New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[mello]

I would like clarification on this as well. If I want to book 7 nights, but only nights 4-7 are available, I would like the option to book those nights that are available since they're within the 7-night window. Then I would either waitlist for nights 1-3 or extend my vacation beyond the 7 nights I originally wanted by doing DBD booking, if that's what they're allowing. (Did that make sense? )

This makes perfect sense!

 

[Dean]

[*]Non-dedicated inventory (IE: 2BR lockoff could be a 1BR + Studio or vice versa)
[*]Inventory removed for maintenance
[*]Inventory removed for II exchanges
[*]Inventory removed for cash reservations (IE: compensate for points used for cruises)
[*]Probaly many other situations
[/LIST]

Assuming we're talking 11 months out, none of these would be truly possibly. DVC sets the number of lockoff's up front that will be reserved as smaller components, planned maint is set for slower times, unplanned maint wouldn't be applicable at 11 months out, II exchanges must be booked with points under the same rules as other members and cash reservations from member inventory likewise has to be booked under the same rules thus at worst competing at the same time as members. The only times when it would be possible to have this happen 11 months out would be if DVC changed the lockoff mix mid stream or took rooms out for Maint, both situations where I think they're bright enough to do without affecting reservations unless there were an emergency such as a Hurricane or similar but if that happened you'd have people with reservations in hand but no room to stay in in the interim as well. The reverse is possible (more rooms later than sooner) when developer inventory is declared.

The question isn't why they picked 7-days for the limit, the question is why have a limit at all. It serves no purpose, other than to increase the amount of calls people need to make for a longer reservation.

You'll have to ask DVC why but if they answer completely I suspect they'll tell you it's because they felt it was an appropriate choice based on usage patterns of the membership as a whole and that had they gone further, it would have given a larger advantage to those wanting longer trips, something they specifically didn't want to do. I suspect they'll also tell you they hoped the change would encourage more stays of exactly 7 days, if they're honest. And given even those that go longer won't usually stay exactly 14 days, a longer window would not have serve that portion of the purpose. How would you feel if they said 14 days was OK but it had to be 14, not 10 or 12, would that be OK? Worst case scenario for most situations should be 8 phone calls for a 14 days trip rather than 14. I have faith that DVC won't put members in a position ongoing where you call at opening exactly 11 months out for a given option and it's not available due to this change.

 

[Dean]

Originally Posted by MichiganMouse1967
I would like clarification on this as well. If I want to book 7 nights, but only nights 4-7 are available, I would like the option to book those nights that are available since they're within the 7-night window. Then I would either waitlist for nights 1-3 or extend my vacation beyond the 7 nights I originally wanted by doing DBD booking, if that's what they're allowing. (Did that make sense?)

This makes perfect sense!

The problem with looking at a wait list the same as a pending reservation and allowing them to book under this rule is it's then likely to have more people holding a reservation but looking for the same dates into the future than there are rooms for. This was one of the two biggest problems with the DBD booking option, one I believe they were specifically trying to minimize at least for those that planned ahead enough to reserve 11 months out. We'll see what they actually allow long term and what they don't but it would be a mistake on their part to allow bookings with wait lists for prior dates under this rule. I do expect they went into this knowing full well up front there would be people that got units and those that didn't as opposed to some getting some days and others alternating days.

I wonder how this will work at the 7 month window. Maybe if you have enough points for one night at a given resort you could book that at 11 months then add the other 6 nights at the 7 month window with non home resort points a day earlier than everyone that owned NO points at that resort.

 

[squirrlygirl]

I agree. The current set of rules appears to make it unnecessary to restrict people to booking 7 nights or less at the start of the 11-month window. Maybe it hasn't dawned on them yet or maybe they think people will be even more upset if they eliminate the restriction, even though it doesn't appear to matter if they do.

Unless I'm missing something, once someone books their first 7 nights they have that room blocked and will be able to extend it provided they call back within the following 6 days. They eliminated any competition for that room by not allowing someone to book anything if the first night of their stay is not available. Otherwise someone who had to waitlist for the first 6 nights but could book the 7th night would be competing against someone trying to extend their stay.

I posed about this a page or two back, but after a lengthy conversation with Joy yesterday (in which she said if your first day is not available, you may waitlist your entire vacation up to 7 days), here's part of my post:

BUT, if someone were to waitlist for their stay because days 1-3 aren't available, and you haven't booked DBD (because you're planning on calling on day 8 (well, or day 6, even) to add days), then there could possibly be a waitlist that could be filled which would steal some of your days if one of the previously booked rooms is partially cancelled and it coincides with the still-open end days that haven't hit the 11-month window and a shooting star flies through the sky in the moments before you call to extend your vacation.

And this is why they are recommending you call DBD, so that there is no possibility of that happening.

 

[mrdiscranky]

and that had they gone further, it would have given a larger advantage to those wanting longer trips, something they specifically didn't want to do.

If that's their answer, then it shows the *didn't* really think this through. They did give a larger advantage to those wanting longer trips. Whether the limit is 3 days, 7 days, 20 days; or if you have no limit at all, it makes no difference at all in terms of advantage. The "limit" doesn't limit the advantage - it only increases the number of calls

How would you feel if they said 14 days was OK but it had to be 14, not 10 or 12, would that be OK?

You've lost me here. Can you help me understand the question?

Worst case scenario for most situations should be 8 phone calls for a 14 days trip rather than 14.

What's the point of forcing them to make 8 calls, rather than doing it in 1?

I have faith that DVC won't put members in a position ongoing where you call at opening exactly 11 months out for a given option and it's not available due to this change.

I disagree. I suspect that people wanting to arrive on, say, December 24th for a Christmas - New Year's trip are going to have a very hard time finding rooms, as all the Christmas rooms will be booked by people wanting to stay the week before.

On a person note, I have a trip where I want to stay in a GV checking in on the Saturday of a holiday weekend. This change will make that impossible, as I'm sure there will be enough folks checking in on Friday to book them all. (Note - I'm just showing that the rule will keep some folks from getting room, not whether that's a good or bad thing.)

And while we've mostly talked about the 11-month window in this thread - where the change won't cause too many problems - the 7-month window is going to get more and more important. Here the change is going to be big.

 

[Dean]

You've lost me here. Can you help me understand the question?

Say the rule was you could reserve a full 7 or 14 days on day one but you could not reserve 5, 6, 9, 10, etc. As I noted, I suspect one of the ideas was to maximize full week reservations.

If that's their answer, then it shows the *didn't* really think this through. They did give a larger advantage to those wanting longer trips. Whether the limit is 3 days, 7 days, 20 days; or if you have no limit at all, it makes no difference at all in terms of advantage. The "limit" doesn't limit the advantage - it only increases the number of calls

We'll see where it sorts out. I think in the end you'll find it does though those willing to put the effort into learning the system and working around what was formally intended will often be able to do so. Even at it's worst, this system should only be a problem for the options that were impossible to get anyway such as AKV concierge. I sincerely doubt it'll be an issue even for BW view, standard view at BWV, most HH options, BCV 2 Queens, etc. We'll see, but it's fun seeing all the stressing in the interim. If I were DVC I'd see this as the perfect time to make a few other changes, maybe a good reallocation of points.

What's the point of forcing them to make 8 calls, rather than doing it in 1?

They could have chosen a different time of course. Under the old system you had to make 14. So you're advocating for the new system, just a longer time. How about a month, or two. The point is regardless it will end up being a somewhat arbitrary time and 1 week is a reasonable choice.

 

[mrdiscranky]

Say the rule was you could reserve a full 7 or 14 days on day one but you could not reserve 5, 6, 9, 10, etc. As I noted, I suspect one of the ideas was to maximize full week reservations.

That would be a much, much greater change. Flexibility is one of the big selling points of DVC. There are some folks out there like yourself, who are comfortable in both the traditional timeshare world, and the DVC world. But there are a lot of folks like myself, who never stay anyplace for a full week. The traditional timeshare model is useless for us - and would have to sell if DVC went that direction.

I think in the end you'll find it does though those willing to put the effort into learning the system and working around what was formally intended will often be able to do so.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here... but I don't see how the 7-day limit provides any limit. Calling to extend the vacation for 8+ won't be working around the system - it won't be some trick known only to message board insiders. It's what everyone wanting more than 7 days will do. Once they've made the initial call to book 7 days, days 8+ are just as locked up as if Disney allowed them to lock them up with the initial call.

Even at it's worst, this system should only be a problem for the options that were impossible to get anyway such as AKV concierge. I sincerely doubt it'll be an issue even for BW view, standard view at BWV, most HH options, BCV 2 Queens, etc.

Are you just looking at the 11-month window, or considering the 7-month window as well?

We'll see, but it's fun seeing all the stressing in the interim. If I were DVC I'd see this as the perfect time to make a few other changes, maybe a good reallocation of points.

I think a reallocation of points is long overdue. The whole problem is that some days have much higher demand than others. There is no good method to allocate scarce rooms with excess demand. Somebody is always going to be left out. Much better in the long run to levelize demand somewhat by increasing point costs for high demand times/rooms, and lowering point costs for low demand times/rooms. (note - better in the long run - can you image the howls on this board when that happens?)

So you're advocating for the new system, just a longer time. How about a month, or two. The point is regardless it will end up being a somewhat arbitrary time and 1 week is a reasonable choice.

Not at all! I'm not saying we need a longer time - I'm saying we *have* a longer time. The current system gives folks the right to book a month or two if they want, and have first dibs on rooms over folks who don't want to book long vacations. If we must go to a check-in day system, what I'd like is a limit that actually limits something, preferable as short as possible.

But if we aren't going to get a limit that does anything, I do think we should drop the charade and not force folks to make multiple phone calls, wasting both their time and MS's.

 

[Kiderak]

Other than someone being able to "walk" a reservation, this seems like an improvement to me. The 7 day thing on the website said "as many as 7 days". Making a shorter reservation is not an issue, and extending a reservaton is no an issue as long as you do it before 11 months prior to checkout.

 

[zulaya]

Ah, but being able to walk the reservation is probably one of biggest concerns of this new policy.

Let's see how it goes...no offense intended, but you think this is a great idea now. Let's see how your next 11 month window goes and if you get shut out right away and if you feel the same.

This will probably be the litmus test for all members ~ those who like the new policy and those who don't.

I'm crossing my fingers that my worries about getting the GV ressie I want will be unfounded. At this point, I'm very skeptical.

 

[Dean]

That would be a much, much greater change. Flexibility is one of the big selling points of DVC. There are some folks out there like yourself, who are comfortable in both the traditional timeshare world, and the DVC world. But there are a lot of folks like myself, who never stay anyplace for a full week. The traditional timeshare model is useless for us - and would have to sell if DVC went that direction.

That was somewhat my point. They could, within the rules as written, allow one to reserve a full 7 days with this method, but not less, if those chose. One could still reserve individual days DBD at 11 months from each day. Regardless of what people think about the marketing aspect of this timeshare.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here... but I don't see how the 7-day limit provides any limit. Calling to extend the vacation for 8+ won't be working around the system - it won't be some trick known only to message board insiders. It's what everyone wanting more than 7 days will do. Once they've made the initial call to book 7 days, days 8+ are just as locked up as if Disney allowed them to lock them up with the initial call.

No argument, you're fine. I think the difference is you're looking at every variation you see posted now and assuming that's the way it will be forever and I'm looking at where things will likely end up. It is my opinion that the end result will be you can't drop days from the beginning and that each change will be a cancellation and rebooking. But we shall see and we all will have to adapt to the realities involved.

Are you just looking at the 11-month window, or considering the 7-month window as well?

Mostly day 1 at 11 months out. My feeling is owners at a given resort should have every opportunity and that those from other resorts should only be looking at leftovers whether it be in reservations or unit assignments. The 7 month will be more complicated because you have a large contingent joining the game in the middle.

(note - better in the long run - can you image the howls on this board when that happens?)

Well that was really my point. I do suspect a reallocation is long overdue though I don't have the facts to prove it, none of us do. But it would be the perfect opportunity to make changes while a few are upset anyway and IMO, a good chance to remind members that real changes are always a possibility and over time, a given.

But if we aren't going to get a limit that does anything, I do think we should drop the charade and not force folks to make multiple phone calls, wasting both their time and MS's.

That's been one of my concerns about DVC in general, no backbone. Make rules, make good rules and enforce them whether it be occupancy limits, smoking issues, reservations, cancelations, etc. While I realize that there is always going to be a certain amount of variability on enforcement, if you have no structure from the management you have chaos. And, IMO, that has always been a good word to define MS when it comes to rule enforcement. Whether some people get upset shouldn't be the limiting factor as long as the rules are appropriate overall.

Specific to this point the "old" system was you had to make multiple calls so I don't see this as any worse from that standpoint. Even in the worst case scenario as posted in this thread I think you'll see around a 20-30% reduction of phone calls in the long run. It won't happen right away and there likely will be more calls in the short term. Some will be shut out, so be it, it might be you or I.

 

[MichiganMouse1967]

I don't think you'll have any issue as it looks like your 11 month priority window is at SSR. It's a big resort, so you should be able to get anything you want.

Yes, my 11 month window is at SSR so more than likely, I'll have issues when/if I want to switch to another resort at the 7-month window. Even then, I'd be willing to do a split stay if there's availability.

 

[Dean]

This will probably be the litmus test for all members ~ those who like the new policy and those who don't.

At best this will be a neutral change for me and if some of the concerns people have come true, it will be a negative change for me. Implemented in a way to decrease phone calls (in the long run) and keep people from getting part but not all of their reservation (while others hold the other portion), it's still the right thing to do, IMO. I would hope that the direct personal affect would not be the only, or even the main factor in judging this change. As I've said a couple of times now, it's OK to have losers even if they are you and I. They really are two separate answers IMO, whether I like it and whether I think it's reasonable or appropriate, they are NOT one and the same and should not be.

 

[jekjones1558]

It is my opinion that the end result will be you can't drop days from the beginning and that each change will be a cancellation and rebooking.

This is my worst fear regarding this entire issue. If I get "beaten to the draw" on a hard-to-get reservation at the 11 month window, it will be disappointing. But, much worse for me, if rule changes like the above happen, a flexibility I value and really need will be gone and my many DVC points will become much more difficult for me to use. Please, DVC, don't make that rule change!

 

[jdg345]

If you get the first 7, and call DBD to add, you should not end up with any holes in your reservation. The only people that could be booking that day 8 on day 2 would be people who have already secured a room and taken it out of inventory. If someone's 11-month window is just opening up, they would not have access to inventory that the previous owners have booked, so they couldn't "steal" your days. And I'm beginning to wonder if THIS is what the change is about....once you've secured your first day, you can guarantee yourself an uninterrupted vacation-something that DBD couldn't do.

BUT, if someone were to waitlist for their stay because days 1-3 aren't available, and you haven't booked DBD (because you're planning on calling on day 8 to add days), then there could possibly be a waitlist that could be filled which would steal some of your days if one of the previously booked rooms is partially cancelled and it coincides with the still-open end days that haven't hit the 11-month window and a shooting star flies through the sky in the moments before you call to extend your vacation.

Let's say I book 11+7 today, and I want a 10 day trip.
You want a 10 day trip too, but you're arriving tomorrow.

Day1-Me : I get my first 7 days
Day1-You: You don't call yet, you're not arriving until tomorrow

Day2-You: You call at 9am and waitlist your first 6 and book your 7th day, my 8th.
Day2-Me : I call DBD to extend at 9:30am, sry, sold out on Day-8. WL.

Day3-Me : I call at 9am, extend to my 9th day.
Day3-You: You call to add an 8th day, but it's sold out, so you WL.

See? If they allow you to waitlist the first day and book subsequent days, you can very easily poke holes in someone else's longer reservation.

So what's so different about the way DBD worked before?

 

[jdg345]

I would take exception with the idea that thinking of ways to use a system to your advantage is being dishonest, the exception would be if you had an insider giving you preferential treatment. You can bet if DVC sees much of people calling a week or more before their trip, booking 7 days, then calling DBD to drop a day and add a day that there will be a change to stop this as there should be. Not because it's wrong but because it makes no sense administratively.

I think that's the key ... if it's a small minority of people, or those with very large point pools, they might allow it to continue. Why enforce a change to catch a small percentage? Or that may inconvenience those that pay the most dues and have dropped the most capital into the project(s)? Though, again, this goes back to advantage those with more points.

 

[waltfan1957]

As the new system works I think it will end up screwing me royally for NYE '09/'10. The reason: I book a HA studio Dec 30 - Jan 2. Since there are so few HA studios available, I need to book these day-by-day for such high demand times. I can't afford bumping up to a 1bedroom as I did in April (there was no HA studio availability) at NYE.

I guess I could walk my reservation since my use year begins in December. But then won't I be spending almost my entire January on the phone with MS making and cancelling reservations just for 3 days?

When I talked to MS about it I was not reassured by the wait list alternative. In my experience, MS never calls Special Needs to confirm HA availability before confirming wait lists. When I tried using it in the past I was always offered rooms that were not accessible and had to block the transaction manually.

worse for we require a ha studio in the past we have arrived on xmas day for16/17,nights earlier in the thread dvc mike suggested most dvc member would be happy with the change, I asked him how to book this but I dont believe he has answered yet, if dvc thinks we are going to fly from the uk for seven nights if we can even get those then they need to think again, I for one will be selling our points after this xmas & ny stay,

 

[jdg345]

I called reservations today and they had the fri and saturday I wanted but not the wed , thursday before and the sun, mon, tues after that I wanted. So I stated can I take the fri and sat, and wait list for the wed, thurs and the sun, mon, tues and she stated yes. I was going to do it but decided to wait list for the full week in a one bedroom and a studio instead, but, she was going to allow me to do it, that is to wait list for split days. Maybe it was ok because it was for so late for the mid august. Is it before the 7 month window that the new policy, only booking 7 days in a row only exists?, Here , today, I could not get the first day of my stay the wednesday, or the thursday or sunday , mon, or tues after, but could get day 3 and 4 the fri and saturday. What about this?

Since you were well inside the window, that's why they allowed it.

You are correct, the (7) days in a row is for booking at 11 months at your home resort based on your arrival date (or at 7 months with non-resort points). As long as the days you can book are within your window, you will be allowed to waitlist.

 

[Dean]

This is my worst fear regarding this entire issue. If I get "beaten to the draw" on a hard-to-get reservation at the 11 month window, it will be disappointing. But, much worse for me, if rule changes like the above happen, a flexibility I value and really need will be gone and my many DVC points will become much more difficult for me to use. Please, DVC, don't make that rule change!

In this context it would only apply to this 11 month plus 7 issue. Those that can't live with the changes (wherever they sort out), will have some hard decisions to make. What ever the end result, I'm sure we'll see at least one "I'm selling because..." thread related to this issue before it's over. IMO, under this rule it really only makes sense if they make each change a cancellation and rebooking and likely, NOT allow adding day by day either. Another reasonable modification would be that reservations under this rule had to start Fri, Sat or Sun but if so we'd be at 150 pages for this thread by Monday.

 

[waltfan1957]

.

And if you read my previous post you will see it DECREASES the amount of calls for longer reservation unless you opt to WALK your reservation, then well.. your working the new system in your favor like the old calling DBD it's just a bit harder now....

but with DBD you were only booking the days you actually wanted, if members walk reservations they will be booking days they dont want

 

[jdg345]

The problem with looking at a wait list the same as a pending reservation and allowing them to book under this rule is it's then likely to have more people holding a reservation but looking for the same dates into the future than there are rooms for. This was one of the two biggest problems with the DBD booking option, one I believe they were specifically trying to minimize at least for those that planned ahead enough to reserve 11 months out. We'll see what they actually allow long term and what they don't but it would be a mistake on their part to allow bookings with wait lists for prior dates under this rule. I do expect they went into this knowing full well up front there would be people that got units and those that didn't as opposed to some getting some days and others alternating days.

I wonder how this will work at the 7 month window. Maybe if you have enough points for one night at a given resort you could book that at 11 months then add the other 6 nights at the 7 month window with non home resort points a day earlier than everyone that owned NO points at that resort.

With all this talk of waitlists, do you have any solid information as to how these now trigger? The reason I ask is because there has been concern that as soon as you waitlist, if a room comes up -- whammo -- it's taken out of inventory and fills the waitlist. This would make it tough of cancel/rebook scenarios.

That said, there's another thread around here, specifically related to waitlists, where someone was calling to check on something else, inquired to make sure their waitlist was still intact -- it was -- and there just so happened to be a room available too! So they booked the room and cancelled the waitlist. How is it possible something like that could happen? I understand that a CM can lock a room to reallocated points, but since they locked it, only they can rebook it. How would a situation like this be possible? Unless WL's only trigger in batch over night? Does that mean we need to call DBD for X months to see if there is a room available to scoop it up before a WL triggers?