New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[jdg345]

While it's good to track the info and should be done, the one problem is we don't have the comparison number on the old method. Thus it'll be essentially impossible to compare and use this info as an argument in either direction. I'm sure DVC has a significant amount of this type of info but I doubt even they have enough specific info to compare the ultimate success rate of one vs the other.

Well, we do have quite a bit of anecdotal information on the old system, so this could very well be used to compare. Granted, it's a subset of data, but it's at least the same subset in both cases.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of creative ways around the all or nothing wait list issue. From my perspective, the all or nothing wait list issue is stupid. In the past I may have ultimately desired to have 5 consecutive nights in a particular accomodation in a particular resort, but that doesn't mean I wasn't happy if I only got 3 out of 5 nights and had to make other arrangements for the other two nights. Now it seems the new wait list policy is trying to take that option away. If you can't have them all, you can't have any. No soup for you!

First question I have is, if I am willing, in fact have to, change rooms, will MS take a series of one night wait list reservation requests (different reservation numbers and all) under my name?

If the answer to that is no, can I do the the following:

One night wait list reservation request for Joe Blow.
A one night reservation request for the next night for Jack Blow
A one night reservation request for the next night for Jen Blow.
A one night reservation request for the next night for John Doe.
A one night reservation request for the next night for Jane Doe.

Of course Joe, Jack, Jen, John and Jane would all be included in the party for the each individual reservation. They would all be separate reservations, each for a single night, each in a different name. I'm not sure that I can see DVC could deny those reservation requests, can they?

 

[jdg345]

DVC doesn't take days out of inventory unless there is an exact match to a waitlist. So for your first example, the 5 nights that became available would not "go to the waitlist file" because the waitlist is for 6 nights. That's not a match. Of course that assumes there is no match for the 5 nights. If someone else had a waitlist for one or more of those same nights, the nights would go to him or her, even if the person with the 6 night waitlist got on the waitlist first. If no one else wanted any of the 5 nights, they would stay in the general member inventory until someone called to reserve one or more of them or until the 6th night became available and the waitlist request was matched.

So then, based on the new policy, it certainly makes sense that one WL'ing multiple days, at a minimum, should call periodically to see if they can manually fill their days, no?

As far as waitlisting goes, shorter stays do have an advantage over longer stays. Always have. That hasn't changed.

Agreed ... that's why so many opted for DBD WL's.

Don't know if there is a limit to the length of stay that can be waitlisted. But your 20 day example can't happen at the 11 month window. Assuming a member calls at the 11 month window, I find it very difficult to see how anyone could get the first day and not at least the following 6.

Isn't max stay something like 28 days?

If that was a 7 month example, then I just think anyone who wants a 20 day stay during a popular time should be booking at their home resort. For those who want to book a non home resort, some of the days would likely be available and he/she would have more than one shorter waitlist to fill in the holes, anyway.

Agreed.

Since DVC doesn't "hold" days waiting for a waitlist match, there is no chance of a huge block of rooms getting “stuck” in the waitlist.

But this is an issue with the system, one that could cause a great deal of call volumes as WL'd members call in daily (perhaps more than once) to manually fill in their WL requests.

Basically, the onus is now on the Member to call in and give themselves a DBD WL. And this is supposed to reduce call volumes how?

 

[jdg345]

I was surprised to hear that MS will allow us to call to fill in individual nights of our waitlists since it will increase the number of calls and increase the number of reservations with holes in them, both of which are contrary to what I thought are the goals of the new booking system. One particular concern I have is that if I want to book a week just prior to a busy period, it's possible I will get shut out by "walkers" who are holding those dates temporarily and I will end up on the WL. As they walk their reservations, days will open up but unless all of my nights become available at one time, my WL won't fill. People who call a few days after I do for the same dates I need will be able to book some of their nights and go on the WL for far fewer nights than I need, making them more likely to get their WL filled.

Exactly! Those calling after you are getting the days you wanted. FCFS Indeed!

So to maximize my chances of getting my reservation, I will need to call several times a day to see if any of my nights have been freed up by walkers. I imagine we'll end up with a thread here for walkers to post the date and time they plan to call MS and what nights they will be cancelling so that those of us on the WL can try to coordinate our calls to grab any nights that go into the booking pool.

Right! So how does this go along with reducing call volumes?

Bottom line: Walking plus the elimination of the DBD WL is a bad combination. If they bring back the DBD waitlist, then this problem goes away. If I end up on the WL due to walkers, I will eventually get my nights filled in as they walk past my date and have no need to call MS at all, let alone multiple times a day.

I think the issue only partially goes away. My understanding is that there is still a window of time in which a room can be cancelled and sniped before it is assigned to the 'waitlist file'.

 

[jdg345]

LisaS

I would assume that if you wanted to modify your waitlist to not include the day you got by calling that you would loose your place “in line” on the waitlist. I do not see how MS could stop people booking and leaving the waitlist in place if they have enough points and just canceling the extra days depending on how the reservation is finally filled.

Yes this is one of the issues, which I do not think MS thought trough before they made this change. It is likely to generate many more additional calls than all the new policies saved put together.

I agree the unanticipated issues of walking and the new wait list policy and the potential for picking up days by calling when taken in combination are likely to cause some serious inefficiencies and difficulties for members.

bookwormde

If a WL is modified, it does not lose it's place in line. However, if you fill a day in the middle, you will only retain your position in line for 'half' that stay. For example, if you need days 1-7, and you are able to book day 4, then they can modify the original to be Days 1-3, keeping you spot in line. Then they need to create a new WL for you for days 5-7, that goes to the back of the line. But since days are not held, just because you're at the back of the line doesn't mean you wouldn't be the first to get those days if that is all that is released.

 

[jdg345]

so, today when i call to make ressie for 1st day (no walking & success story) @ 11 month window, when the CM is doing the spiel @ the end as to cancellation periods he states something to this effect:

if you need to cancel the 1st day of the reservation, it will be forfeit

i stopped him there, he said i misunderstood...he meant it would be forfeit if we didn't check in until the next day?

know i've zoned out in the past & didn't pay attention to the script they usually rattle off but, i don't recall hearing this before . Of course, it's valid practice, not questioning that...

perhaps i've got enhanced paranoia

anybody else hear this lately?

Hasn't that always been there? Isn't that where they discuss cancellations inside of 30 days going into the holding account, etc? If you cancel your stay on the 1st day of your reservation (arrival date), I believe you lose/forfeit all the points for that the whole ressie. Could that be what they were referring to?

 

[jdg345]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of creative ways around the all or nothing wait list issue. From my perspective, the all or nothing wait list issue is stupid. In the past I may have ultimately desired to have 5 consecutive nights in a particular accomodation in a particular resort, but that doesn't mean I wasn't happy if I only got 3 out of 5 nights and had to make other arrangements for the other two nights. Now it seems the new wait list policy is trying to take that option away. If you can't have them all, you can't have any. No soup for you!

First question I have is, if I am willing, in fact have to, change rooms, will MS take a series of one night wait list reservation requests (different reservation numbers and all) under my name?

If the answer to that is no, can I do the the following:

One night wait list reservation request for Joe Blow.
A one night reservation request for the next night for Jack Blow
A one night reservation request for the next night for Jen Blow.
A one night reservation request for the next night for John Doe.
A one night reservation request for the next night for Jane Doe.

Of course Joe, Jack, Jen, John and Jane would all be included in the party for the each individual reservation. They would all be separate reservations, each for a single night, each in a different name. I'm not sure that I can see DVC could deny those reservation requests, can they?

This should work, and I'm sure DVC would be more than willing to link them when all is said and done to avoid having to deal with mousekeeping, etc. They could make you move, but it's unlikely as it would be a grey area scenario where some people were made to move and some were not -- which isn't really fair. You also don't need all those people, you only need 2. The new policy states that contiguous days have to be WL'd together, so as long as you had 2 people, this could be avoided. Something like:

5th for Jack
6th for Jane
7th for Jack
8th for Jane
9th for Jack
10th for Jane

etc. Since Jack's stays are not contigous, they would be their own individual WL's under the new policy. Same for Jane's.

Very Nice Catch!

 

[Disneyhappy]

This should work, and I'm sure DVC would be more than willing to link them when all is said and done to avoid having to deal with mousekeeping, etc. They could make you move, but it's unlikely as it would be a grey area scenario where some people were made to move and some were not -- which isn't really fair. You also don't need all those people, you only need 2. The new policy states that contiguous days have to be WL'd together, so as long as you had 2 people, this could be avoided. Something like:

5th for Jack
6th for Jane
7th for Jack
8th for Jane
9th for Jack
10th for Jane

etc. Since Jack's stays are not contigous, they would be their own individual WL's under the new policy. Same for Jane's.

Very Nice Catch!

This was my plan and glad others think this will work to WL day by day. More work for the member but also more phone calls and work for MS in the end. Sounds more and more like this change is going to increase calls to MS rather than the desired effect of decreasing them. DVC are you listening?

 

[jdg345]

This was my plan and glad others think this will work to WL day by day. More work for the member but also more phone calls and work for MS in the end. Sounds more and more like this change is going to increase calls to MS rather than the desired effect of decreasing them. DVC are you listening?

Maybe they'll just prohibit WL'ing altogether in an attempt to lower their costs? er, I mean, "satisfy overwhelming member requests".

 

[ppjluvsdvc]

Hi!

It seems to me that so far this new plan is going ok. Has anyone been shut out yet???? The poll that was being taken (I haven't looked today but) didn't show any problems. Why all the fuss until someone actually has a problem!

 

[DisneyKidds]

A couple of people have had problems, including one for a high demand accomodation for next June at the 11 month mark. That person was shut out of all 5 of the nights they wanted before the 11 month mark for them even came up. That could just be the tip of the iceberg......we'll have to see as more members become aware of the policy and it's impact as we move toward periods such as the F&W festival, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's.

 

[keishashadow]

I remember this spiel from before. They have always said that if you don't check in the first night, all of your points for the entire visit are forfeited (i.e., as soon as the trip starts ALL the points are considered used, not just the first night's points). If you CANCEL on the day of check in, I think you cancel the first night's points but the rest go into a holding account if I am remembering right.

as i thought

That is my understanding as well.

keishashadow, I wonder if this is what happened. The MS CM said "If you cancel on your check-in day, all points are forfeited." (which is the usual spiel) and you thought he said "If you cancel your check-in day, all points are forfeited."

probably, i was just so nervous over the new enchancement process & possible not getting my ressie i know i could've easily got it wrong (and if i had actually listened to what they said before when i booked i'd known better)

thanks

 

[dzorn]

Hi!

It seems to me that so far this new plan is going ok. Has anyone been shut out yet???? The poll that was being taken (I haven't looked today but) didn't show any problems. Why all the fuss until someone actually has a problem!

Many members do not know about the new policy yet. We have not reach a high demand booking time yet and I can remember one poster that was upset being shut out. That was at Vero Beach. I only skim the thread every coulple of days so there could be more.

Denise in MI

 

[zulaya]

A couple of people have had problems, including one for a high demand accomodation for next June at the 11 month mark. That person was shut out of all 5 of the nights they wanted before the 11 month mark for them even came up. That could just be the tip of the iceberg......we'll have to see as more members become aware of the policy and it's impact as we move toward periods such as the F&W festival, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's.

Exactly. It's no coincidence that this change was enacted AFTER the 7 month window for NYE passed us by. I think DVC is hoping that we all "forget" what can happen if we have a few months of no problems. If they think people aren't going to complain when they have only certain dates they can travel due to work schedules, then think again.

I think the first biggie we see will be this December when people start calling for Thanksgiving. Followed by the total turmoil that will be early December, Xmas and NYE.

Not trying to be negative, just realistic and how unfair and unequal this new policy is.

I know I'm checking that reporting thread every day, at least twice per day to see what's going to happen.

 

[Dean]

Well what real time info are you talking about? If I have no problems for NYE week DBD in the past, and if for example I call to arrive DEC 27 for 5 nights and find all 5 nights already gone, I was thinking of reporting that on the tracking thread (likewise if successful). Your saying that means nothing because we dont know how it worked before. Why report anything then? Again, what real time info would it be nice to have then?

It's still nice to see how people are doing but without before and after data, it'll be impossible to draw much if any conclusions. Certainly one persons experience one way or another will mean nothing overall.

Well, we do have quite a bit of anecdotal information on the old system, so this could very well be used to compare. Granted, it's a subset of data, but it's at least the same subset in both cases.

Yes and no. We do have anecdotal data and that is all we're going to get from this poll as well. But we really have no data as to who did and who didn't get things before so the data is not even handed. I know there have been few reports over the years and usually high demand options, but that's exactly where the issue comes into play. Someone may want to post a poll as to those that have called 11 months out and not gotten any day, I have personally experienced that failure. I suspect many didn't post about the failures simply because they understood it was a risk.

 

[jdg345]

It's still nice to see how people are doing but without before and after data, it'll be impossible to draw much if any conclusions. Certainly one persons experience one way or another will mean nothing overall.

Yes and no. We do have anecdotal data and that is all we're going to get from this poll as well. But we really have no data as to who did and who didn't get things before so the data is not even handed. I know there have been few reports over the years and usually high demand options, but that's exactly where the issue comes into play. Someone may want to post a poll as to those that have called 11 months out and not gotten any day, I have personally experienced that failure. I suspect many didn't post about the failures simply because they understood it was a risk.

Still, it should be pretty easy to quantify if there are more failures now in this subset than there were before. I think it is tough to suggest that those that had failures before did not post because they knew the risk while at the same time suggesting it might be that very group that complained about DBD.

In the end, we never really saw many threads complaining about DBD and not getting reservations. In fact, throughout this entire thread, I think there were just a handful of examples from folks who failed to get their reservations DBD. If we get more than a handful of failures on the new policy, then I think it should be clear. Considering we've already had a few failures and we're not even close to prime booking season (not to mention very few know about this new policy), I suspect this is going to get much worse before it gets better.

 

[jdg345]

Exactly. It's no coincidence that this change was enacted AFTER the 7 month window for NYE passed us by. I think DVC is hoping that we all "forget" what can happen if we have a few months of no problems. If they think people aren't going to complain when they have only certain dates they can travel due to work schedules, then think again.

I think the first biggie we see will be this December when people start calling for Thanksgiving. Followed by the total turmoil that will be early December, Xmas and NYE.

Not trying to be negative, just realistic and how unfair and unequal this new policy is.

I know I'm checking that reporting thread every day, at least twice per day to see what's going to happen.

I'm running the tally offline for now ... hoping I get a PM soon on my request for some additional bbcodes.

 

[jade1]

Still, it should be pretty easy to quantify if there are more failures now in this subset than there were before. I think it is tough to suggest that those that had failures before did not post because they knew the risk while at the same time suggesting it might be that very group that complained about DBD.

In the end, we never really saw many threads complaining about DBD and not getting reservations. In fact, throughout this entire thread, I think there were just a handful of examples from folks who failed to get their reservations DBD. If we get more than a handful of failures on the new policy, then I think it should be clear. Considering we've already had a few failures and we're not even close to prime booking season (not to mention very few know about this new policy), I suspect this is going to get much worse before it gets better.

Exactly, for the last 7 years its always been "buy where you want to stay". Why would anyone recommend that if it didn't work? That would have always been followed up with problems booking at 11 months out and it just never (that I remember) happened. Why wouldnt somebody have reported 11 month failures over and over-I know I would have. With the new system it may not happen either (thats my hope), but to claim all reports on the success/failure is inconclusive, from all of the experience and experts on this board, doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Paticake]

I booked our GV this morning for June 27-July 3. I was nervous about this reservation and had no problem.

 

[LIFERBABE]

Well for grins, I tried to Book AKV studio concierge today for June 28-July 3. No dice. I called later in the day, but tomorrow and the next day were already unavailable also.

Good thing I didnt really want it (I was booking another trip).