usually assigned the older sections of the resort. You'd have to know Vistana to fully understand what I'm saying but let's just say this. The resort is made up of 9 different sections. Some were built in 1980 (and some even prior to that) and the refurbishment has not quite kept up with the 21st century Other sections are newer and very beautiful. I swear they save these sections for the cash customers (and of course those that own that section). But in Nov '99 we decided to add an extra night on to our "owned" 7 nights at Vistana. I own in the middle of the road section---called the Fountains. I'm very satisfied with this section. But go figure, when we as owners went to add on a night, they put us in one of the older sections. I called management to complain that at the very least we should have gotten a villa in the section we own ? It ticked me off enough, that it pushed my dh and myself to finally make the decision to purchase DVC. Now, when we want more night in FL, DVC gets our business, not Vistana. It's amazing how sometimes just one experience can make or break a person's decision to buy or not buy because we had been thinking of purchasing more time at Vistana. But they lost our respect that one day in '99 and how they treated us. I knew for a fact that there were plenty of vacancies at the resort.
I did eventually get a refund for that night, though I didn't ask for it. Upper management obviously agreed with me. It wasn't the money I wanted back, but rather to be treated a little better as an owner vs how cash customers would be treated. I'm sure a cash customer coming in after me got a better room than I did. I just feel owners deserve that tiny bit extra for their loyalty---and I'll bet there are some here who would disagree and that's fine with me. But my point was, once you sign that dotted line and they have your money, they move on to the next person and try to get them to buy. Don't get me wrong......I'm very happy with both my DVC and Vistana ownerships, but I'm just stating how I see things and what my experiences have been over the years.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

sjdisneywedding,
I've seen this at my Vistana timeshare also. I think alot of times, they feel they've already "reeled" you in as a member/owner and then start to go out of their way to please the "cash guest" who they hope will decide to buy in once they see what wonderful accomodations they have. RCI exchangers at Vistana are usually assigned the older sections of the resort. You'd have to know Vistana to fully understand what I'm saying but let's just say this. The resort is made up of 9 different sections. Some were built in 1980 (and some even prior to that) and the refurbishment has not quite kept up with the 21st century Other sections are newer and very beautiful. I swear they save these sections for the cash customers (and of course those that own that section). But in Nov '99 we decided to add an extra night on to our "owned" 7 nights at Vistana. I own in the middle of the road section---called the Fountains. I'm very satisfied with this section. But go figure, when we as owners went to add on a night, they put us in one of the older sections. I called management to complain that at the very least we should have gotten a villa in the section we own ? It ticked me off enough, that it pushed my dh and myself to finally make the decision to purchase DVC. Now, when we want more night in FL, DVC gets our business, not Vistana. It's amazing how sometimes just one experience can make or break a person's decision to buy or not buy because we had been thinking of purchasing more time at Vistana. But they lost our respect that one day in '99 and how they treated us. I knew for a fact that there were plenty of vacancies at the resort.
I did eventually get a refund for that night, though I didn't ask for it. Upper management obviously agreed with me. It wasn't the money I wanted back, but rather to be treated a little better as an owner vs how cash customers would be treated. I'm sure a cash customer coming in after me got a better room than I did. I just feel owners deserve that tiny bit extra for their loyalty---and I'll bet there are some here who would disagree and that's fine with me. But my point was, once you sign that dotted line and they have your money, they move on to the next person and try to get them to buy. Don't get me wrong......I'm very happy with both my DVC and Vistana ownerships, but I'm just stating how I see things and what my experiences have been over the years.

i hear ya, I agree with that theory. its a shame though. I just wish maybe they could say to the cash customer "well we only have x, y, z left for a room, but if you were a member you would get first choice at a, b, c, d, e, ....AND/OR x, y, z. probably never happen i guess

its sorta funny, in a weird way, think they would ever tell the cash guest "enjoy it now because once you join you'll never see the new rooms again" or in dvc's case "enjoy the ns room now because you will never be able to guarentee one again if you are a member"

 

[tjkraz]

I am one that doesn't understand WHY once X number of non-smoking rooms are gone, you aren't told.

Right now, because DVC does not Smoking/NS requests in any method that relates to room inventory.

Doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me and if there are SOOOO many smoking rooms that this is a constant problem, then maybe there are more smoking rooms than actual smokers? Perhaps this is something DVC needs to look into as well. A survery of the membership. How many of you smoke? How many want a smoking room? Then see what percentages are actually needed and change accordingly.

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm going to anyway.

Where do you get this idea that this is a "constant problem"? I understand that there are scattered reports in here of non-smokers being assigned to smoking rooms. I also understand the rationale behind those who advocate guaranteeing room requests.

But what I don't see is any great outpouring of anger from folks who are constantly asked to endure smoking rooms when they want NS.

To me, it seems like little more than a mild annoyance that some folks believe could be eliminated altogether. And, no, I'm not trying to trivialize those who have a medical need for a NS room. All I'm saying is that the reports of folks being denied NS rooms when requested seems to be rather low. DVC and the resorts have pleanty of data to use to alter the inventory to meet demand.

And, it's not impossible to change a room's class from Smoking to Non-Smoking, particularly given the regular rehab schedule that DVC resorts maintain.

As for shareholders - there aren't any! We are the shareholders for DVC. I don't see how it would cost me any money if I could be guaranteed a non-smoking room at booking time. I think we should have first rights over cash payers as well. They subsidize the maintenance and cash balances for OUR benefit, not the other way around!

True, to an extent. Remember DVC has two masters to serve: DVC membership and The Walt Disney Company. The reality is we only have a minor say in how things are run at DVC. One of the few remedies available for dissatisfaction with DVC would be to replace DVC with another timeshare management company. Not really a practical solution.

Regarding the cost to members take a look at some of the items I listed in post #102. We could debate the fine print 'til the cows come home, but I hope we can at least agree that this proposed change isn't necessarily the slam dunk, no-cost, positive benefit some think it might be.

Certainly not the least of DVC's concerns would be blowback from the "this isn't what I bought" crowd...a valid line of thinking that should not be trivialized. For example, I'm sure some people bought into DVC knowing that they only book vacations on 2-3 months' notice. As it stands now, those people have the same 80-90% (whatever the number may be) of gettting their non-smoking request as someone who booked 6 months prior. Under a guaranteed request system, people booking on short notice may have a ZERO chance of getting NS. Factor in the reality that some of these people who are forced to book on short notice may have medical needs for a NS room, and you've got a pretty irate population of members on your hands.

 

[crisi]

Of course, just to play devils advocate, most members bought under the old "rooms assigned according to reservation date" system, so the blowback may be less than expected.

The point remains: "someone" is going to be staying in those rooms, and at least sometimes "someone" who would prefer (and occationally someone who requires) a different room. The big question is one of "how should they allocate?" The next question is "what are the negative effects of that allocation system?" As has been said, changing reservation systems is not free. Giving the "least desireable" rooms to CRO probably will include an increase in the number of points required to use non-DVC options. Every option has an upside and a downside.

 

[lllovell]

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm going to anyway.

I can take it

Where do you get this idea that this is a "constant problem"? I understand that there are scattered reports in here of non-smokers being assigned to smoking rooms. I also understand the rationale behind those who advocate guaranteeing room requests.

It seems to me like it is a constant problem when the resorts are full or at capacity (which ever way you want to say it...since X number of rooms are out of commission all the time). I have wondered many times this year (and it has been discussed at different times) if this is all just a blip still from the bad hurricane filled fall. Many people had their vacations cancelled or pushed back and it has made the normally "slower" winter months see a big influx of people. I don't know if these slower months are used for more rehab or not, but I would think more could be done if the resorts were usually 1/2 empty or less. (But then again, on that line of thinking, September is a very slow month as well....so just how many vacations were pushed back to begin with). All speculation on my part.

Right now, because DVC does not Smoking/NS requests in any method that relates to room inventory.

Agreed. What I meant to say was I don't really understand why they don't use a better system.

Certainly not the least of DVC's concerns would be blowback from the "this isn't what I bought" crowd...a valid line of thinking that should not be trivialized. For example, I'm sure some people bought into DVC knowing that they only book vacations on 2-3 months' notice. As it stands now, those people have the same 80-90% (whatever the number may be) of gettting their non-smoking request as someone who booked 6 months prior. Under a guaranteed request system, people booking on short notice may have a ZERO chance of getting NS. Factor in the reality that some of these people who are forced to book on short notice may have medical needs for a NS room, and you've got a pretty irate population of members on your hands.

I don't have any real answers here except that this is the same arguement only flipped from people that find themselves in a handicapped room and never were shown one or that they get a smoking room even though there was no mention that it would be a possibility when they purchased. Nothing is stopping them from booking 2-3 month's, it is simply about personal preferences for most of us and if you knew at that time what was available and could make a decision, then I don't see this being a problem. (What happens when there are no HA rooms left and a HA needs person tries to make a ressie? I am sure it has happened before, but not often since those rooms are only filled when the others are booked.) The "everything is a request" line from DVC seems to pretty much cover their butts either way you go. If you were trying to book a vacation 2-3 months out during a busy time, you might have problems no matter what kind of requests you have because of the limited number of rooms of particular size and configuration. I am not sure that I see a "limited number of NS guarantee" rooms as any different than the current configs.

 

[ColoradoBelle1]

Hi MIASN (Maria)
Yours was a very nice post. It is refreshing to see someone is respective of other people's opinions and who tries to bring two 'sides' closer together. Your post will have a wonderful effect on sincere, caring, honest folks (and that encompasses MOST of the posters here.)

Unfortunately, there are still people who care little for the subject of the thread or the legitimate postings that follow. Intead, their purpose for posting is to attack the character of other posters. I beleive that we all agreed when we registered to NOT do that. Perhaps these people have no idea that instead of posting a differing opinion...which they have every right to do, that they are instead attacking others for having an opinion different from their own....and then of course, when called into account, simply going into denial and then attacking the character of the other person. I suspect this is the only way these people know how to communicate...but it creates a climate of hurt and hostility and I really don't appreciate it on a thread that I started in order to gather information.

In non-Disney day to day life of interpersonal relationships, people who aren't accountable for what they've said, people who can rarely say I'm sorry and if they do, it is "I'm sorry BUT, people who, when they feel threatened, emotionally overwhelmed, afraid, tend to lash out, then try to turn the attention away from what they said by attacking and hoping that everyone else will get so involved in the new attack that they will forget. While I realize that these people are often in great pain, their inabilty to show compassion and respect for others (unless they get 'caught' and are held accountable) makes me mad because I don't think that what they do is unconscious. I think it is a conscious attempt to provoke, to manipulate, to gain power and control by taking a one-up position.
Sometimes they aren't very good at what they do,yet they still have the power to hurt others.

This thread was started by my intent to take a proactive approach to communicating, to DIsney, that there is a large segment of DVC owners who might be better served if the current reservation system was amended in a fair and equitable way. It is always better to request that a business look at something like this by trying to approach the request with a win/win format.
Jim MIA added to my initial idea that I, as a prospective DVC owner at SSR, approach the DVC marketing guides, by his suggesting that any posters who had real, unsatisfactory experiences contacting upper level management in Burbank.

While anyone can peruse this thread, the subject matter was clear from the first post. A large number of Disboard posters have shared their specific concerns and experiences here. I believe that they did so to take part in findingthey a positive approach to ask Disney to address some need-based concerns.

But then, a strange thing happened. Some people took offense that there were actually people expressing needs that were very dissimilar to their own needs. They posted on this thread to say that they didn't feel there was any need for changing the current system which worked fine for them. Which was initially an ok thing to do...and I appreciated it. But then....a few of these posters continued by saying that since their needs were already being met that they didn't like the idea that others might rock the boat. THAT is when the thread started to change. And the disrespect shown by these few was in telling other people that they had NO RIGHT to have their own feelings or opinions about the subject of this thread. Worse, some of these people then attacked not the opinion but the character of the people who held the differing opinion.
AND THAT is when these people should have been told, very politely, that certain behaviors that aren't respectful aren't allowed here on the disboard.

As it often goes, when a couple of these posters were called on their posting, they went into denial and tried to backtrack on accountability..."I didn't say that, I didn't mean it that way. Next came the strategy that "If I attack, then maybe someone else will go on the defensive". So: "how dare you say I said something that hurt you. How INSENSITIVE you are, how selfish of you".....Sadly, this twisting often works so of course, these people learn to use it again and again.

The real problem with this poor communication strategy is that it deflects the energy away from movement towards a proactive solution to the stated purpose of the thread. It can be surmised that the people who employ this strategy (sort of a divide and make defensive so as to conquer and control) do so for the purpose of feeling powerful that they sabotaged something that may have threatened them.

I understand that there are a few people who are afraid that should my concerns about the current reservation system be addressed that dues would go up....THat is actually a legitimate concern...probably for the majority of us. But instead of saying: hey I don't want fees to go up so lets try to find a solution that considers that fear also...it seems that instead these legitimate concerns were lost in an attempt to 'squelch the issue of amending a ressie system' by attacking the character of those who feel there is a need to modify the current ressie system.

ANd that is what affronts me and many others here: a few people are generalizing, manipulating and attacking characters as opposed to dealing with substance.
ExampLe of a proactive way to state your dissenting opinion without attacking character: I'm concerned that if the ressie system is changed, then our dues will go up. I respect your concerns about health hazards and feel they should be addressed. I don't think that the concerns about views or bathtubs warrant a change in the system however. PERIOD....you make your point and stop short of criticizing the CHARACTER of someone. And if people like TCPluto don't GET IT...that that is what he is doing, then he really needs to stop posting on this thread. NO ONE gets to attack another's character or belief.

Deb and BIll: I'm not calling you out. Nor am I lumping you into the 'few people' above. Instead, I'm using your last post as a good example insofar as you said: "we don't have these needs or concerns and we don't care about those who do" (I didn't read this as you being uncompassionate about people with special need, just that you felt that the ressie system met your needs and so had no reason to care about the outcome of others asking DIsney to rethink the system). ...Had you added something derogatory about people having an opinion different than yours, had you implied that they were exaggerating their needs or attacked their intelligence or honesty or integrity in some way...then that would have been disrespectful and inappropriate.
I'd like to say to Deb and BIll, thank you for your opinions on the subject. I respect that you are fine with the current ressie system and that there are probably 1000's more people who feel the same way as you.

But now I would like to continue to hear from people who have had problems with the system and would like to see some changes made...because that was the intent of mythread...to find out who might like to see some changes to improve (in our opinion only) the current one.

TCPluto:in response to your comments to me personally: My daughter is an adult, 24, and a licensed therapist. I asked her to read this thread ...your posts specifically..and to tell me her opinion as to your need to attack others rather than simply and more effectively stating your own opinion. I am glad that you posted that you FEELsorry for my family. Because it was her opinion as a therapist that you might have difficulty in feeling your own feelings and that therefore you have even more difficulty in empathizing with the feelings and needs of others so instead, when confronted, you tend to regress into attack mode. You can certainly feel sorry for my family...I appreciate it. My daughter read your post and laughed.

Finally, what works best in situations that have degraded to the level of paralysis of any forward motion is to ignore the posts of the people who are trying to create the state of paralysis to serve their need for control. This thread was intended to hear the opinions of people who feel that the currect ressie system could be amended in a way that would better serve more needs. I appreciate everyone who posted what their needs were relative to room reservations. I appreciate the posters who gave concrete and fair recollections of experiences that they had with front desk CMs honoring or not honoring requests. I appreciate the posters who made positive suggestions as to how Disney might be approached regarding a request to look at the current system. I appreciate those who gave me, a newbie, some helpful hints as to how I might best accommodate the needs of my family re getting a room that I needed and wanted under the current reservation system.

To those who believe that nothing can be accomplished by researching, analyzing, preparing a cogent request to upper management, please don't feel that you have to take part in this thread. Use your time and energy to better purpose for you.

To those who are frustrated and say that change isn't likely to happen so why bother...You are entitled to feel that way. I tend to disagree, and even tho I might not change anything, I am compelled to try.

To those who felt attacked and villified by some few posters on this thread: I am sorry. Please consider the source of the attack and know that you yourself have done nothing to deserve the attack. Let it roll off your shoulders. Attackers usually HOPE that you will become sensitive and defensive....that is the only way they can feel any control or power. Don't let them cause you to waste energy in defending what never needed defending in the first place.

To those of you who had or have upcoming difficulty in having your health requests or necessities unmet, feel free to IM me (if you are hesitant to post here) with the particulars and I when I contact DIsney I will convey your particular experiences as best I can.

If you do, in the future, have a difficulty with having NEEDS met in your room assignment, you might want to try the following:
1. Try not to let the level of your voice rise when speaking to the CM.
2. Slow down your speech just a tad.
(Science has shown that these two 'softer tone and speed ' things tend to create a climate conducive to negotiation and trust.It really works!
3. Try to engage the cm in a 'we' effort....."I'm sorry that I can't use this assigned room because of my medical need. What can WE do to resolve this problem? or how can I help you to resolve this problem.'
4. If the CM gets defensive, he may, like some of the posters on this very thread!!! go on the attack route....Remember the power of: I'm sorry you feel this way...or I'm sorry you feel that I'm creating a problem, but how can we work towardsa solution.
5. As JIm MIA said: rarely does threatening or attacking work. But think of Gandhi and passive resistance to being offered a room that doesn't meet your NEEDS (and everyone here has already agreed that a want for a view isn't what we are talking about on this thread). Offer creative options: well, it's late and I would rather not try to get a nonsmoking motel room outside of DISney for tonight...hmmm are there any one bedroom units that are nonsmoking that are available tonight since you are sold out of nonsmoking studios? How many points extra would it take for me to take that one bedroom unit that is otherwise sitting empty? Or would it be more appropriate to pay a $25 cleaning fee when you move me to a nonsmoking studio tomorrow?
Or: Since I need a tub and this particular HA room doesn't offer one...do you have another HA room that has a disabled-approved tub instead of a wheel in shower? Could we use the tub only in another unoccupied unit (without actually occupying that unit...just using it for the tub?)

By being nice, by offering continuous solution focused alternatives...you will often HIT on something that the CM never thought of that is workable. And tho I don't like to think of it as 'manipulating' per se...you let the CM know that you will remain kind and thoughtful and respectful BUT that you will REMAIN until the problem is solved.

There really are fewer instances of COMPLETELY SOLD OUT of every unit in every resort, but it does happen. A more usual problem is that the CM feels caught in the middle. Upper management has told them to 'handle' issues but not given them the tools to do so. So many CMs feel that they can't offer you anything because they might get in troubleSo, sometimes you can say: I realize that you are in a difficult position here between upper management and customer...do you think it might be better to let them try to deal with resolving this?


Anyone who wants to continue to post here on this thread CAN, but I request that anyone who wants to post here to simply attack anyone else, start a new thread of his own.

Colorado Belle

 

[jarestel]

(And yep, jarestel, you are right, DVC does appear to pre-assign rooms at some resorts at some times, while doing "room ready" at some resorts at some times. It would be interesting to know if the HA/NS problem were indeed more of an issue under room ready - ancedotally from these boards, it seems to be. And logically that makes sense. Good luck in your contract fight with Disney's attorneys. I once had to "work with" Disney's legal department. They have really good lawyers that probably know exactly what passes legal muster for "substantially similar.").

I'm not fighting a deliberately vague and non-specific wording of a contract. Just pointing out that by leaving it so open to interpretation, only a judge COULD make a determination on its meaning. Not that that stops us here from attempting to. It's a standard trick of contract law.

 

[jarestel]

Hmmm, it sure sounds like requests are not guaranteed, then doesn't it?



Again, folks are putting words into my mouth. Please, again, show me WHERE I said that parents MUST subject their child to smoke? I have been saying, just as your product checklist states, that requests are noted but NOT guaranteed. I have not misquoted anyone, or assumed that they don't like children, or that their childrens health is not important. Nor have I flamed anyone on these threads...but I have been repeatedly subjected to it, including being blamed for someone elses post.

Not to be argumentative, but the phrase "special preferences" would seem to indicate preferences beyond what a reasonable and prudent person would expect, ie not a normal room. If 90% of a resort's rooms are non-HA, I think a reasonable and prudent person wouldn't expect to have to request to NOT get this special room type. Same with smoking rooms. If the majority of rooms are NS, a reasonable and prudent person could realistically expect not to have to request something that is not "of the norm".

By the way Chuck, I apologize for the not liking kids remark. I meant to go back and delete that, it was uncalled for.

Regards,
Joe

 

[tjkraz]

It seems to me like [non-smoker in a smoking room] is a constant problem when the resorts are full or at capacity...

In order for that to be true, one would have to assume that the number of smoking rooms is set too high for guest demand. My point is that I just don't see a lot of evidence to support that. Sure, the exact makeup of a resort's guest population will vary from one day to the next, but by-and-large, it appears that requests for Smoking / Non-Smoking accommodations are being fulfilled--even though they are only requests.

If a resort found that it had too many smoking rooms in its inventory, I hope that it would have switched an appropriate number of rooms to non-smoking. I think we would all agree that it's worth the cost of laundering the linens and shampooing the carpet and upholstery (or replacing, if necessary.)

I don't have any real answers here except that this is the same arguement only flipped from people that find themselves in a handicapped room and never were shown one or that they get a smoking room even though there was no mention that it would be a possibility when they purchased.

Well, regarding the HA rooms, that's pretty much governed by ADA guidelines.

You could probably argue that DVC wasn't exactly forthright in telling potential members that they might have to stay in a HA or Smoking-optional room, and I wouldn't dispute that claim. At least the paperwork doesn't say that. However, indiviudal Guides may have been a bit more forthcoming if the questions were posed.

Either way, I sincerely doubt DVC broke any laws in this regard.

Nothing is stopping them from booking 2-3 month's, it is simply about personal preferences for most of us and if you knew at that time what was available and could make a decision, then I don't see this being a problem.

(...snip...)

If you were trying to book a vacation 2-3 months out during a busy time, you might have problems no matter what kind of requests you have because of the limited number of rooms of particular size and configuration. I am not sure that I see a "limited number of NS guarantee" rooms as any different than the current configs.

Let me clarify. Let's say I call and book a room for March 5th. The resort has a room available. In my requests I specify that I need a non-smoking room for medical reasons. The fact that I booked on 5 days' notice has no bearing on the fact that I may NEED that room to be non-smoking.

With the proposed changes, the likelihood of getting a non-smoking, non-handicapped room on short notice is greatly reduced. Am I, calling on 5 days' notice, more worthy of a NS room than someone who booked 10 1/2 months ago and simply prefers a NS over S room? Some would say yes, some would say no.

In my other post (#102) I created a scenario where a person who NEEDS a handicapped-accessible room may not get ANY room simply because the able-bodied families who are guaranteed to be booked into the HA rooms do not think to waitlist for other accommodations.

Now, I'm not naive. I realize that some people would have the "too bad, I was here first" attitude--on which I am not passing judgement. There is validity to a first-come, first-served system. My point is simply to illustrate that there WILL be members opposed to (and inconvenienced by) the types of changes being discussed.

They say the "devil is in the details", and I think there are more than a few ugly byproducts to a change of this magnitude.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

For example, I'm sure some people bought into DVC knowing that they only book vacations on 2-3 months' notice. As it stands now, those people have the same 80-90% (whatever the number may be) of gettting their non-smoking request as someone who booked 6 months prior. Under a guaranteed request system, people booking on short notice may have a ZERO chance of getting NS. Factor in the reality that some of these people who are forced to book on short notice may have medical needs for a NS room, and you've got a pretty irate population of members on your hands.

I understand what you are saying and I agree there will always be those who are on the short end. But whats a better sysytem:

A) where someone who books 11 months in advance gets their their request over someone who books at 3 months. Thereby then allowing the 3 monther to evaluate other avenues at the time of reservation (different resort, different times) or just forget about their request for NS or non non HA and take their original choice of resort and time.

B) where someone who checks in earlier in the day gets their request met whether they booked 1 hr or 11 months in advance. or relying on this pre-assignment whoever that works

I think A provides even more flexibilty than currently and provides members a system that allows each individual to prioritize their needs.

I think B is just lacking in flexibility.

 

[jarestel]

Let me clarify. Let's say I call and book a room for March 5th. The resort has a room available. In my requests I specify that I need a non-smoking room for medical reasons. The fact that I booked on 5 days' notice has no bearing on the fact that I may NEED that room to be non-smoking.

With the proposed changes, the likelihood of getting a non-smoking, non-handicapped room on short notice is greatly reduced.

In my other post (#102) I created a scenario where a person who NEEDS a handicapped-accessible room may not get ANY room simply because the able-bodied families who are guaranteed to be booked into the HA rooms do not think to waitlist for other accommodations.

Now, I'm not naive. I realize that some people would have the "too bad, I was here first" attitude--on which I am not passing judgement. There is validity to a first-come, first-served system. My point is simply to illustrate that there WILL be members opposed to (and inconvenienced by) the types of changes being discussed.

They say the "devil is in the details", and I think there are more than a few ugly byproducts to a change of this magnitude.

Handicapped members aren't guaranteed rooms at sold out resorts today. If there are no rooms, there are no rooms. The point is if someone is told at the time they attempt to book, they can make other arrangements if necessary ( other dates, other resorts ). If the category of room you attempt to book at the last minute isn't available, you need to consider your other options.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

In my other post (#102) I created a scenario where a person who NEEDS a handicapped-accessible room may not get ANY room simply because the able-bodied families who are guaranteed to be booked into the HA rooms do not think to waitlist for other accommodations.
.

is there anything that mandates they keep a % of HA rooms available at any given time.

I mean the exact same thing can happen under current scenario. If I check in on wed for a week and they assign me the last HA room available for the coming week, then they cant take any last minute reservations for a HA room.

 

[SoCalKDG]

I understand what you are saying and I agree there will always be those who are on the short end. But whats a better sysytem:

A) where someone who books 11 months in advance gets their their request over someone who books at 3 months. Thereby then allowing the 3 monther to evaluate other avenues at the time of reservation (different resort, different times) or just forget about their request for NS or non non HA and take their original choice of resort and time.

B) where someone who checks in earlier in the day gets their request met whether they booked 1 hr or 11 months in advance.

I think A provides even more flexibilty than currently and provides members a system that allows each individual to prioritize their needs.

I think B is just lacking in flexibility.

I agree that if you both have the same checkin and checkout dates(must be both), then the earlier booker should get the prefered room.

What do you do when the 3 monther checks in 5 days earlier than you and is staying 9 days? And 5 days ago the only open room was a non-smoking? When a person is checking in days before you, then a new set of rules have to be used to maximize usage.

 

[lllovell]

In order for that to be true, one would have to assume that the number of smoking rooms is set too high for guest demand. My point is that I just don't see a lot of evidence to support that. Sure, the exact makeup of a resort's guest population will vary from one day to the next, but by-and-large, it appears that requests for Smoking / Non-Smoking accommodations are being fulfilled--even though they are only requests.

I am sure this is correct for most of the year. But the seasons when rooms are fully filled it seems to be an issue. What we are both discussing is only assumptions on our parts as we don't really know the make up of smoking/non-smoking rooms. (and I HAVE seem posts from a few smokers saying they could not get a room at times that WAS smoking).

Well, regarding the HA rooms, that's pretty much governed by ADA guidelines.

I agree 100% except that Disney has WAY more than the ADA required number of HA rooms - which is wonderful if/when they are needed. I am not sure how often they are truly occupied by HA needing guests (but, I would HATE to see someone that needs one not get one just like a non-smoking medical go unheeded.)

I realize that some people would have the "too bad, I was here first" attitude--on which I am not passing judgement. There is validity to a first-come, first-served system. My point is simply to illustrate that there WILL be members opposed to (and inconvenienced by) the types of changes being discussed.

My thoughts on this are such that if my family needs a studio that is non-smoking or HA and I am told one is not available, I either change my travel plans or I try at a different resort. Or maybe we just need a one bedroom and there are none available (forget the special requests at all). How is that any different for a person with a medical need? My needs aren't met, so I have to figure out how to change my plans to get them met. I don't think that they should be entitled to special needs bump of me because I called earlier than they did.

Also, I realize how room ready works and I am fine with it, but I am going to get squeezed one of these days because my family often drives down after work getting in REALLY late. Therefor, in many ways, I still see the system that is in place as first come first served because if Joe Blow checks in at noon and is offered 3 rooms that meet his requests, and then Susie Q at 2:30 and then John Q. at 4:00, all of them will probably get their needs met, but if the resort is full, I am SOL. I am trying to see the advantages of room ready and it appears to best effect the resorts getting more people in (which IS a big deal since cash does go into the kitty for our expenses). It is much better to use a system that allows all sorts of lengths of stay - it is very much part of why we bought in. BUT, the main thing I see happening is that people like myself (who used to get in late usually) are definately putting ourselves at more risk for getting our requests denied.

I am lucky enough to just get up early the next morning and by-pass this problem. Many here aren't so lucky.