New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[Chuck S]

A reminder to please keep the thread on the topic of the changes to the booking/waitlist policies. I've removed several off-topic posts.

Thanks.

 

[maminnie]

Maybe I'm not understanding what your point is. You can reserve each home resort 11 months out and you can attempt to change of of those to the other resort at 7 months out, all from the date of check in. You can wait list at 7 months out for any resort. Given the reservations are separate with different number, it should be from the date of the portion you want to change.

Dean:

The big difference now is those that simply have a check-in date before my check-in date for the resort I am waitlisting mid-week to avoid a split stay are now able to get on that waitlist way before me for those days simply by having an earlier check-in date. They also have access to inventory that may be available at 7 months way before me too simply because they are booking let's say Friday to Friday. They either get the inventory or get on the waitlist right at 7 months from the Friday check-in date versus me with the split stay reservation that can't get access to the inventory or the waitlist until my mid-week check-in date for the second half of my reservation.

For those with multiple contracts/resorts that have been successful avoiding split stays and having to move through the waitlist system, this new policy could make it much more difficult. So much for cutting back on people having to move and minimizing housekeeping expenses.

 

[Dean]

Dean:

The big difference now is those that simply have a check-in date before my check-in date for the resort I am waitlisting mid-week to avoid a split stay are now able to get on that waitlist way before me for those days simply by having an earlier check-in date. They also have access to inventory that may be available at 7 months way before me too simply because they are booking let's say Friday to Friday. They either get the inventory or get on the waitlist right at 7 months from the Friday check-in date versus me with the split stay reservation that can't get access to the inventory or the waitlist until my mid-week check-in date for the second half of my reservation.

For those with multiple contracts/resorts that have been successful avoiding split stays and having to move through the waitlist system, this new policy could make it much more difficult. So much for cutting back on people having to move and minimizing housekeeping expenses.

So you're essentially repeating the same argument as the 11 months window, that those that have an earlier check in can add that day before you. My response would be the same as well, but I won't repeat them here.

 

[maminnie]

This new policy really has a more far reaching effect then just unfortunate members who have to travel during busy times or members who want select, limited accommodations. It reaches all members that also want to stay at other DVC resorts and use the 7 month booking window to try and do this.

For those that want to stay at another resort and plan on trying to book at the 7 month window, those that arrive earlier then others have access to inventory days before those that come in after them. With check-in +7 all the 7 month inventory could very well be gone before another member even gets to start booking. At least with day by day everyone had access to all 7 month inventory everyday of a desired stay. For those that purchased smaller contracts and only stay Sunday through Thursday, 7 month inventory may well be taken by those that come in on Friday and Saturday.

(In previous posts I have also given examples as to how this is going to be difficult for members with multiple contracts/resorts that book split stays at 11 months with the hope of changing over at 7 months for half of their stay to avoid moving.)

So I guess buy where you want to stay may be more true then ever and maybe it should be added make sure you buy and own enough to beat out everyone else for busy vacation weeks and select limited inventory.

Also will member's hopes of trying the new BLT or the new Hawaii resort using the 7 month window and the "flexibility" of the DVC system only be but a dream simply because of their check-in date?

 

[BWV Dreamin]

My question got lost, so let me ask again...


Would everyone be willing to share the letters they sent to Jim Lewis or the satisfaction team?

I would be more than happy to post my letter if others would also post theirs. Carol, would that have to be a new thread?

What are you writing to Jim Lewis about? Modifying the changes or changing back to the old ressie way?

 

[CarolAnnC]

The DVC Moderators have decided to keep all discussion on the new policy for reservations here on this thread. So any posting of information sent to DVC regarding this policy change should also remain here. Thanks everyone!!

 

[dianeschlicht]

Here's my letter if you're interested.

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I am saddened to have to write this letter, because DVC has always been one of the best investments we have made in our vacation time. We chose DVC because it was a clear flexible program that allowed us to own a few points (449 for us now) and still be on equal footing with those who owned thousands of points. The booking 11 or 7 months from check out date was easy to understand and was a good system so that all members had equal footing on gaining even those difficult to secure reservations like a Grand Villa during the holidays or more recently, a Kilimanjaro Club level room at AKV. This new booking from day of check in leaves a lot to be desired. It appears to have not been well thought out and makes some who want to "game the system" on an unequal footing from those of us who just want to follow simple rules.

I am quite sure you are aware of the DIS board discussion site. There are 3 DVC boards on that site, and this topic of the new booking window has been discussed at length there. First of all, how sad that we had to find it out there from someone who called on day 1 and learned about the new policy. Why was something this different not communicated to the membership before hand? That is a BIG disappointment from a company that I have always considered to be ahead of the curve in customer service. I'd expect this from Blue Green or Shell, but NOT DVC!!!

The new policy seems on first glance to favor those who only book 7 night trips. This sounds like the same old schedule from traditional timeshares where you purchase a week. That is NOT what I purchased when I bought DVC, and it is NOT what I want. Since my usual trips are often 10-12 days, I now will have to call day one of check in and book the first week, and then HOPE that the remaining 3-5 days of my unit type (hope it's not concierge or a Grand Villa) is available when I call back 7 days later when numerous others have already been able to book that same category up to 6 days ahead of me. It could result in me having to waitlist at the 11 month window for my desired accommodations, or worse yet, move to something different mid trip. It will likely result in me cutting my DVC vacations down to 1 week and/or stewing about the fact that I can't use my points in the manner I have been accustomed to.

What is worse is that those with thousands of points who want to dupe the system can now call day by day and start their booking a week ahead of when they actually want to stay. That means they will then call back the next day and cancel the first night while adding one onto the end until they get to the actual dates they truly want in the Kilimanjaro Club level room or Grand Villa at holiday time. It's just a different twist on the day by day calling and gives them an advantage to book a full week ahead of the actual booking window for those rooms. For what it's worth, I have never called day by day for a reservation EXCEPT when we did a GV starting on New Years for the Millennium and for Concierge at AKV. I see no real reason to use it for anything else, and I was always on equal footing with everyone for each specific date. Now those rooms can be booked up to a week ahead of that date, and THAT is what I find so unfair about this new policy.

Thank you for listening to this very long concern of mine. If you want to read what other owners are saying, visit this page on DIS.com. http://www.disboards.com/showthread....861954&page=32

Sincerely,

 

[dianeschlicht]

By the way, I think the mods are wise to keep all this discussion to one thread. It helps those who are trying to find the information, and it keeps the discussion relavent.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Nice letter, Diane. They do say that snail mail usually gets a better response than e-mail. Hope your's does, too.

But since Jim Lewis doesn't read his mail, who do you think will call you? Joy? Sheila?

 

[jdg345]

Wrong is your opinion, not mine. And at this point there is no reason that I see to correct anything.

As a side question: Did you ever book DBD in the past?

 

[jdg345]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVC Grandpa

If the policy is wrong, it’s wrong and no “spin” can make it right, so why not start ASAP to try and correct the policy?

You didn’t say if you “would you mind if Disney implemented an “age policy” of oldest first to youngest in determining dinner reservations and resort reservations days in advance of you or letting them into the parks hours earlier or even let them cut in line at any ride. Isn’t this what DVC is doing with the enhanced policy? Would you still want to give the “age policy” a chance to work itself out?”

I see where you're going with this, but I think a better parrallel would be those with lower contract numbers (ie: bought first) would be able to book first or get some sort of priority.

 

[jdg345]

For the majority of folks this change is a positive thing and should not be discredited:

* less calls to make the average reservation
* fewer multi-resort stays
* shorter waits for MS
* helps keep dues in line

That said, if I was in the minority and routinely stayed in a high demand specialty units -- or over NYE -- I, too, would be mad. (A possible compromise would be to exclude the high demand specialty units and the major holidays from the new policy.)

Unfortuately, a few will not get their Boardwalk views on NYE, some years; but it's highly likely they will still get a preferred view.

I’m sure I’m missing something as this has struck a nerve with many members. But overall this appears to be a well intentioned move by Disney to streamline the process.

Do you have some data on this from somewhere? It seems the response from this thread has been overwhelming negative with regard to the new policy, and several posters have noted that the Members Satisfaction Team stated they were getting more negative than positive statements.

Do we know that for the majority of folks this is a positive? Just because you choose not to book NYE or some other specialty unit today doesn't mean your habits won't change next year, or the year after.

 

[Dean]

This new policy really has a more far reaching effect then just unfortunate members who have to travel during busy times or members who want select, limited accommodations. It reaches all members that also want to stay at other DVC resorts and use the 7 month booking window to try and do this.

For those that want to stay at another resort and plan on trying to book at the 7 month window, those that arrive earlier then others have access to inventory days before those that come in after them. With check-in +7 all the 7 month inventory could very well be gone before another member even gets to start booking. At least with day by day everyone had access to all 7 month inventory everyday of a desired stay. For those that purchased smaller contracts and only stay Sunday through Thursday, 7 month inventory may well be taken by those that come in on Friday and Saturday.

(In previous posts I have also given examples as to how this is going to be difficult for members with multiple contracts/resorts that book split stays at 11 months with the hope of changing over at 7 months for half of their stay to avoid moving.)

So I guess buy where you want to stay may be more true then ever and maybe it should be added make sure you buy and own enough to beat out everyone else for busy vacation weeks and select limited inventory.

Also will member's hopes of trying the new BLT or the new Hawaii resort using the 7 month window and the "flexibility" of the DVC system only be but a dream simply because of their check-in date?

I've always said that owners at a given resort should have priority over non owners, even in unit assignments regardless of when they booked.

 

[jdg345]

This is the part of your statement(and many other members here seem to agree) that I don't see as being factual. There is no proof yet that the new system will cause a heartache on anyone's plans. I have to see proof that indeed members are cut out of making the reservation they wanted due to this policy. If indeed that happens, then I will grant you and everyone else the right to say to me SEE I TOLD YOU SO! I will then support your position to get the policy changed, but only then.

The issue here is that many on this thread suggest that something else needs to be done to make this new policy work. Very few people think that it can stand on its own as is. DVC even has a 'Team' assigned to monitor who can make additional changes. The fact that this new system cannot stand on its own, as DBD did, is enough to suggest that it was not completely thought out. Why wait for a problem to happen instead of fixing something that is obviously broken before it creates additional problems?

If you get a recall notice on your car, are you going to wait to hear about someone you know having a problem before going to fix it? Or are you going to wait until it happens to you to get it repaired? Just because it has not happened to you or someone you know [yet] doesn't mean it's not a problem.

 

[tjkraz]

The issue here is that many on this thread suggest that something else needs to be done to make this new policy work. Very few people think that it can stand on its own as is. DVC even has a 'Team' assigned to monitor who can make additional changes. The fact that this new system cannot stand on its own, as DBD did, is enough to suggest that it was not completely thought out. Why wait for a problem to happen instead of fixing something that is obviously broken before it creates additional problems?

The arguments here suggest that under the old system day-by-day booking was a necessity...that it is commonplace for entire room classes to be booked to capacity 11 months TO THE DAY. Furthermore, the assertion is that under the new system members who wish to arrive on (for example) a Tuesday or Wednesday may be blocked from getting their dates due to those who booked on Sunday or earlier.

As simzac said, there is no proof to support these claims.

It didn't take me long to find multiple posts to disprove these theories. Here's a post from a member who got several December nights at BWV booked at 7 months. BCV was also available and he/she did the same thing last year. If those accommodations were available at 7 months, they were certainly available at 11 months minus 2 or 3 days.

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=25759020&postcount=4

Here's a post from a member who got OKW 2B at 7 months for December:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=25759030&postcount=5

Here's a post from a member who has NEVER booked day-by-day, including BWV Standard View in early December and F&W time:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=25807921&postcount=24

And yet I couldn't find a single post from someone who chose to make one call on check-out date and couldn't get what they wanted.

We can argue fairness until the cows come home. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that members will be unable to get what they want simply because a few have earlier booking access to overlapping dates.

Just because people chose to book day-by-day...and were even encouraged to do so by biased Member Services reps...doesn't mean that it was ever necessary.

 

[jdg345]

The arguments here suggest that under the old system day-by-day booking was a necessity...that it is commonplace for entire room classes to be booked to capacity 11 months TO THE DAY. Furthermore, the assertion is that under the new system members who wish to arrive on (for example) a Tuesday or Wednesday may be blocked from getting their dates due to those who booked on Sunday or earlier.

As simzac said, there is no proof to support these claims.

It didn't take me long to find multiple posts to disprove these theories. Here's a post from a member who got several December nights at BWV booked at 7 months. BCV was also available and he/she did the same thing last year. If those accommodations were available at 7 months, they were certainly available at 11 months minus 2 or 3 days.

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=25759020&postcount=4

Here's a post from a member who got OKW 2B at 7 months for December:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=25759030&postcount=5

Here's a post from a member who has NEVER booked day-by-day, including BWV Standard View in early December and F&W time:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=25807921&postcount=24

And yet I couldn't find a single post from someone who chose to make one call on check-out date and couldn't get what they wanted.

We can argue fairness until the cows come home. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that members will be unable to get what they want simply because a few have earlier booking access to overlapping dates.

Just because people chose to book day-by-day...and were even encouraged to do so by biased Member Services reps...doesn't mean that it was ever necessary.

Several posters in this thread have stated that they were unable to get their desired room and category when booking DBD in the past. If there are cases of DBD not working, clearly this system is worse.

According to posters, also in this very thread, CM's suggested using DBD when callers were unable to get what they wanted. So when they did not use DBD, they did not get their desired room/category.

In any case, if what you are suggesting is that DBD was never necessary to begin with, then why put this policy in place at all? Just book based on departure day and that's that.

Clearly DBD was necessary for certain timeframes, and that being the case, allowing someone (or someones) access to your dates up to a week before you get a chance to call is only going to make that worse.

Oh, and in Post-5 above, the OP stated that they booked DBD at 7 months. We have no idea if they would have gotten their switch if they did not book it DBD. In fact, they tried to switch out for the Studio portion and they are waitlisted. I would have to think that if they did the first switch DBD, then they likely did the second switch DBD as well (and did not get their days).

We are going to WDW this Dec. I called day by day to make my 2 BR SSR reservation 11 months out. At 7 months I called day by day to switch to an OKW 2 BR. We are staying in the 2 BR at OKW for a week and then switching to a studio at SSR. I am waitlisted to switch to a diff. resort for this portion of our stay.​

 

[tjkraz]

Several posters in this thread have stated that they were unable to get their desired room and category when booking DBD in the past. If there are cases of DBD not working, clearly this system is worse.

Can you provide links to those posts?

According to posters, also in this very thread, CM's suggested using DBD when callers were unable to get what they wanted.

As I said, it is very self-serving for CMs to recommend that approach.

In any case, if what you are suggesting is that DBD was never necessary to begin with, then why put this policy in place at all? Just book based on departure day and that's that.

Why? Cost, obviously. If, as I suspect, there was absolutely no need for day-by-day reservations 99% of of the time, all it did was cost DVC money.

Meanwhile, thanks to the MS reps and the Internet, day-by-day calls continue to increase during periods when they were never even remotely necessary.

 

[tjkraz]

Oh, and in Post-5 above, the OP stated that they booked DBD at 7 months. We have no idea if they would have gotten their switch if they did not book it DBD. In fact, they tried to switch out for the Studio portion and they are waitlisted. I would have to think that if they did the first switch DBD, then they likely did the second switch DBD as well (and did not get their days).

Irrelevant.

The point is that day-by-day bookings for OKW 2Bs at 11 months were CLEARLY unnecessary since a room was still available at 7 months. Every single OKW owner who called day-by-day for those dates was wasting MS dollars in doing so. THAT is EXACTLY why this policy change was made.

 

[jdg345]

Can you provide links to those posts?

I could, but I really don't want to go back and search for them. I believe Dean mentioned it happened to him, and one or two other people stated the same. Maybe they will chime back in.

As I said, it is very self-serving for CMs to recommend that approach.

Why is that self serving? If I call based on my departure date and it is booked, the CM could suggest calling DBD. That only makes sense, doesn't it? In this case, wouldn't that mean DBD was necessary? Why would the CM suggest DBD if I call at 11 months of departure date and get my reservation successfully?

Why? Cost, obviously. If, as I suspect, there was absolutely no need for day-by-day reservations 99% of of the time, all it did was cost DVC money.

And this new system could very well likely lead to more frequent and more often calls. Look at the people that call to check their WL several times per day due to the lack of transparency in that system. If their goal was to reduce calls, this might be an exercise in the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, thanks to the MS reps and the Internet, day-by-day calls continue to increase during periods when they were never even remotely necessary.

Again, why would an MS rep suggest you call DBD if you successfully booked? I would think they would only suggest it if you failed to get what you wanted.

Are you suggesting people are calling, getting exactly what they want, and the CM's are telling them, self-servingly, that next time they should book DBD anyways?

 

[Inkmahm]

Irrelevant.

The point is that day-by-day bookings for OKW 2Bs at 11 months were CLEARLY unnecessary since a room was still available at 7 months. Every single OKW owner who called day-by-day for those dates was wasting MS dollars in doing so. THAT is EXACTLY why this policy change was made.

Could they not have been booked for 11, 10, 9, 8 months and someone happened to cancel because they were moving to another resort at 7 months, thus making room for someone else to get those dates? Perhaps many people did try to book earlier, and the villas weren't available then?

By the way, I own at AKV and I'm STILL on the waitlist there for a 2 bedroom for one night in December. I've been on the waitlis since about early March. I was hoping that it would come through at the 7 month shuffle date but it did not.