New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[rantnnravin]

I'm not following this example. On day 1, you book the nights of Dec 1-7, checking out on Dec 8. On day 2, you book Dec 2-8, checking out on Dec 9. So at that point you have two rooms booked.

This is where you lose me. On the 9th, you cancel Dec 1-7 so you're left with one room for Dec 2-8, checking out on the 9th. You haven't yet booked the night of Dec 9th but you can try to book it on that call. (I assume you didn't just extend this reservation earlier because your points were tied up in the Dec 1-7 reservation?) There is no guarantee that it is available however. Your reservation from Dec 2-8 inclusive does not prevent anyone from booking "your" room for the nights of Dec 9+ if they get through to MS ahead of you. I don't see that this scheme gives you any advantage. Since TisBit's rules wouldn't allow you to cancel any nights of a reservation until your check out date, you would no longer be blocking other members from booking that room so you would be competing with everyone else that day to extend your stay using this approach.

true. which is why i've been saying that adding rules and sanctions strips the program of the flexibility many of us admired in the DVC program.

for example: you make a reservation in the morning but find out that night that you cannot get out of work/flights aren't available/kids have an exam/any other of a host of complications and need to add a day at the end and take a day off the beginning. You are points poor, so you only have enough points for the nights you will be staying. Tisbit rule has prevented you from modifying your reservation to get the nights you need.

the previous booking system of calling 11/7 months from checkout date did not require rules regulations or sanctions regarding the booking process. If it is becoming a typical timeshare, as Dean says, we will be becoming renters and paying cash for our desired accommodations with the freedom and flexibility to book and modify as needed.

 

[Paging Tom Morrow]

I know this'll probably tick a few people off, but as a member who doesn't use his points for the very busy days, I am very happy with the change.

While I understand that it MAY mean that some others will not be able to secure reservations they have historically been able to by calling DBD, the change will likely have a positive impact on the vast majority of DVC owners.

In my opinion, member services has acted in a very responsible way to ensure that MFs are being spent in the most economical way while not inconveniencing the majority of owners.

I think a fair and simple solution to this matter would be to allow an 11 month + 10 day booking window for all "Premier or Choice" days. This would permit everyone to have the same access to those days, but keep the increased flexibility for all other owners.

 

[TisBit]

true. which is why i've been saying that adding rules and sanctions strips the program of the flexibility many of us admired in the DVC program.

for example: you make a reservation in the morning but find out that night that you cannot get out of work/flights aren't available/kids have an exam/any other of a host of complications and need to add a day at the end and take a day off the beginning. You are points poor, so you only have enough points for the nights you will be staying. Tisbit rule has prevented you from modifying your reservation to get the nights you need.

the previous booking system of calling 11/7 months from checkout date did not require rules regulations or sanctions regarding the booking process. If it is becoming a typical timeshare, as Dean says, we will be becoming renters and paying cash for our desired accommodations with the freedom and flexibility to book and modify as needed.

Wow, I didnt' realize so many members had such issues at almost a year out from their reservation. Under the DBD booking that same member could end up with the same issues. If they didn't book the last day at 9 am and found out at noon they needed it they might not get it.

You don't like the new system. That is understood, regardless of how it pans out you still won't like it. I am merely disputing that stopping "walking", which is the prime complaint and hole that people are saying exist now, could easily be resolved without a negative impact on the largest part of the membership.

 

[LisaS]

for example: you make a reservation in the morning but find out that night that you cannot get out of work/flights aren't available/kids have an exam/any other of a host of complications and need to add a day at the end and take a day off the beginning. You are points poor, so you only have enough points for the nights you will be staying. Tisbit rule has prevented you from modifying your reservation to get the nights you need.

But how often does it happen in practice that you booked right at the 11-month window and then found out hours later that you will need to check in one or two days later than you originally planned but you have absolutely no points available (not even by borrowing) to help you do it.

But let's say it does happen to you, what are your options at that point? At 11 months prior to your new check in date you can ask MS if your dates are available and if so, cancel and rebook the entire trip. If some/all of the nights are not available, then you would hang on to the original reservation and call back 11 months prior to your check out day and cancel the first night(s) and then use the freed points to try to book the night(s) at the end or waitlist for them if they are not available. Again, I tend to believe that this whole scenario would be relatively rare. I'm not saying people don't have to change their dates, I've done it myself twice this year! But I don't think it's common for it to happen within a few hours or days of booking the trip.

I'm more concerned that if walking becomes a problem that DVC will decide that any change will require a cancellation and rebooking. TisBit's rule eliminates the long walks that could mess things up for other members, while still making it possible for those who need to adjust their dates to do so without cancelling the whole reservation. And it seems like an easy rule to understand and implement.

 

[TisBit]

I'm more concerned that if walking becomes a problem that DVC will decide that any change will require a cancellation and rebooking. TisBit's rule eliminates the long walks that could mess things up for other members, while still making it possible for those who need to adjust their dates to do so without cancelling the whole reservation. And it seems like an easy rule to understand and implement.

That is my concern as well. I don't think Disney would overlook a solution just as mine...and coule possibly even be improved upon with enough brainstorming, but I think it is a pretty straightforward non-intrusive rule that would rarely cause a hardship on a member. (and remember, many people have had rules broken in the past when they explain a hardship to MS...)

I like "Tisbit's Rule", do you think DVC would consider naming it that if they ever implement it?

 

[rantnnravin]

But how often does it happen in practice ...[snip]I'm more concerned that if walking becomes a problem that DVC will decide that any change will require a cancellation and rebooking. ...[snip] And it seems like an easy rule to understand and implement.

I guess it's just the republican in me that doesn't believe that more rules and machievellian oversight is necessarily "better"

 

[minniekissedme]

sounds to me like it's all about WIIFM...

 

[jdg345]

I'm not following this example. On day 1, you book the nights of Dec 1-7, checking out on Dec 8. On day 2, you book Dec 2-8, checking out on Dec 9. So at that point you have two rooms booked.

I added a day, so we can either use the 8th (night booked), or assume that the night of the 9th was booked by adding on an extra day.

This is where you lose me. On the 9th, you cancel Dec 1-7 so you're left with one room for Dec 2-8, checking out on the 9th. You haven't yet booked the night of Dec 9th but you can try to book it on that call. (I assume you didn't just extend this reservation earlier because your points were tied up in the Dec 1-7 reservation?) There is no guarantee that it is available however. Your reservation from Dec 2-8 inclusive does not prevent anyone from booking "your" room for the nights of Dec 9+ if they get through to MS ahead of you. I don't see that this scheme gives you any advantage. Since TisBit's rules wouldn't allow you to cancel any nights of a reservation until your check out date, you would no longer be blocking other members from booking that room so you would be competing with everyone else that day to extend your stay using this approach.

Right, so I'd have to adjust by a day ... booking from the 8th since I have that night locked up, and no one else can take my room. And since no one can take my room, it means the 9th + have to be available as well.

 

[jdg345]

Exactly, there would be no advantage to this. If you have enough points to book two weeks, you would be better just adding each day until you got to two weeks and cancel your first week later. Either way you are tying up your points...the only advantage is how many points you have available to book a room for.

Corrected above. Adding the second week doesn't allow me to continue walking it forward if I can't cancel the front part. My having two overlapping reservations, you can (or if you wait until the last day). You would only have to do this for the hard to get reservations ... then after that peak is over, you could use those points for an easier to get time.

Incidently, this could make a lot of people really think about UY's and banking windows. Members might have a difficult time holding points for an extended reservation if they are near their banking windows.

Exactly. As above, you could also borrow the points to give yourself the second week, make sure those are the points you're using for the reservation and then bank the current UY points forward. You'd then use those points next year and move the current UY points forward again, over and over. It gives you the leverage of 2 weeks even if you're a smaller point owner.

 

[jdg345]

Another issue here is what would happen if someone books a 2BR, then finds out a day or so later that part of the group isn't going to make it. Now they can't change that to a 1BR until after their departure date.

At the end of the day, we end up with more and more rules which reduce our flexibility. Rules needed to fix something they 'broke' by implementing the new policy.

Are we going to get to the point where once you make a reservation, you made it, and you can't change it? So either stay there at that time, or forfeit the points? Where does it end?

And none of this really hurts spec renters ... if anything, all we're doing is stacking the deck so that they're the only ones that can work the system.

 

[LisaS]

I added a day, so we can either use the 8th (night booked), or assume that the night of the 9th was booked by adding on an extra day.

Right, so I'd have to adjust by a day ... booking from the 8th since I have that night locked up, and no one else can take my room. And since no one can take my room, it means the 9th + have to be available as well.

OK, so let's use the 8th. So you book Dec 1-7, then the next day you book a second room for Dec 2-8. Then you call back on Jan 8th and cancel Dec 1-7. You are one day too early to cancel any days from Room 2 (Dec 2-8) but you can extend that room so you use the points from the cancelled reservation to extend your 2nd room out to Dec 14th. So now you have one reservation for Dec 2-14, and cannot drop any days from that reservation until Jan 15th. So what advantage did this approach give us? And why did we need to book Dec 1-7? Doesn't that just make it harder to book Dec 2-8 since you end up booking two rooms when you only want one room? I'm just not following how this works.

 

[LisaS]

Another issue here is what would happen if someone books a 2BR, then finds out a day or so later that part of the group isn't going to make it. Now they can't change that to a 1BR until after their departure date.

If I understand TisBit's proposal correctly, the rule would not apply here. The only thing you cannot do until 11 months prior to check out is cancel days from the front of your reservation. In this situation, you would be cancelling the entire reservation so you would call MS ASAP and cancel the 2BR and try to book the 1BR instead.

At the end of the day, we end up with more and more rules which reduce our flexibility. Rules needed to fix something they 'broke' by implementing the new policy.

And who knows, maybe they will revert back to the original policy. But if they don't, I think TisBit's rule is pretty simple and straightforward and will reduce the chances that some members will end up on a WL unnecessarily because the nights they need are tied up by long-term walkers. It doesn't prevent all walking, but those who do it will tie up a lot of points in the process and there probably aren't very many members who have enough points to take it very far. So while it doesn't prevent it entirely, I believe it would reduce it significantly.

Are we going to get to the point where once you make a reservation, you made it, and you can't change it? So either stay there at that time, or forfeit the points? Where does it end?

I don't see that happening.

And none of this really hurts spec renters ... if anything, all we're doing is stacking the deck so that they're the only ones that can work the system.

They will be subject to the same rules as everybody else so if there is a way to work the system, it will be open to everyone I guess. I don't necessarily agree that all of the spec renters own a large number of points. So TisBit's rule could actually help here.

 

[TenThousandVolts]

TisBit's rule makes sense. I like it.

 

[jdg345]

OK, so let's use the 8th. So you book Dec 1-7, then the next day you book a second room for Dec 2-8. Then you call back on Jan 8th and cancel Dec 1-7. You are one day too early to cancel any days from Room 2 (Dec 2-8) but you can extend that room so you use the points from the cancelled reservation to extend your 2nd room out to Dec 14th. So now you have one reservation for Dec 2-14, and cannot drop any days from that reservation until Jan 15th. So what advantage did this approach give us? And why did we need to book Dec 1-7? Doesn't that just make it harder to book Dec 2-8 since you end up booking two rooms when you only want one room? I'm just not following how this works.

Oh, I think I may have misunderstood the proposal; the idea here would be then to prevent cancellations until the entire reservation is at least 1 day within the 11 month window? So you can't cancel at 11 months, you have to cancel at 11 months -1 from your departure date?

 

[jdg345]

If I understand TisBit's proposal correctly, the rule would not apply here. The only thing you cannot do until 11 months prior to check out is cancel days from the front of your reservation. In this situation, you would be cancelling the entire reservation so you would call MS ASAP and cancel the 2BR and try to book the 1BR instead.

Humm ... so you can't drop off the front, but you can cancel? So what's to stop me from cancelling and rebooking the entire reservation on Day 7? I have Day-7 Held, so I can always tell them to drop a day off the end, hold it, and then book 7-14 creating a second 'overlapping' reservation. I can then call the following day cancelling 1-6 and releasing those points back into my account so I can reutilize them on the 14th to book 14-21, etc.

And who knows, maybe they will revert back to the original policy. But if they don't, I think TisBit's rule is pretty simple and straightforward and will reduce the chances that some members will end up on a WL unnecessarily because the nights they need are tied up by long-term walkers. It doesn't prevent all walking, but those who do it will tie up a lot of points in the process and there probably aren't very many members who have enough points to take it very far. So while it doesn't prevent it entirely, I believe it would reduce it significantly.

But those members that likely have the points are going to be the spec renters. Rules like this just shift the benefits of the new policy more and more into their court, no?

I don't see that happening.

I don't either, but my point was simply: Where does it end? The fact that we need to keep coming up with things to keep tweaking and fixing the new policy shows it cannot stand on its own and the other system was likely better overall.

They will be subject to the same rules as everybody else so if there is a way to work the system, it will be open to everyone I guess. I don't necessarily agree that all of the spec renters own a large number of points. So TisBit's rule could actually help here.

Fair enough.

 

[rantnnravin]

I just got off the phone with Ezra from DVC Member Satisfaction. He was interested in hearing more about the concerns I outlined in my email regarding this policy.
He shared that he would be passing my email and the ideas expressed in our telephone conversation along to the management team - who are continually evaluating the new procedure. I said it shouldn't take long considering that within a week, the membership had identified its shortcomings. I made certain to tell him repeatedly that adding rules and regulations to "fix" the problems created by this ill-conceived policy would serve to strip the DVC program of the flexibility for which it's known. I explained how DH and I often recommend DVC to others by touting it's flexibility and differences from other timeshares and that if we wanted a tradtional timeshare, we would have purchased Marriott. He chuckled and agreed but seemed uncomfortable.
He also seemed genuinely concerned about the disappointment I expressed in my email about DVC's lack of communication and MS training.

He thanked me for sharing my concerns in writing and expressed how this is important for members to do.

 

[skelooch]

Why are members here trying to come up with rules DVC could impliment to solve a problem that they themselves created. If they cared about our input they would have asked all members about the proposed policy change before they made it. They didn't care about our input before they made the change, let them figure out how they solve the problems they created.
When they begin getting an "overwhelming feedback" ( I believe that's what they called it )from members complaining they can't get their reservations because of "walking" they'll realize what a mess they made, and maybe should have left well enough alone.
IMO they made the mistake let them deal with it, in the meantime let the "walking" begin.
I can't see why continuing to add more and more rules is going to be beneficial to membership as a whole.
You want to fix it, go back to the old "original" system and let them answer phones like they're paid to do, and if it means raising my dues so be it. They apparently expanded membership faster than their capablility to deal with it.

 

[TisBit]

Humm ... so you can't drop off the front, but you can cancel? So what's to stop me from cancelling and rebooking the entire reservation on Day 7? I have Day-7 Held, so I can always tell them to drop a day off the end, hold it, and then book 7-14 creating a second 'overlapping' reservation. I can then call the following day cancelling 1-6 and releasing those points back into my account so I can reutilize them on the 14th to book 14-21, etc.

Yes, you would have day 7 held, but the 8-14th would not be held and everyone would be on even playing field. As I said, no plan is full proof, but this does a lot.

As for Spec Renters, well DBD helped them too. They might be able to work large banks of points....but even these points can't all be tied up walking one spec rental....they want numerous weeks, so it would take a lot more points to do than just merely walking a 160 pt reservation. In order to do it they would have to tie up at least 320 or 480 pts to walk that one week. With the current system (and even DBD) they could get three weeks with those points during that peak time.

As I keep saying, this is not a perfect system....but with this simple rule you actually make the reservation process for MOST DVC owners a lot easier and straight forward, even compared to the old system. Plus DVC help their bottom line by decreasing number of calls.

 

[TisBit]

Why are members here trying to come up with rules DVC could impliment to solve a problem that they themselves created. If they cared about our input they would have asked all members about the proposed policy change before they made it. They didn't care about our input before they made the change, let them figure out how they solve the problems they created.
When they begin getting an "overwhelming feedback" ( I believe that's what they called it )from members complaining they can't get their reservations because of "walking" they'll realize what a mess they made, and maybe should have left well enough alone.
IMO they made the mistake let them deal with it, in the meantime let the "walking" begin.
I can't see why continuing to add more and more rules is going to be beneficial to membership as a whole.
You want to fix it, go back to the old "original" system and let them answer phones like they're paid to do, and if it means raising my dues so be it. They apparently expanded membership faster than their capablility to deal with it.

Basicly I brought this up because many of the posters that disagreed with this new system were implying to fix it would take huge rules that would negatively impact a large portion of DVC owners.

Of course you would like the "walking" to begin and this system to fail. You understood the old system very well and knew how to work it to give yourself the best possible advantage for your reservations. This system takes that advantage away, so you lose.....but other members that didn't understand the old system and how to work it might now compete on that same level as you.

Basicly this system is designed to be dumbed down not to require research or strategies....which I am sure a lot of people that are not near as passionate as DISers, will like and encourage to keep.

I don't see the old system coming back anytime soon. Rarely will a Corporation reverse itself because of a few bugs....they will implement rules to try to make the new system work. If it doesn't work after a few years, well, maybe the old system will come back. We never even got the glassware back to SSR or rid ourselves of the disposables (even though most of the complaints were on the environmental side)...but rather only got them to modify their position and allow us to "request" glassware. As for the washers going, who knows if we impacted that or if it was already planned.

You want to fix it, go back to the old "original" system and let them answer phones like they're paid to do, and if it means raising my dues so be it.

And for the record, don't raise my dues just so some people or spec renters can make a bunch of DBD reservations.

 

[LisaS]

Oh, I think I may have misunderstood the proposal; the idea here would be then to prevent cancellations until the entire reservation is at least 1 day within the 11 month window? So you can't cancel at 11 months, you have to cancel at 11 months -1 from your departure date?

You can cancel the entire reservation at any time. You cannot drop days from the beginning of your reservation until on/after 11 months prior to your check-out date. So if on Jan 1 you book Dec 1-7, you can extend that reservation but you cannot drop any nights from the beginning of that reservation until Jan 8 or later. And if you call back on Dec 7 and extend it out to Dec 13th (so you have Dec 1-13 reserved) now you cannot drop any nights from the beginning of the reservation until Jan 14 or later.

Humm ... so you can't drop off the front, but you can cancel? So what's to stop me from cancelling and rebooking the entire reservation on Day 7?

Nothing. If you booked Dec 1-7 you could call back on Jan 7, cancel the entire reservation and try to book a new reservation for Dec 7-13. You might get lucky or you might lose out to someone who is on the phone with MS at the same time trying to book the same dates. Once you free up Dec 1-7, they are up for grabs and might even fill in someone's WL since you released an entire block of dates.

I have Day-7 Held, so I can always tell them to drop a day off the end, hold it, and then book 7-14 creating a second 'overlapping' reservation. I can then call the following day cancelling 1-6 and releasing those points back into my account so I can reutilize them on the 14th to book 14-21, etc.

But you don't have Day 7 held because you cannot cancel the first 6 nights of your 7-night stay until 11 months prior to your check out day. If you want to do that, you would have to wait one more day. So on Jan 8th you could call back, drop Dec 1-6, keep Dec 7 and try to book Dec 8-14 but there is no guarantee you would get it. Anyone else calling on Jan 8th to book Dec 8+ could grab those nights before you get a chance. To be assured of getting those nights, you have to add on to your Dec 1-7 reservation no later than Jan 7 and at that time it's too early to drop any nights from the start of your reservation.

But those members that likely have the points are going to be the spec renters. Rules like this just shift the benefits of the new policy more and more into their court, no?

Like I said earlier, I'm not convinced that all of the spec renters are large point holders.

I don't either, but my point was simply: Where does it end? The fact that we need to keep coming up with things to keep tweaking and fixing the new policy shows it cannot stand on its own and the other system was likely better overall.

This is one pretty simple rule that seems to take care of a lot issues.