New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[jdg345]

But to wait and call at the end of my stay while everyone is calling at the beginning of theirs, would virtually guarantee that I will not get a room - especially during the month of December, or at BCV duriing F&W, during the spring break weeks, etc., and also for several different room types in any season, because you're talking about a 10 day disadvantage. And think of the waitlist ramifications for the scenario of calling at the end of your stay. For planners such as most of us here on the Dis are, that is unthinkable!

Actually, if you have a 10 day trip, you're actually at a 17+ day disadvantage.

What we are trying to say here, is that that, under this new system, preference for any reservation is given to those who are arriving earlier, whereas before everyone had exactly the same opportunity to reserve any room. Whether they took the opportunity was up to them.

Exactly, and if people did not DBD and still got what they wanted, that's fine. I hardly think those are the people who were trying to book Thanksgiving Day in a GV.

True, as it stands now, we have the option of "walking" a reservation to get the dates or room types we want, and that is essentially no different than calling day by day currently, so nothing has really been solved, IF they were trying to stop day by day calling, that is.

All it has done is add to the complication and likely add to the number of phone calls.

And to make matters worse, a number of people, who seemingly had no problem with day by day calling, appear to regard "walking" as an abuse to be stopped, so many are calling for additional rules and regulations to be put in place. Such rules were unnecessary before, and they have the potential to hurt many people, not just "commercial renters". (The irony is that such rules wouldn't stop commercial renting anyway, and that whole discussion just opens up a whole different can of worms...)

Exactly, let's make more changes to fix all the things that the first changes broke. Wouldn't it just be easier to go back to the old way?

People who are in favor of these proposed "fixes" to thwart other members from getting an advantage, have been saying essentially, "It doesn't matter to me, I only book 7 day stays during the off season anyway". That may be the case at this point in their lives, but that seems short-sighted to me; circumstances change; they may find themselves wanting or needing to do something different some year. If the proposed rules went into effect (to not allow cancellations or additions without rebooking for instance), nobody will ever be able to book, say a short stay at BCV during F&W, or 10 days spanning Christmas and New Years, or any number of other options that we have had under the old system. And additionally, if you ever needed to adjust your vacation dates for any reason - flight changes, job issues, personal issues, etc., - you would find that you could not.

Right, the people proposing the changes figure that those changes don't really affect them, so therefore they are good changes. The issue is that while those changes don't affect them, they might affect a great deal of others. Let's not forget that DVC is also something that people tend to own for awhile. Just because these proposed changes don't affect the way they vacation today doesn't mean it won't affect the way they vacation tomorrow

I just cannot understand why anyone would view that as a good thing?

The thing about the old system is that it didn't seem to require any "fixes" to keep "others" from getting any "advantages".

Exactly!

 

[jdg345]

I can't believe I'm making my first post on this board in such a heated thread, but here it goes



I think if DVC higher-ups are reading this thread what they will see is about 40-50 members (I counted 32 from page 69 backwards through 48) who are firmly against this new policy. And truthfully, although it's an insanely long thread, the *vast* majority of the replies have been from about the same dozen or so people (both for and against). I know there are other Disney boards out there where people are unhappy, but I imagine the numbers are similar to here, so all told you're looking at maybe a couple hundred unhappy members versus 100,000+ who are either blissfully unaware and won't be affected anyway, or who are aware and are happy with the new changes. I think making comments (and I've seen others here as well) that "membership" is unhappy with the new policy is misleading--some are unhappy with it but many many more are happy or don't care .

The majority of DVC members do not read forums like these, so when MS says the change was initiated at membership request they are most likely telling the truth. People complained about having holes in their reservations and wanted a system more like a hotel system and MS listened. The majority of DVC members do not read these forums, and so will not know, or even think about (it certainly never occurred to me until I read it here ) how to "work" the system to their advantage (they didn't know about DBD booking either). The majority of DVC members are good people who will play by the rules (just as they did before), and so in the end it will be a wash--hard to get times and room types will still be hard to get and other times will still not be a problem. There will be those who will take advantage, but that was the case before as well, and will be no matter what system is in place.

For the record--I sent an email saying that while I like the new system I'm appalled at how it was rolled out and with the inconsistent information the CMs have been giving out. Hopefully the dust will settle soon and it will turn out to not be as bad as has been predicted, but then what do I know, I'm an optimist

While I agree that many of the members are likely unaware of the changes, I cannot agree that just because they aren't posting here that it immediately makes them happy about it. Your post suggests that since only a few hundred people are complaining, then 999,900 are either happy or unaware.

We could also say that since most of those who have commented about the change are unhappy about it, then if we extrapolate that across the member base, most members would be unhappy about it -- but that wouldn't be necessarily accurate either.

At the end of the day, it's hard to say how many people are unhappy or happy about this policy in a concrete number as compared to the membership as a whole.

 

[mrdiscranky]

I think if DVC higher-ups are reading this thread what they will see is about 40-50 members (I counted 32 from page 69 backwards through 48) who are firmly against this new policy.

But how many people "complained" about the old policy. 40-50??

The point isn't that 40-50 people are opposed to the new policy. It's that those 40-50 people have quickly realized the new policy will be worse than the old one. I don't know how many people complained about the old policy, but I'm confident there will be more complaints about the new one.

Either we are going to have walking reservations (which are going to be an even worse problem for MS than day-by-day reservations) or we are going to see situations where nobody can ever start a reservation during a high-demand time. Nobody will ever be able to stay from Christmas to New Years, as all the Christmas rooms will go to folks checking in a week before Christmas.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I just called MS to ask a question about my points and first thing I heard was an announcement about the "enhancement" to the booking policy. Enhancement was used at least two times to describe it. If marketing has to tell you what it is then maybe it's not so obvious to the audience. Otherwise....I think the word "change" is applicable enough. But, being that I disagree with it being an enhancement it of course was just enough to annoy me.

Just a general marketing pet peeve of mine.

But, anyone who calls in to MS now should be aware of the change so they are getting the word out in more ways.

 

[aurorafan]

While I agree that many of the members are likely unaware of the changes, I cannot agree that just because they aren't posting here that it immediately makes them happy about it. Your post suggests that since only a few hundred people are complaining, then 999,900 are either happy or unaware.

I didn't say the other 999,900 were happy, I said they were either unaware of the changes OR were happy . I should have added that I'm sure some of them won't be happy when they do find out about it, but I still think a majority of them won't care or will be happy.

I guess my point is, it seems from reading many of these posts that some posters are taking this small cross-section of people on this board and extrapolating it to the whole DVC membership--"if DVC higher-ups read this they'll see how upset membership is about this". To me that thought is incorrect--if DVC higher-ups read this they will see that some of the membership is upset, and a small number at that. You are entirely correct in saying there's no way to know concrete numbers, and there very well may be members who don't post on these boards who call to register their complaints. I just wanted to point out that despite the fact that there are 1000+ posts in this thread, the *actual* number of people posting is far far less than that

 

[dcamdad]

I think a poll would be intersting.

 

[zulaya]

Just addressing the comment that only 40-50 are opposed to this "enhancement"...

Just because there are not people posting here does not mean that there aren't other people out there who don't agree with this new policy. There have been way more views of this thread than posts.

And I know that means that there are probably people who like this new policy and haven't posted, too.

I would be curious to know how many people complained about how they HAD to book day-by-day, when in reality it wasn't a mandatory deal, but a choice.

For me, the fact that the choice is out of my hands rubs me raw. Even if I'm not going at key times or for a key unit type, taking my choice away...it just irks me plain and simple that that fact now exists.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Just addressing the comment that only 40-50 are opposed to this "enhancement"...

Just because there are not people posting here does not mean that there aren't other people out there who don't agree with this new policy. There have been way more views of this thread than posts.

And I know that means that there are probably people who like this new policy and haven't posted, too.

I would be curious to know how many people complained about how they HAD to book day-by-day, when in reality it wasn't a mandatory deal, but a choice.

For me, the fact that the choice is out of my hands rubs me raw. Even if I'm not going at key times or for a key unit type, taking my choice away...it just irks me plain and simple that that fact now exists.

That's the problem I have with it too. No longer is the system equitable. Now some will be able to book AHEAD of other's 11 month booking window. Just doesn't seem too fair to me.

 

[kimberh]

I didn't say the other 999,900 were happy, I said they were either unaware of the changes OR were happy . I should have added that I'm sure some of them won't be happy when they do find out about it, but I still think a majority of them won't care or will be happy.

I guess my point is, it seems from reading many of these posts that some posters are taking this small cross-section of people on this board and extrapolating it to the whole DVC membership--"if DVC higher-ups read this they'll see how upset membership is about this". To me that thought is incorrect--if DVC higher-ups read this they will see that some of the membership is upset, and a small number at that. You are entirely correct in saying there's no way to know concrete numbers, and there very well may be members who don't post on these boards who call to register their complaints. I just wanted to point out that despite the fact that there are 1000+ posts in this thread, the *actual* number of people posting is far far less than that

Of course, we don't represent the "Whole DVC membership" just as, DVC saying members were complaining about the DBD reservations. I have been on this board and other boards for years, I must have missed all the complaining on the DBD topic. What and How many members is my question? DVC has opened a hornets nest with this new policy. Sure, many may not realize this Now, but give it a few months, when they can't get their desired reservation. Say what you want, We are not all equal now. It was equal before. I wonder how the guides will spin this one.

I want to add; What makes the DVC higher ups think they are smarter now than the ones that originally wrote the Original Booking system. Why fix something that wasn't broke.

 

[n2mm]

1k Points and only 3k Dues? Wow ... How?

Sorry, not to confuse you, I just keep ending up with 400 points to bank each year, so with my 610 new points, I always start new UY with 1,000+ points. (The first year we joined we didn't use any of our points, so have been rolling most of them over each year.)

 

[kimberh]

Sorry, not to confuse you, I just keep ending up with 400 points to bank each year, so with my 610 new points, I always start new UY with 1,000+ points. (The first year we joined we didn't use any of our points, so have been rolling most of them over each year.)

Thanks for the clarification! I have just under 1000 points, my maintenance fee this year were way more than what you posted. I was wondering myself, how you were paying so little. If we can call $3000.00 little!

 

[jdg345]

I didn't say the other 999,900 were happy, I said they were either unaware of the changes OR were happy . I should have added that I'm sure some of them won't be happy when they do find out about it, but I still think a majority of them won't care or will be happy.

I could say the majority of them won't care or will be unhappy.

I guess my point is, it seems from reading many of these posts that some posters are taking this small cross-section of people on this board and extrapolating it to the whole DVC membership--"if DVC higher-ups read this they'll see how upset membership is about this". To me that thought is incorrect--if DVC higher-ups read this they will see that some of the membership is upset, and a small number at that. You are entirely correct in saying there's no way to know concrete numbers, and there very well may be members who don't post on these boards who call to register their complaints. I just wanted to point out that despite the fact that there are 1000+ posts in this thread, the *actual* number of people posting is far far less than that

That's fair ... but to keep things in perspective, the *actual* number of people that like the policy change seem to be fewer than those that don't.

 

[jdg345]

Just addressing the comment that only 40-50 are opposed to this "enhancement"...

Just because there are not people posting here does not mean that there aren't other people out there who don't agree with this new policy. There have been way more views of this thread than posts.

And I know that means that there are probably people who like this new policy and haven't posted, too.

I would be curious to know how many people complained about how they HAD to book day-by-day, when in reality it wasn't a mandatory deal, but a choice.

For me, the fact that the choice is out of my hands rubs me raw. Even if I'm not going at key times or for a key unit type, taking my choice away...it just irks me plain and simple that that fact now exists.

I don't think those people were complaining about how they HAD to DBD, I think it's more that they didn't really feel like it and were upset that other people were doing it and maybe getting their reservation.

My take on it always was: If you called DBD and got your reservation, and I didn't, then good on you. You obviously wanted it more, you went through the extra effort, so you deserve it more than I. Some people did not want the hassle, but also seem to resent the fact that other people were willing to do it -- and some of these people are happy about the new policy.

There have been a few posts (not many, mind you), whos context has essentially been: "I never really wanted to DBD, it was inconvient for me or I was just too lazy. But, I'm now happy that you can't do it because it makes us even."

That said, let's just wait and see how they feel when they find out the new policy affects them too.

 

[jdg345]

Sorry, not to confuse you, I just keep ending up with 400 points to bank each year, so with my 610 new points, I always start new UY with 1,000+ points. (The first year we joined we didn't use any of our points, so have been rolling most of them over each year.)

Ohhh!

That must be rough and confusing on you. I know, you can transfer those points to me.

 

[Dean]

I don't think those people were complaining about how they HAD to DBD, I think it's more that they didn't really feel like it and were upset that other people were doing it and maybe getting their reservation.

My take on it always was: If you called DBD and got your reservation, and I didn't, then good on you. You obviously wanted it more, you went through the extra effort, so you deserve it more than I. Some people did not want the hassle, but also seem to resent the fact that other people were willing to do it -- and some of these people are happy about the new policy.

There have been a few posts (not many, mind you), whos context has essentially been: "I never really wanted to DBD, it was inconvient for me or I was just too lazy. But, I'm now happy that you can't do it because it makes us even."

That said, let's just wait and see how they feel when they find out the new policy affects them too.

I would agree that if one could do DBD and another couldn't, that was OK. But there have been MANY over the years that complained both here and to DVC MS about having to do DBD or not getting their reservation if they didn't. While we must wait to see how the membership AS A WHOLE feels about this change, we have to wait to see where the dust will settle. The ONLY way it isn't fair (either way) is if one person gets different info from another AND that info costs them getting their desired reservation. Given MS track record of inconsistency and the fact it happened with DBD as well, I think we WILL see that for a while until MS gets on the same playbook and the members figure out how to use work within the new system. Both will take some time. And like always there will be the stated version of the rule and the real version.

Given this thread over what I see as a minor adjustment, I can't wait to see the threads' when DVC institutes a true minimum LOS, limits options of those who buy resale, creates a system where those with more points gets a formal priority over those with less, limits banked points to the 7 month window or other banking or borrowing limitations, etc. Maybe they should return to the original banking and borrowing rules. Anyone interested in Bluegreen should compare the differences they are generating with two new priority levels to this minor change.

 

[snackyx]

But to wait and call at the end of my stay while everyone is calling at the beginning of theirs, would virtually guarantee that I will not get a room - especially during the month of December, or at BCV duriing F&W, during the spring break weeks, etc., and also for several different room types in any season, because you're talking about a 10 day disadvantage. And think of the waitlist ramifications for the scenario of calling at the end of your stay. For planners such as most of us here on the Dis are, that is unthinkable!

What we are trying to say here, is that that, under this new system, preference for any reservation is given to those who are arriving earlier, whereas before everyone had exactly the same opportunity to reserve any room. Whether they took the opportunity was up to them.

True, as it stands now, we have the option of "walking" a reservation to get the dates or room types we want, and that is essentially no different than calling day by day currently, so nothing has really been solved, IF they were trying to stop day by day calling, that is.

And to make matters worse, a number of people, who seemingly had no problem with day by day calling, appear to regard "walking" as an abuse to be stopped, so many are calling for additional rules and regulations to be put in place. Such rules were unnecessary before, and they have the potential to hurt many people, not just "commercial renters". (The irony is that such rules wouldn't stop commercial renting anyway, and that whole discussion just opens up a whole different can of worms...)

People who are in favor of these proposed "fixes" to thwart other members from getting an advantage, have been saying essentially, "It doesn't matter to me, I only book 7 day stays during the off season anyway". That may be the case at this point in their lives, but that seems short-sighted to me; circumstances change; they may find themselves wanting or needing to do something different some year. If the proposed rules went into effect (to not allow cancellations or additions without rebooking for instance), nobody will ever be able to book, say a short stay at BCV during F&W, or 10 days spanning Christmas and New Years, or any number of other options that we have had under the old system. And additionally, if you ever needed to adjust your vacation dates for any reason - flight changes, job issues, personal issues, etc., - you would find that you could not.

I just cannot understand why anyone would view that as a good thing?

The thing about the old system is that it didn't seem to require any "fixes" to keep "others" from getting any "advantages".

There is, of course, a reason why "walking" or "rolling" a reservation is considered, by many, an abuse of the system where DBD booking was not.

If you are booking day by day, a process advised by MS, you are making reservations that you will actually be using. When you "walk" a reservation, you are making a reservation, or more likely MANY reservations, that you know you will not be using and will, in fact, be clogging up days that other members may be legimately trying to book.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

 

[jdg345]

I would agree that if one could do DBD and another couldn't, that was OK. But there have been MANY over the years that complained both here and to DVC MS about having to do DBD or not getting their reservation if they didn't. While we must wait to see how the membership AS A WHOLE feels about this change, we have to wait to see where the dust will settle. The ONLY way it isn't fair (either way) is if one person gets different info from another AND that info costs them getting their desired reservation. Given MS track record of inconsistency and the fact it happened with DBD as well, I think we WILL see that for a while until MS gets on the same playbook and the members figure out how to use work within the new system. Both will take some time. And like always there will be the stated version of the rule and the real version.

Given this thread over what I see as a minor adjustment, I can't wait to see the threads' when DVC institutes a true minimum LOS, limits options of those who buy resale, creates a system where those with more points gets a formal priority over those with less, limits banked points to the 7 month window or other banking or borrowing limitations, etc. Maybe they should return to the original banking and borrowing rules. Anyone interested in Bluegreen should compare the differences they are generating with two new priority levels to this minor change.

I can see where some of these things would save them money, but how can limiting banked points to 7 months and the other changes help them? Other than maybe getting people to spend money on more points?

 

[jdg345]

There is, of course, a reason why "walking" or "rolling" a reservation is considered, by many, an abuse of the system where DBD booking was not.

If you are booking day by day, a process advised by MS, you are making reservations that you will actually be using. When you "walk" a reservation, you are making a reservation, or more likely MANY reservations, that you know you will not be using and will, in fact, be clogging up days that other members may be legimately trying to book.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

I can see both sides of this really ... as long as MS allows it, it's not abuse per se.

There is a key difference between DBD and Walking though:

DBD didn't tie up rooms you didn't want, walking does just that so members who legitimately want those days potentially cannot get them because someone who DOESNT EVEN WANT THEM has them booked.

Nice, eh?

 

[Dean]

That said, let's just wait and see how they feel when they find out the new policy affects them too.

Unfortunately I think this represents the way many approach such matters. IMO, it's not how one feels about it but how one thinks (actually reasons about the issue). Whether it affects on positively or negatively really shouldn't determine their ultimate opinion of the change or as a minimum one needs to have the honestly to say they're being selfish if the emotion and personal affect is the determining factor on their opinion.

To tack on, people in this thread have used terms like "gaming the system". What they really mean is using the system is a way different than their opinion of how it should be used or again, in a way that might possibly impact them in a negative way. As I noted previously, there is always the rule of unintended consequences. If these are a problem, and DVC has the legal ability to correct it, they will do so. My mind immediately jumps to ways to use any system to my advantage, though I rarely put the effort in to those convoluted ways to do so, I'm all about discussing them. But be warned that if the option is there and I feel I need to do so to be successful, I will.

 

[jdg345]

Unfortunately I think this represents the way many approach such matters. IMO, it's not how one feels about it but how one thinks (actually reasons about the issue). Whether it affects on positively or negatively really shouldn't determine their ultimate opinion of the change or as a minimum one needs to have the honestly to say they're being selfish if the emotion and personal affect is the determining factor on their opinion.

To tack on, people in this thread have used terms like "gaming the system". What they really mean is using the system is a way different than their opinion of how it should be used or again, in a way that might possibly impact them in a negative way. As I noted previously, there is always the rule of unintended consequences. If these are a problem, and DVC has the legal ability to correct it, they will do so. My mind immediately jumps to ways to use any system to my advantage, though I rarely put the effort in to those convoluted ways to do so, I'm all about discussing them. But be warned that if the option is there and I feel I need to do so to be successful, I will.

Right, and I think this is why many people used DBD in the past. They felt it gave them the best shot during certain periods. It doesn't mean they used it all the time. For example, I'm sure you have quite a few tricks up your sleeve depending on what TS you're planning on using ... but I hardly think you use up your bag of tricks if you dont need to. It's not like you'd use them for every ressie I wouldn't think.