Max Occupancy in DVC Resorts

[Deb & Bill]

WHile I didn't quite get to every single post on this thread I'm trying to figure out WHY the problem with extra in a one-bedroom? Using OKW as an example, book 2 studios would give me 780 sq. feet and official capacity for 8 people. A one-bedroom would give me 942 sq. feet, but 5 people is a problem? That doesn't make sense to me.

We bought in with the idea of always getting a 2-bedroom, but I must admit the thought of saving a few points and getting a one-bedroom while DD is under 3 is appealing. But it appears that would be inappropriate because I'd be stacking 'em like sardines, even though it would give me more room and better accomodations than 2 studios.

Is it the principle of it?

Most people think the amount of square feet in the space is what governs fire safety regulations. That really has nothing to do with it. What does govern is the number of exits and the corridor widths available for emergency egress. You have to be able to get the number of people out who can actually fit in these spaces at one time. Think about the night clubs and dining facilities that have had fires in the past and the reasons for it. Usually they had locked exits that no one could use, so they were trapped trying to escape. The National Fire Protection Association has created standards for stairwells, door widths, etc. that communities, hotels, schools, must take into consideration to make sure people are safe when they are in those spaces.

And DVC only puts sleeping spaces for four in a one bedroom, so they only sleep four.

 

[Doctor P]

WHile I didn't quite get to every single post on this thread I'm trying to figure out WHY the problem with extra in a one-bedroom?

It's a matter of a contract that you and I signed. We signed for an occupancy limit of 4 people in a 1 BR (with no special allowance for a child under 3, either). When I sign a real estate contract, I expect the provisions to be enforced and will abide by the provisions myself. Others apparently disagree and don't seem to think that contracts mean anything. That concerns me because if this provision is relaxed there is nothing saying that any or all of the other provisions that you and I depend on for our membership might not also be relaxed or not adhered to. So, yeah, it's principle, but it's also a whole lot more.

 

[squirrlygirl]

So does reserving day-by-day also receive the same disapproval by the same people because it's a way to circumvent the booking 11 or 7 months from checkout day rule?

 

[Deb & Bill]

So does waitlisting day-by-day also receive the same disapproval by the same people because it's a way to circumvent the booking 11 or 7 months from checkout day rule?

No, because you can't waitlist for a non-home resort before 7 months out. You can't reserve a non-home resort before 7 months out from the second day of your trip booking day by day.

 

[squirrlygirl]

I used the wrong word--I meant reserve, not waitlist.

 

[Chuck S]

I used the wrong word--I meant reserve, not waitlist.

Well, that does change your question a little...but no, while I personally have never booked day by day, there is nothing in the rules that would prohibit it, and if people at the home resort wanted that room, they had several months prior to do so. Otherwise, at 7 months, points are points, everyoone has the same advantage and is able to call day by day, if they wish. My only qualms about it, possibly, would be that it could up dues slightly because of MS time and 800 number charges...and for the member that does book day by day it is an inconvenience. But it is certainly OK for a member to call that way, if they wish.

 

[squirrlygirl]

My rules say I can book at 11 months from checkout. So to call every day at 11 months out (or 7 months if it's not my home resort) and book a room for only that night with the preconceived intention of calling back to add more nights is clearly just a way to get around the rule. So how is that okay if the objection to occupancy levels is "because it's the rules"? If I follow the rules--book my entire stay at 11 months from my checkout date--I may not get my rooms because others have bent the rules and called day-by-day .

 

[Dean]

WHile I didn't quite get to every single post on this thread I'm trying to figure out WHY the problem with extra in a one-bedroom? Using OKW as an example, book 2 studios would give me 780 sq. feet and official capacity for 8 people. A one-bedroom would give me 942 sq. feet, but 5 people is a problem? That doesn't make sense to me.

We bought in with the idea of always getting a 2-bedroom, but I must admit the thought of saving a few points and getting a one-bedroom while DD is under 3 is appealing. But it appears that would be inappropriate because I'd be stacking 'em like sardines, even though it would give me more room and better accomodations than 2 studios.

Is it the principle of it?

As has been noted, there really are several issues here. These include the current rules as well let us wear and tear which leads to maintenance costs and saturation of the various resort components including transportation pool parking and the like. Some would erroneously point out that some units will have less than the maximum and this is actually assumed as part the official occupancy.

The stated occupancies are consistent with industry standards where a studio will normally sleep 4 as will most one bedrooms. This does not mean however that the units are truly intended for that number. They really are more intended for two in a studio and two plus a child or two in a one bedroom. From Disney vacation Club standpoint there are financial advantages to not having a higher occupancy.

So does reserving day-by-day also receive the same disapproval by the same people because it's a way to circumvent the booking 11 or 7 months from checkout day rule?

Actually no, these are two totally and separate things. One is not only within the rules but actually intended by the rules. The other is somewhat outside the rules and many of us feel totally against the rules. There's no question that a reservation option that increases you were chances of success directly decreases someone else's. In my opinion, that is okay as long as one is within the rules.

My rules say I can book at 11 months from checkout. So to call every day at 11 months out (or 7 months if it's not my home resort) and book a room for only that night with the preconceived intention of calling back to add more nights is clearly just a way to get around the rule. So how is that okay if the objection to occupancy levels is "because it's the rules"? If I follow the rules--book my entire stay at 11 months from my checkout date--I may not get my rooms because others have bent the rules and called day-by-day .

Interesting, I do not believe I've seen that interpretation previously. Given that one can book a single day the common interpretation is 11 months from that check out day. Member services has consistently suggested that members call and reserve day-by-day for certain reservation types. Likely the only way they could enforce timing from the last day of check out would be to create a minimum stay.

 

[Doctor P]

My rules say I can book at 11 months from checkout. So to call every day at 11 months out (or 7 months if it's not my home resort) and book a room for only that night with the preconceived intention of calling back to add more nights is clearly just a way to get around the rule. So how is that okay if the objection to occupancy levels is "because it's the rules"? If I follow the rules--book my entire stay at 11 months from my checkout date--I may not get my rooms because others have bent the rules and called day-by-day .

The reason is that you are making separate reservations one day at a time. For convenience and scheduling purposes, Disney chooses to allow you to put them together under one reservation saving both time, effort, and postage. There is nothing circumventing the rules. Each night is a separate reservation which is well within the rules. There is no rule that says you are only entitled to a single reservation for each visit to DVC.

 

[flyerron]

You know some of these occupancy rules are actually laws. The township or city or whatever local municipality may have juristiction over the occupancy
rules. The size of the unit makes no difference it is the type ie:studio or 1 bedr etc. I know this is the case elsewhere & may apply to to the Disney area.

 

[squirrlygirl]

Just because member services allows more than 4 in a one bedroom in no way makes it okay but booking day-by-day is okay because member services allows it?

Oversimplification, I know. Totally understand that there's reasoning behind the occupancy thing, but surprised at the thought that Disney would risk the wrath of fines or being shut down for being unsafe. Doesn't seem like a risk they would take, and placing extra members on the reservations certainly makes it hard to look innocent. Seems to me (in my completely uneducated opinion, of course!)that maybe it's allowed more in response to what members want. Curious, though, if a child under 3 is an occupant. Is it 4+baby, 4 with baby, and if you're talking the extra person, is it 5+baby or 5 with baby??

 

[Dean]

Just because member services allows more than 4 in a one bedroom in no way makes it okay but booking day-by-day is okay because member services allows it?

No because one is within the rules and one is not.

Oversimplification, I know. Totally understand that there's reasoning behind the occupancy thing, but surprised at the thought that Disney would risk the wrath of fines or being shut down for being unsafe. Doesn't seem like a risk they would take, and placing extra members on the reservations certainly makes it hard to look innocent. Seems to me (in my completely uneducated opinion, of course!)that maybe it's allowed more in response to what members want. Curious, though, if a child under 3 is an occupant. Is it 4+baby, 4 with baby, and if you're talking the extra person, is it 5+baby or 5 with baby??

Disney in general has not counted the first child who is under three as part of the occupancy. However, when they have stretched the occupancy as in five in a one bedroom unit, they have counted that infant as the 5th person. Therefore when member services has allowed five in a one bedroom other than animal kingdom villas, it is not five plus an infant.The

 

[Doctor P]

Just because member services allows more than 4 in a one bedroom in no way makes it okay but booking day-by-day is okay because member services allows it?

Give me a quote from a LEGAL DOCUMENT (not a member guidebook) that refers to your checkout day. The LEGAL DOCUMENTS refer to making reservations 11 months or 7 months prior to a particular USE DAY.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Sorry, squirrlygirl, but the POS does allow for day by day reservations since it references the use day. It also states that members are encouraged to make reservations as far in advance as possible to obtain the best choice of Vacation Homes and dates.

 

[squirrlygirl]

Give me a quote from a LEGAL DOCUMENT (not a member guidebook) that refers to your checkout day. The LEGAL DOCUMENTS refer to making reservations 11 months or 7 months prior to a particular USE DAY.

POS -Home Resort Rules and Regulations- (which is the governing rules for reservations) says "From eleven (11) months through and including eight (8) months in advance of tehir desired check out day, Club Members have....." "Members who wish to reserve.....seven (7) months in advance of their desired check out day."

If it ever becomes a problem, a minimum stay up to 5 nights will be imposed. Right there in the POS. So all these people complaining about how difficult it's becoming to book the low-supply, high-demand rooms....guess what the solution will be? 5-night minimum stay. No more booking one day at a time. But that's a bit OT.

To the poster that clarified the baby/occupant, thank you.

 

[Chuck S]

While the POS contains the rules of the association, remember that just because it states there is an 11/7 window, that can change, too. Only a one month window is actually required.

However, the check-out day thing is certainly open to interpretation as it is written. For instance, say I wanted to reserve 12-20 to 12-25 day by day. I could call on 1-21 for a one day reservation (12-21 being my desired check-out day. Then I could call for another one day reservation on 1-22, with 12-21 being my desired check-out day. And so on... That is certainly allowed by the rules, isn't it?

Member Services is not required anywhere to link those reservations, they do it as a courtesy so members don't need to check-in and out (putting undue strain not only on the members, but on the resort operations personnel). By linking the reservations they reduce the number of front desk personnel needed, and the number of housekeeping days that would be required for a daily, separate reservation, thus keeping members happy and our dues under control.

 

[squirrlygirl]

Member services wouldn't have to find a way to keep dues under control if people didn't make the day-by-days in the first place. If too many members "interpret" the rules the same way, it will get changed. Just as the 11/7 rule can change, so can the minimum stay. When you call any other hotel in the world, do you tell them your check-out day is the 7th, then call back and make a new reservation for the night of the 7th? Or do you tell them initially that you'll check-out the 8th? The rest of the world operates with the 8th checkout, so how come I'm the odd one for thinking that doing otherwise is a circumvention of the rules?
It's kind of like a construction zone on the freeway. If one guy zips up the side and tries to get in at the last minute, not much happens. Enough guys do it, you're at a stand-still. So perhaps the day-by-day booking should be more of secret.

 

[Chuck S]

The rest of the world operates with the 8th checkout, so how come I'm the odd one for thinking that doing otherwise is a circumvention of the rules?

Because it is not a circumvention of the rules at all, the linking of those reservations is not specifically mentioned in the POS, but making separate daily reservations is not specifically prohibited anywhere.

 

[Chuck S]

And even though it speciically mentions the possibility of a 5 day minimum stay, it also would legally be nearly impossible to implement. Disney can not FORCE people to bank or borrow points, yet must allow them to use their points. With a 25 point minimum contract being available through resale, there is currently NO option to use 25 points for a 5 day stay without banking or borrowing, thus Disney, if it wished to implement that rule, may be forced to buy back any contract that does not have enough points to allow for a 5 day annual stay.

 

[Doctor P]

POS -Home Resort Rules and Regulations- (which is the governing rules for reservations) says "From eleven (11) months through and including eight (8) months in advance of tehir desired check out day, Club Members have....." "Members who wish to reserve.....seven (7) months in advance of their desired check out day."

If it ever becomes a problem, a minimum stay up to 5 nights will be imposed. Right there in the POS. So all these people complaining about how difficult it's becoming to book the low-supply, high-demand rooms....guess what the solution will be? 5-night minimum stay. No more booking one day at a time. But that's a bit OT.

To the poster that clarified the baby/occupant, thank you.

The document you cited, though included in the material that includes the POS, is neither part of the POS nor a legal document that requires any kind of regulatory filing to change. It is also not a legal "disclosure document" if you read the fine print carefully, and can be changed at any time without notification through the sole actions of DVD.