New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[dianeschlicht]

snipFortunately for us, in our situation, we are not negatively impacted with either policy, but I do feel for those who have for a long time been used to one system and now it has changed for the worse for them. Especially those who have strategically purchased specific quantities of points in order to accomplish the right number of nights in the right category during high demand times - they may now have to increase their ownership in order to maintain the same degree of success in booking those vacations.

Either that or sell the smaller contracts that no longer work for them.

 

[DVC Mike]

I am more to the thinking that this new booking rule WAS triggered by DVC membership that DOES NOT read or know of these forums.
Not by Walt wanting to increase income or trying to cut back on CR hours and so on.

I read earlier today that membership in the DVC has increased from 100,000 to 300,000 (or 400,000, not sure which) in the last several years.

How many DVC owners use or read these forums? 20,000 maybe ? These members have learned the ins and outs of "tweaking" the system but the vast majority of the other 280,000 owners have no idea about dropping days, adding days etc and so on. Most of them don't know yet about the 11 +7 from arrival date change until the book comes out in the fall.

I agree. The DIS DVC boards are busy with Disney/DVC fanatics, and may not be representative of DVC members as a whole.

I think the average DVC member will greet this new change with appreciation.

 

[Dean]

People are using the above statement from the POS to justify the right of DVCMC to change the booking policy regardless of what the POS says. It's interesting to note that this statement is in the same section as the part that says any reallocation of points shall not change the total number of points for a given resort. That an increase for 1 day requires a decrease someplace else. So, does the statement above mean that DVCMC, in it's sole discretion, could raise the point requirements across the board without a corresponding decrease?

Actually nothing in the Multisite POS where the reservation guidelines are located is contractually protected. The points reallocation is listed in the POS itself for each and every resort thus giving it direct and essentially absolute protection as written.

Some other reasonable and logical moves that would greatly reduce calls to MS, reduce costs, and solve many of the problems already brought up:

1) Any change requires a cancellation, and rebooking based on availability
2) Any cancellation incurs a penalty of some sort (either $ or points)
3) Dining reservations must be made thru WDW-Dine, not MS.
4) Eliminate the 7 day maximum part of the new policy

None of those changes would affect me, but I suspect they would upset many, even though IMO they are reasonable and logical!

Agreed, they are all reasonable and c/w the industry approaches. They could also divide the benefits and options along the lines of developer purchases vs resale and/or based on the number of points you own, both also c/w the industry.

 

[Dean]

Where do I fine these Stated Rules you refer to?

I think you're wrong that I'd be competing with everone else for the same thing on the same day. What about the people who can book my day 8 on my day 2 and so on until I get to my 8th day. There's 7 days head start others have to book the 8th, 9th, and 10th days that I want.

The rules in this reference is what is being discussed in this thread. That it's a limit of 7 days and that the rule (with poor enforcement so far) is that you can't call day by day and add a day to a 7 day reservation until you're in the 11 month window for the last day. There are only so many units per night. Lets take VB which has 6 BC. Say 6 people call in on 1 Jan and reserve for 7 nights. NO ONE else can reserve one until the 8th. Thus all you'd be competing with would be others that call on the 8th. Certainly someone who wanted Jan 2-9 would be out of luck in that scenario and that is a large part of the complaint many have if I understand correctly. But lets say 5 called for Jan 1-8, another for Jan 5-12. No one could reserve anything else in this example until 8 Jan regardless. This assumes that your first day and every day must be available to use this option which is c/w expectations for such a policy and with the info we've received so far and that you couldn't reserve 1, 2, 5 & 6 under this plan at 11 months out. Obviously once the 11 month window opens for a given day, the scenario changes dramatically.

It also brings into question the wait list when you have a split reservation when the split is in the date. In the above example (next to last sentence) when one gets part of the days but not all and there are unreserved days, each set is technically a separate reservation. I wonder how a wait list would work and it would seem to be a way around the wait list for the entire time limitation.

 

[CarolMN]

Here's a thought that just crossed my my mind after reading the 700+ messages in this topic over the last several days.

I am more to the thinking that this new booking rule WAS triggered by DVC membership that DOES NOT read or know of these forums.
Not by Walt wanting to increase income or trying to cut back on CR hours and so on.

I read earlier today that membership in the DVC has increased from 100,000 to 300,000 (or 400,000, not sure which) in the last several years.

How many DVC owners use or read these forums? 20,000 maybe ? These members have learned the ins and outs of "tweaking" the system but the vast majority of the other 280,000 owners have no idea about dropping days, adding days etc and so on. Most of them don't know yet about the 11 +7 from arrival date change until the book comes out in the fall.

When they go to make a ressie, probably more times from not, the times they are requesting are not available so the complaints start rolling in and CR decides changes need to be made.

Just a thought

Dave

I'm sure you're right - many (if not most) new members would assume making a DVC reservation is just like making a hotel reservation. You call and tell them when you plan to arrive and how many nights you want to stay. They catch on pretty quick to the 11 / 7 month booking rules, but don't catch on the day by day method unless they read the boards or MS tells them AFTER they call and find what they want is already sold out.

If you don't know about DBD and call as soon as you can for the whole vacation, it's tough to understand how everything could already be gone. I'm very sure MS has gotten lots of complaints about that.

I think the vast majority of new people call DVC just like they call for hotel reservations. Since DBD isn't needed for most reservations, those folks never have a problem. Most won't even notice the change.

I do think there has been a lot of unnecessary DBD calling. Those of us who participate on the internet boards bear a lot of the blame for that - new members read posts here (some of which are total BS, lol) and get scared into DBD calling. For example, there is NOTHING that requires DBD at SSR for the 11 month window. NOTHING! NOTHING! And yet there have been posts that say you have to do it or that someone is going to do it because there is an very, very very small chance they might have to waitlist.

And the same can be said for most room types at all of the DVC resorts for most times of the year.

All that said, I still agree with those who say an owner should have the exact same opportunity to reserve the exact same thing as any other owner - at least during the home resort booking advantage period.

 

[Dean]

I think this would be tough to do, as it would limit the flexibility of the program, which is something that they regularly market to members and potential members. It would affect those that book at 11 months just about every time if they are traveling via air as most airlines wont let you book as far in advance as DVC does. If these folks are forced to deal with a cancel/rebook, then they are likely to stay offsite a night or be forced to eat points. Either option cuts into the 'save money' marketing of DVC.

You all need to ditch the idea that marketing or words by a sales person has any credibility or gives DVD/DVC any limitations. If it's not protected in the POS and/or FL law, it's fair game. DVC's main goal is to make money, plain and simple.

This also wouldn't affect the spec renter advantage of being able to book 7 days in a block and making the whole thing available on ebay. Regardless of how it's done, either walking or adding on at day-8, these folks have the highest chance of getting the most rooms for Christmas and NYE in one of two fells swoops. That said, I know you feel that spec renting is someone's full right of membership ... I'm just throwing this out there.

Something I don't understand though, regarding your stance on spec renters, is that DVC has said that they frown upon such things and have imposed some sort of system to flag accounts. But above, you say DVC should create rules to prevent those that go against the spirit of the rule and continue to book DBD. Isn't the spirit of the rule that spec renting is not allowed?

First, to me a member is a member regardless of how they use their points. Anyone wanting to rent has no greater chance of getting a given reservation than the next person, actually in many ways they have less of a chance. Their advantage is in knowing what/when they want, something that I don't think is reasonable to try to penalize anyone for. I'll try to explain my stance. There are FL laws and there is the POS. Where they conflict, FL law will take precedence. I've already stated that many erroneously interpret the section in the POS that says one should not buy with the expecation of making a profit as a prohibition. It's a statement of expectation and is there because it's required by Fl law. The reason is very simple, that in the past (and in places still like MX) salespeople lie and tell you that you can rent or sell later for a large profit. You might be able to but as a rule you can't with timeshares, DVC is somewhat an exception in that area.

For years the POS said two things. It specifically stated one could rent and it had a vague statement about "commercial" renting. Recently DVC has clarified this "commercial" renting as more than 20 reservations. Assuming the first limitation is legal (a big question in my mind), the clarification is reasonable. Here's one reason I question the entire limitation. There was a court case in FL regarding a developer who was attempting to limit owners from week long rentals and that they could only rent for a month or more while at the same time renting for shorter periods themselves. The court held that a developer or management company could not hold the owners to a different standard than themselves. There are many condo's and even a few timeshares that limit rentals but all the ones I know about that are active use the same guidelines for both groups.

I'm sure DVC/DVD frowns on such for two reasons. One is competition and the other is complaints from members. I'm sure you know who said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!".

 

[Dean]

DBD might be more work for those chosing to book that way, but I see it as: If these people want to invest more time and energy into getting what they want when/where they want it, so be it. If it gives them a better shot, so be it -- They're putting in the effort!

If you call DBD and get the booking and I call 15 days later requesting the same days and I don't get them, who's fault is that? Yours? DVC's for allowing DBD? Nope, all mine. I obviously didn't want it bad enough, so I'll just book somewhere else.

Many of the folks that didn't like the old system were upset because they'd call based on departure day and find that some previous days were booked. Frankly, if they called departure minus 11 months, almost everything should be available. If they called departure minus 10 months, well ... then ... who's fault is that?

Booking DBD was fair for everyone, you always knew that your room was available 1 minute before MS opened and everyone had a fair shot to get in if they wanted it bad enough.

Just as your previous days could be booked when the old system, your current day could be booked with the new system. I wonder how many people who think the new system is great will think so when they call and can't book 7+ because their first day is not available?

Right now, it's great because no one knows about it so you don't have anyone before you really tying up future days. Once the 'secret gets out', you have just as much possibility of having your current/future days locked out as you did your previous days with the old system. The solution? You still DBD, but now you're taking up a bunch of days you don't want or need and are causing issues for other members who might want those days. Plus, you're tying up MS to make meaningless reservations you don't really want!

Yup, sounds more fair to me.

Based on your post you're OK with one person getting a leg up on another based on their reservation habits and telling another that their personal situation is just that and not the system's problem. Thus the new system would be OK with you in principle as would DBD bookings. So it becomes a question of what works for you personally (selfishness) not of principle. Personally the DBD works better for me but it is inherently more time and personnel consuming and ultimately more costly to the system. I can guarantee you that this policy will fall out in such a way as to reduce DBD calls in the long run, there will be a time of adjustment as there is with any significant change (though I'm not sure I'd personally call this a significant change).

I would quibble with the idea that DBD was fair for everyone. Both options are fair to the members but each option favors different groups to a minor degree. What if there were two rooms and you got it today and I got it tomorrow. IMO it's inherently more fair for you to get it both days and me none than playing chicken.

 

[Dean]

Yes, that was what I was thinking too. I actually had responded to their first form letter email and told them how disappointed I was with the form letter and the fact that they didn't address my specific questions. I think the specific questions is what actually triggered the call.

Don't be surprised if the answer is different when the time comes. One should not be able to reallocate the points without it being a cancellation and rebooking unless the mistake was on DVC's side.

 

[CarnotaurDad]

The way I see it (and this may be simplistic) is that for anyone that was ok with doing DBD, it is a loss. For any others, it is not that big a deal.

Personally, I despised DBD and would only call on the day of checkout at the 11 or 7 month date and then back up and see if it was available. So, personally, this is a big win for me as I can now call in a little sooner.

I understand that those who were used to, and ok, with DBD would be disappointed but, as Dean has mentioned, I don't think anything in our contracts specifically said that you could do DBD from contract signing until the end of the contract.

Anyways, for me, it will be a win but only because I didn't enjoy doing DBD and I can now call on check-in for 7 nights vs calling on check out and backing up for 7 nights.

Six more calendar days for me to enjoy a booked DVC vacation!

 

[jdg345]

Based on your post you're OK with one person getting a leg up on another based on their reservation habits and telling another that their personal situation is just that and not the system's problem. Thus the new system would be OK with you in principle as would DBD bookings. So it becomes a question of what works for you personally (selfishness) not of principle. Personally the DBD works better for me but it is inherently more time and personnel consuming and ultimately more costly to the system. I can guarantee you that this policy will fall out in such a way as to reduce DBD calls in the long run, there will be a time of adjustment as there is with any significant change (though I'm not sure I'd personally call this a significant change).

I would quibble with the idea that DBD was fair for everyone. Both options are fair to the members but each option favors different groups to a minor degree. What if there were two rooms and you got it today and I got it tomorrow. IMO it's inherently more fair for you to get it both days and me none than playing chicken.

I would disagree and say that you're going to end up with even more DBD traffic now. People are going to start DBD a week earlier, or more now. In the case of a (5) Day Reservation, you would have had (5) DBD calls. Now you'll have at least 7, maybe more, for those that want to 'do all they can to get their reservation'.

 

[Dean]

I would disagree and say that you're going to end up with even more DBD traffic now. People are going to start DBD a week earlier, or more now. In the case of a (5) Day Reservation, you would have had (5) DBD calls. Now you'll have at least 7, maybe more, for those that want to 'do all they can to get their reservation'.

Assuming DVC doesn't allow day by day modifications (and they shouldn't until the 11 month window opens for a given date), then the most you should generally have is 2 calls in your scenario. One at 7 days prior to your expected checkout to reserve 7 days and then again 2 days later to see if you can cancel and rebook the 5 days instead. If not, you must decide if you keep the 7 days or not possibly with a waitlist at some point for your desired days. I can't imagine that the long term options is going to be day by day modifications, both sides can assume that will NOT be allowed. But even if they did once people get comfortable with the 7 day reservation option, it's likely to settle down as intended.

 

[jdg345]

Don't be surprised if the answer is different when the time comes. One should not be able to reallocate the points without it being a cancellation and rebooking unless the mistake was on DVC's side.

Nothing in the POS says this though. Is your opinion that a point reallocation requires a cancellation and rebooking from your experience with other Timeshares?

You seem to suggest that most other timeshares are like this, so DVC should inevitably skew in that direction over time. DVC prides itself in being different that most other timeshares. If it was just the same as the others, then I'm sure many of the current owners would decide it was no longer for them.

I have never had an issue reallocating points, and I've never had an issue dropping/adding days -- even under the new system -- where it resulted in a cancellation and rebooking.

Just because other Timeshares handle things this way doesn't mean that DVC will today, tomorrow, or even eventually. Of course, it also doesn't mean that they wont. Either way, to justify any change by stating 'most other timeshares do it this way' doesn't hold a lot of water for me. It's the old addage, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge ... ".

 

[jdg345]

You all need to ditch the idea that marketing or words by a sales person has any credibility or gives DVD/DVC any limitations. If it's not protected in the POS and/or FL law, it's fair game. DVC's main goal is to make money, plain and simple.

And that's fine, but it's marketed and sold a certain way. If they change the way the program works then people will sell. People will complain. Media outlets will want to know about it. Imagine the negative publicity of 100,000 members that bought based on flexibility that just lost it because DVC decided to change their minds. Imagine what 20, 30, or 40,000 resales would suddenly do to ROFR and the point floor.

You're right, DVC's main goal is to make money, and their plan was to offer something different, something people would want to buy. If they go backwards on all of their marketing over the last 18 years, then I'm sure people will want to sell. A mass exodus is certainly one way to not make money for DVC. DVC doesn't only make money on our dues and point sales, they make money when DVC members buy food, souvenirs, and park tickets. Completely changing the direction of DVC is certainly not a way for them to make money, imo.

 

[skelooch]

Or they could go back to DBD booking based on Checkout Date which would remove the need to create a bunch of more and different more complicated rules and regulations. Then they could focus on an online booking system which would cut down calls to MS. It's likely that those that do DBD would be more likely to book online as it's should be a faster solution anyways.

I couldn't have said it better myself

 

[jdg345]

The way I see it (and this may be simplistic) is that for anyone that was ok with doing DBD, it is a loss. For any others, it is not that big a deal.

I disagree totally. I think those that DBD'd before are going to continue to do so. This is a loss for members who do not DBD as the DBD'ing members are likely going to book rooms that they dont have any intention of keeping. It wont reduce call volumes, it will make them go up.

Personally, I despised DBD and would only call on the day of checkout at the 11 or 7 month date and then back up and see if it was available. So, personally, this is a big win for me as I can now call in a little sooner.

Why despise DBD?

I understand that those who were used to, and ok, with DBD would be disappointed but, as Dean has mentioned, I don't think anything in our contracts specifically said that you could do DBD from contract signing until the end of the contract.

That's just it, DBD isn't going away. It's just changing. Let's say I want to book the 14th to the 21st. So I start my reservation on the 7th and walk it forward day by day. Now, let's say you want to arrive on the 13th. If I took the last room (or me along with other DBD'ers), you have nothing to book on the 13th. Come the 14th, I drop the 13th, and now it's available, but that's too late for you. So even though my net want was after yours, you still don't get your ressie because I tied up the system way before you were going to arrive anyways. So what do you do? You already said you won't DBD, and WL will be harder now as they will be all or nothing.

With the old system, you'd have been able to get the 13th, and had a fair shot at the 14th and onwards if you wanted to do DBD. If you didn't do DBD, you'd be in the same boat.

Now, let's say someone else wanted to book the 8th to the 14th. The DBD folks are tying up those rooms already and since the 14th is a keeper day, you can WL but still need that day to come through to get your whole reservation. Either way, the DBD folks are tying up a bunch of days you or someone else might want, for nothing, because they have no intention of keeping those nights.

Anyways, for me, it will be a win but only because I didn't enjoy doing DBD and I can now call on check-in for 7 nights vs calling on check out and backing up for 7 nights.

Part of the issue is this is a sort of Honeymoon Period. It's a new policy and very few people know about it. As such, you can pretty much always get your 11+7 as no one has had an opportunity to book before you. Go ahead and give it a few months and let the word spread. The possibility of having your arrival day(s) pre-booked going forward from your arrival date is just as high as your arrival days being booked backwards from your departure date.

Will you still like the system better when you call based on your arrival date to find out there is no availability, that you can only waitlist that one day, and you need to call back tomorrow and check again?

Six more calendar days for me to enjoy a booked DVC vacation!

If you can book it.

 

[skelooch]

But wait... that room 1A could be booked for night 8 by another family the very next day when they book a studio for arriving day 2 and extending 7 nights. So technically room 1A can be unavailable on day 8 the very day after the first booking is made by next family for 7 nights.

I state room 1A because that studio will be available by night 8, since family 1 can't book the night 8 until 7 nights later.

I don't think it's based on the room a family is occupying, but more based on available studio in the resort.

confused?

Exactly my concern.

 

[Dean]

Nothing in the POS says this though. Is your opinion that a point reallocation requires a cancellation and rebooking from your experience with other Timeshares?

You seem to suggest that most other timeshares are like this, so DVC should inevitably skew in that direction over time. DVC prides itself in being different that most other timeshares. If it was just the same as the others, then I'm sure many of the current owners would decide it was no longer for them.

I have never had an issue reallocating points, and I've never had an issue dropping/adding days -- even under the new system -- where it resulted in a cancellation and rebooking.

Just because other Timeshares handle things this way doesn't mean that DVC will today, tomorrow, or even eventually. Of course, it also doesn't mean that they wont. Either way, to justify any change by stating 'most other timeshares do it this way' doesn't hold a lot of water for me. It's the old addage, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge ... ".

While variably enforced, it is DVC's policy that a reallocation is a cancelation and rebooking. If not it effectively is using non home resort points (or other less desired points) to gain a home resort or other advantage. Certainly DVC could change these rules as the POS would allow them to do. Years ago I could make a BWV reservation and sub the OKW points at 7 months out even if the resort was booked up. I never did this but many did.

I'm always amazed that many people don't understand DVC IS a timeshare. It's not that DVC has to be like other timeshares, which are all different from one another BTW, but that there are reasons other timeshares do things certain ways that make sense and save $$$. It's the reasoning behind the issue that I draw on. Being different for the sake of being different makes no sense. I'm sure that some wouldn't have bought if DVC were significantly different than it is, but I'm also certain that about 98% of those that say that really would have bought because it's on Disney property and carries the Disney name.

For point of order, when I refer to other timeshare it's either a point of reference or a statement of reason related to the underlying issues, or both but NEVER EVER a statement of others do it this way so DVC should too without thinking it through. Some want to be isolated and ignorant, many seem to appreciate the additional information on how others approach common problems or issues. Depending on the issue at hand, there are many timeshares better than DVC and likewise, DVC is better than many other timeshares in certain areas. DVC isn't the same it was when I joined in 94 and it won't be the same 5 or 10 years from now. Likewise I'm not the same person and my family is not the same. As it evolves it will no longer work for a certain % of people (due to DVC changes and/or their personal changes) and as such many will vote with their feet, as they should. Some will try to seek change back to a way they can live with (a valid approach) and some will just B**** and Moan which seems to be the predominant approach on most BBS and email lists.

 

[jarestel]

Media outlets will want to know about it. Imagine the negative publicity of 100,000 members that bought based on flexibility that just lost it because DVC decided to change their minds. Imagine what 20, 30, or 40,000 resales would suddenly do to ROFR and the point floor.

Wow! A couple of dozen disappointed DISboard members has already mushroomed into 40,000 resales over this new policy. Goodness gracious!

 

[jdg345]

Assuming DVC doesn't allow day by day modifications (and they shouldn't until the 11 month window opens for a given date), then the most you should generally have is 2 calls in your scenario. One at 7 days prior to your expected checkout to reserve 7 days and then again 2 days later to see if you can cancel and rebook the 5 days instead. If not, you must decide if you keep the 7 days or not possibly with a waitlist at some point for your desired days. I can't imagine that the long term options is going to be day by day modifications, both sides can assume that will NOT be allowed. But even if they did once people get comfortable with the 7 day reservation option, it's likely to settle down as intended.

Ah, but you're assuming I book Friday - Friday when all I want is Sunday - Friday, right? That's not what I'm suggesting. Instead, I'm suggesting I book the Friday before. Putting it another way, I want:

Dec 21 - Dec 25 (Sun - Thurs), 5 Nights.

I could book my arrival for Friday the 19th through the 26th. But I really want to make my chances good. So I could instead book the 14th through the 21st. But the 14th is a Sunday. So, I want to be absolutely sure I get what I want ... so I start booking on the 12th, the Friday before, to lock up the 12th through 19th. Then I call back Saturday to book the 20th and drop the 12th (13-20 net), and I keep doing this until I can get the 18th through the 25th. Then, on the 21st, I call one last time and drop the 18th, 19th, and 20th.

Are you still so sure this is going to result in *less* calls to MS?

Why should we assume reservations modifications wont be allowed without a cancel and rebook? Just because that's what other timeshares do? Again, I don't buy into that. DVC has to be careful as that is one of the key reasons many members own -- flexibility. If that goes away, so do many member points imo.

Perhaps I'm just being naive, but if DVC was like every other timeshare, I doubt they would have the same success. People would walk.

They haven't stopped commercial renters, why bother with a small subset of people who DBD? After all, the majority of folks love this change and think it will be better, right? It seems the system is only better if DVC puts other rules and regulations in place that would prevent people from locking up days before and during their reservation window. The new system makes it easier to impact others' bookings, not harder.

 

[Dean]

And that's fine, but it's marketed and sold a certain way. If they change the way the program works then people will sell. People will complain. Media outlets will want to know about it. Imagine the negative publicity of 100,000 members that bought based on flexibility that just lost it because DVC decided to change their minds. Imagine what 20, 30, or 40,000 resales would suddenly do to ROFR and the point floor.

You're right, DVC's main goal is to make money, and their plan was to offer something different, something people would want to buy. If they go backwards on all of their marketing over the last 18 years, then I'm sure people will want to sell. A mass exodus is certainly one way to not make money for DVC. DVC doesn't only make money on our dues and point sales, they make money when DVC members buy food, souvenirs, and park tickets. Completely changing the direction of DVC is certainly not a way for them to make money, imo.

That's just it, I don't see this as a significant change, I see it as a minor adjustment. DVD may care what others say but ultimately they only care about having paying members and selling what they have to sell, it doesn't matter who those members are or if they're the same to day as they were last year. In the long run I suspect this will help sales and not hurt them. I don't really care that much about ROFR or that much about the underlying sale price. What I do care about is having someone paying the dues on those contracts because you and I pay more if other members don't pay. Frankly, I couldn't see a single member selling due to this issue.