New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[jdg345]

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.

Was it made due to overwhelming member request? Or due to wasting dollars? I'm confused now.

Seriously, that individual was not able to switch all their days, and we do not know if they would have gotten their switch at 7 months if they did not go DBD. 11 months they would have been fine, but I believe even Carol noted that OKW, as large as it is, wouldn't really be affected either way.

Again, if this policy change was made to reduce calls, it may not work out that way in the end, especially if people start walking reservations on a regular basis and/or book needless days.

Let's also not fool ourselves here, the first DBD call took the longest, subsequent days were handled very very quickly as the LOS was noted and included in the initial reservation. That's why they did not send out confirmation letters for just the first day, then second day, etc. They waited until the whole LOS was booked, one reservation number (non-linked), and sent the confirmation.

So instead of 1 normal call and 6 quick calls for a week-long DBD booking, you're going to end up with quite a few 'normal' length calls, if not 'longer length' calls as people add days, remove days, re-allocate points from other contracts, borrow forward, etc, so that they can try to get the room they want during the period that they want.

 

[tjkraz]

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.

I couldn't find them either so perhaps you were just imagining things.

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?

Again, you are suggesting that people are getting blocked despite trying day-by-day without providing any proof.

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.

Fear, undertainty and doubt. That's all the thread appears to contain thus far.

My position is that if people would simply call 11 months from their legitimate check-in date, they would get exactly what they want the vast majority of the time. The most noteworthy exceptions would be the room classes that are already difficult to book (i.e. AKV concierge, which I believe you have already dismissed.)

Can you point to ANY evidence which would suggest I am incorrect?

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.

MS reps suggest calling day-by-day at every opportunity. I've read plenty of posts where MS reps tell people "oh, it's a good thing you called day-by-day" after booking successfully. Obviously that's a very self-serving comment. More calls = greater job security.

I'm still looking for those instances where people didn't get what they wanted 2 or 3 days after the 11 month window opened.

 

[jdg345]

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.

It is certainly possible if the person was lucky enough. There have been recent reports of people on the WL for a room calling up MS to find that the room is available and their WL is still active. So they book the room and cancel the WL.

I believe all the 2BR's at OKW are Dual Queen's ... so this wouldn't be a limited capacity category anyways, correct?

 

[tjkraz]

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?

That still strikes me as more grasping at straws. What about the person who "never" booked day-by-day even for BWV Standard View in Oct and Dec?

Where are the posts from people blocked at 11 months?

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.

So should I assume that you got the rest of your AKV nights 9 months out (early March)? If so, it seems pretty far-fetched to think that single night would have been fully booked day-by-day 11 months out.

 

[jdg345]

I couldn't find them either so perhaps you were just imagining things.

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=25986951&postcount=1404

I've been unsuccessful calling DBD at the 11 month window at opening and I know for certain that on one of those occasions there was someone who had the dates I need in the same unit type and vice versa. But that's only one example, hardly hard data in the big scheme of things.

It didn't take very long for me to find it, so I guess you simply didn't look very hard.

Again, you are suggesting that people are getting blocked despite trying day-by-day without providing any proof.

As above, it has happened to Dean.

Also, you still appear to be suggesting that members are successfully booking their reservations and CM's are telling them that next time they should book DBD anyways. That makes little to no sense, imo.

Fear, undertainty and doubt. That's all the thread appears to contain thus far.

Your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

My position is that if people would simply call 11 months from their legitimate check-in date, they would get exactly what they want the vast majority of the time. The most noteworthy exceptions would be the room classes that are already difficult to book (i.e. AKV concierge, which I believe you have already dismissed.)

Can you point to ANY evidence which would suggest I am incorrect?

Link to Dean's post above.

MS reps suggest calling day-by-day at every opportunity. I've read plenty of posts where MS reps tell people "oh, it's a good thing you called day-by-day" after booking successfully. Obviously that's a very self-serving comment. More calls = greater job security.

Did an MS rep ever tell you that? They've never told me that. Why do they tell people not to keep calling about WL's? If they really wanted to push job security, why don't they tell people to call every day, 3 times per day to check their WL's? So on one hand, they're telling people to call DBD to increase job security (do we really believe they think this way?) and don't want people to call for WL checkups? I understand this is your opinion, but you have not provided any evidence that this is the case.

OTOH, PP's have stated that when booking based on departure, they FAILED to get what they wanted and the CM then suggested that they could have booked DBD to give them a better shot next time around. This makes a lot more sense.

I'm still looking for those instances where people didn't get what they wanted 2 or 3 days after the 11 month window opened.

I posted the link to Dean's statement. I believe 2 other people in the thread had similar experiences, maybe more.

 

[jdg345]

That still strikes me as more grasping at straws. What about the person who "never" booked day-by-day even for BWV Standard View in Oct and Dec?

Grasping at straws? Like suggesting CM's are telling people to call DBD (while telling you not to call to check on WL's) for increased job security?

Where are the posts from people blocked at 11 months?

I posted a link to Dean's post on this. It wasn't very hard for me to find.

So should I assume that you got the rest of your AKV nights 9 months out (early March)? If so, it seems pretty far-fetched to think that single night would have been fully booked day-by-day 11 months out.

I don't get it ... this is far-fetched, yet you continue to push the job security angle?

btw, check this post here: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1724111

Several people are waitlisted for December stays, and some have been on the WL since January. Maybe they should have booked DBD.

 

[tjkraz]

Was it made due to overwhelming member request? Or due to wasting dollars? I'm confused now.

I don't work for DVC so please don't waste your time playing that game.

Seriously, that individual was not able to switch all their days, and we do not know if they would have gotten their switch at 7 months if they did not go DBD.

Back to the "we'll never know" game. Is that STILL all we have to work with after 2000 posts?

Again, if this policy change was made to reduce calls, it may not work out that way in the end, especially if people start walking reservations on a regular basis and/or book needless days.

Back to the chicken-and-the-egg stuff.

I'm trying to disprove that this "walking" stuff is even necessary...at least 99% of the time...and we keep circling back to "yeah, but what if they DO..."

We can't control what people decide to do. Is there any evidence to suggest that day-by-day (walking) was (is) even necessary for all but very isolated situations?

Let's also not fool ourselves here, the first DBD call took the longest, subsequent days were handled very very quickly as the LOS was noted and included in the initial reservation. That's why they did not send out confirmation letters for just the first day, then second day, etc. They waited until the whole LOS was booked, one reservation number (non-linked), and sent the confirmation.

And what about the on-hold time? What about the extra reps necessary to handle the additional calls, short though they may be?

You can try to minimize the impact all you want, but the volume still adds up.

 

[Inkmahm]

So should I assume that you got the rest of your AKV nights 9 months out (early March)? If so, it seems pretty far-fetched to think that single night would have been fully booked day-by-day 11 months out.

Nope, you should assume that I got the rest of my nights at VWL day by day at 11 months out. We just decided to add a day at AKV at the beginning of the trip (as I often do, add a day or take a day away...) after the 11 month booking period was over.

 

[jdg345]

I don't work for DVC so please don't waste your time playing that game.

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.

You made a pretty authoritative statement there.

Back to the "we'll never know" game. Is that STILL all we have to work with after 2000 posts?

You introduced that post as evidence that DBD wasn't needed, not me. Clearly, it doesn't show that since "we'll never know" and they did successfully book DBD. Perhaps you should have only included posts of successes that were NOT made DBD?

Back to the chicken-and-the-egg stuff.

I'm trying to disprove that this "walking" stuff is even necessary...at least 99% of the time...and we keep circling back to "yeah, but what if they DO..."

Whether it's necessary or not, if people feel it is, they are going to do so. That will likely lead to higher call volumes than what they had for DBD. So are they just going to see what happens and if volumes spike, go back to the old way?

We can't control what people decide to do. Is there any evidence to suggest that day-by-day (walking) was (is) even necessary for all but very isolated situations?

Is there any evidence to suggest that it isn't? I guess it depends on what your definition of 'isolated situations' is.

And what about the on-hold time? What about the extra reps necessary to handle the additional calls, short though they may be?

Do you have any details as to what these numbers are in actuality? If not, then it really makes no sense to debate this point as we have no real data to discuss. If you call and your arrival is booked, you need to call tomorrow anyways, and maybe the day after. December/January is always going to be busy because of Thanksgiving and Christmas and NYE. Even if people get their 7 days on the first call, they might WL for a category they could not get -- and then call a bunch of times to see if their waitlist filled. Plus they are making their ADR's and purchasing special events tickets. Do we know that they even hire extra staff during this period? Maybe they don't and this is why the hold times are what they are?

You can try to minimize the impact all you want, but the volume still adds up.

As does the volume of calls checking on WL's, those making dining reservations or booking special events tickets, etc. Perhaps we should cut those things out too?

Another thought: It's been stated by many that the problem with DBD is that you end up with 'holes' in your reservations ... so that's another case of not getting what you want DBD. That pretty much tells you DBD was necessary for that period/category/resort, doesn't it? I mean, if DBD wasn't needed, then no one would have 'holes' in their reservations to worry about, correct?

 

[jdg345]

Nope, you should assume that I got the rest of my nights at VWL day by day at 11 months out. We just decided to add a day at AKV at the beginning of the trip (as I often do, add a day or take a day away...) after the 11 month booking period was over.

FWIW, there wasn't much of anything available at VWL at 7 months ... other than waitlist spots.

 

[tjkraz]

You introduced that post as evidence that DBD wasn't needed, not me. Clearly, it doesn't show that since "we'll never know" and they did successfully book DBD. Perhaps you should have only included posts of successes that were NOT made DBD?

Again, the fact that the poster indicated they successfully booked day-by-day at 7 months is not the point.

The point is their success in securing a room at 7 months means that the resort never filled within the 11-month window.

Whether it's necessary or not, if people feel it is, they are going to do so. That will likely lead to higher call volumes than what they had for DBD. So are they just going to see what happens and if volumes spike, go back to the old way?

And why would they feel it's necessary?

Fear, uncertainty and doubt. I only hope people stop buying into this...

Is there any evidence to suggest that it isn't? I guess it depends on what your definition of 'isolated situations' is.

Yes...the absense of any great outrage over inability to secure reservations 4 or 5 days inside of the 11 month window.

So far we have one post from Dean (in which he offered no details.) I looked thru more than 10 pages of the December waitlist thread and found one post from a person who tried unsuccessfully to book AKV value a couple days inside of the window.

That's pretty thin...

The examples I provided for people who booked less than 11 months (to the day) are just the first few I stumbled across. I'm sure there are many, many, many more.

Do you have any details as to what these numbers are in actuality? If not, then it really makes no sense to debate this point as we have no real data to discuss. If you call and your arrival is booked, you need to call tomorrow anyways, and maybe the day after. December/January is always going to be busy because of Thanksgiving and Christmas and NYE. Even if people get their 7 days on the first call, they might WL for a category they could not get -- and then call a bunch of times to see if their waitlist filled. Plus they are making their ADR's and purchasing special events tickets. Do we know that they even hire extra staff during this period? Maybe they don't and this is why the hold times are what they are?

"Real data" is not necessary.

We've all called Member Services and been placed on hold for 10 minutes or more...30-45 minutes in January. People calling day-by-day are obviously driving up those numbers.

As does the volume of calls checking on WL's, those making dining reservations or booking special events tickets, etc. Perhaps we should cut those things out too?

That call volume will exist regardless. The addition of day-by-day reservation calls will only inflate the costs further.

 

[tjkraz]

Another thought: It's been stated by many that the problem with DBD is that you end up with 'holes' in your reservations ... so that's another case of not getting what you want DBD. That pretty much tells you DBD was necessary for that period/category/resort, doesn't it? I mean, if DBD wasn't needed, then no one would have 'holes' in their reservations to worry about, correct?

I recall that being discussed in the abstract, as one of the potential benefits of the new system. In all likelihood it would only apply in isolated situations.

A prime example would be AVK concierge. Getting 7 nights in that room class would be a near impossibility booking day-by-day. Under the new system, it's quite feasible.

 

[Dean]

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.

That is speculation that I would not agree with. IMO, when DBD did not work it was because some people held part of the days and others, different but related days. That is an issue that should be much better or nonexistent with this policy. It did happen to me for this Dec and that's OK but I don't specifically recall anyone else on this thread for 11 months out. I never even mentioned it anywhere until it seemed helpful to illustrate the point that there are always winners and losers and there has to be some way to sort them out. This system is as good as most and better than DBD.

My position is that if people would simply call 11 months from their legitimate check-in date, they would get exactly what they want the vast majority of the time. The most noteworthy exceptions would be the room classes that are already difficult to book (i.e. AKV concierge, which I believe you have already dismissed.)

Actually I'll go a step further. In this exact example the number of people that are successful calling getting what they want for a 7 night reservation calling 11 months from their checkin would be exactly the same or higher than would have been under the DBD calling depending on whether you believe sometimes you held my days and I held yours. It might be a different person but the numbers would be the same so we're back to selfishness alone as the motivation. That is why I believe they will cease letting people add a day and drop a day. They may cont to let people add a day but there's no reasonable way other than to make these type of reservations a cancellation and rebooking for deletions. But even if they cont to allow the walking, days will eventually open up and wait lists will be filled within a few days. Regardless, even if it conts in it's worst iteration and everything that people believe could happen negatively does, it's still a better system than DBD, IMO.

 

[maminnie]

I went to bed last night vowing that I would get out of this and focus my energy on Member Services but I continue to be amazed at what I read.

Let me give you all some very clear examples of how this sytem is unfair to certain people; people who are very important to all us.

First let's look at a teacher. A teacher in our school system is not permitted to take any days off before or after a school vacation. Let's say Teacher Smith wants to go to Disney to her home resort BCV (a small DVC resort) at Thanksgiving. Her school does not close until 12:00pm on Wednesday so she can't travel to her beloved BCV until Wednesday night. Under the old system she realizes that this is a busy time so she makes arrangements to have her mother call day by day for her because she can't pull away from the classroom to do it. Teacher Smith's mother secures Wednesday - Sunday. Under the new system Teacher Smith's mother calls the day of check-in (Wednesday) only to be told that all two bedrooms are gone for Wednesday and Thursday night by people (non-teachers) who could simply travel days before her. Teacher Smith is penalized because she is teaching your children until Wednesday at 12:00pm.

Let's look at health care workers and law enforcement professionals. Nurse Smith and Policeman Jones have to work Christmas day this year as it is their turn to work the holiday. Therefore Nurse Smith and Policeman Jones can't go to their beloved VWL (everyone loves VWL at the holidays) at Christmas until Friday, December 26. When Nurse Smith and Policeman Jones call the day of check-in (Friday, December 26) under the new system, all of the room category they need/want at their beloved VWL are gone simply because they had to be home on Christmas day caring for and protecting you and your children. They are very upset because they have been able to secure this in the past using the day by day system.

Let's take the drama and passion out of this as some of you may call it and put a corporate America twist on this. Store Manager Mickey Mouse has been told that he must work throughout the Christmas week. If he takes vacation it must be December 30th or after. Store Manager Mickey Mouse decides that he and his family will travel to their beloved AKV for New Year's Eve. Under the new system Mickey calls the day of check-in which is Tuesday, December 30th, only to be told that the room category and maybe all rooms are gone for Tuesday the 30th, Wednesday the 31st, and Thursday, January 1st by those that had the good fortune not to have to work over the holiday period like he did. Remember Mickey is the one managing the after Christmas chaos at the store you were at when you were making all those exchanges or getting all of those after Christmas bargains. Oh yes Mickey can now choose to stay at a resort for which he did not buy and had no intention of staying at if it is even available.

All of these people/examples are also at a distinct disadvantage with the 11 month waitlist and the 7 month waitlist too as others are on that waitlist before them simply because of their check-in date.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. Over the past days some on this board have implied that those of us concerned about the system are nay-sayers, are in hysterics, are panicing, have no proof, etc. etc. I don't know about any of you but I do travel during peak travel periods, I was advised by DVC Sales Guides/Reps and Member Services that I would have to call day by day to guarantee that I would stand a shot at getting my reservation. This is not just since yesterday but for many many years. I sent DVC thousands and thousands of dollars in good faith for two DVC contracts understanding that DVC was not like other timeshare companies that require you to come a certain week or on a certain day and that is what I bought and why I bought DVC. I did not buy a DVC timeshare with the understanding that others would have a distinct advantage over me in booking reservations simply because of their check-in date for the weeks in which I have to travel.

Respectfully to all,
maminnie

 

[DVC Mike]

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?

I think DVC members are generally pleased with the new policy. Whether the emails the DVC Member Satisfaction Team is getting are generally more for or against the new policy is fairly irrelevant, as we all know that folks are generally more willing to email in negative comments than positive ones.

I would be willing to bet that the number of negative emails the Member Satisfaction Team is getting is very small when compared to the overall number of DVC members. I think it's great that DVC still takes the time to listen to member concerns and their response on the member web site stated they are willing to take steps to prevent any abuse of the new policy.

My own opinion stands -- let's give this some time to play out and see what really happens. I understand people's desires to express their fear and uncertaintly about the new policy (this is a discussion board), but I am somewhat surprised at the depth of anger from some posters.

 

[maminnie]

Do any of you think that most members didn't bother to complain about not getting something at the 11 month window simply because they did not do what they have been advised to do and that is to call day by day????

Why would you complain if you did not follow a reservation strategy which has been strongly suggested by DVC sales guides, member services, and members on these boards who have experience.

maminnie

 

[Dean]

maminnie, as you say, lets take the emotion out of this. If we do, none of those situations have any bearing. It simply becomes that some members will be successful and some want, and assuming no change in habits and all else being the same, it will be the exact same number of times that members will be happy (or unhappy) now as it was before OR FEWER. Those people knew going in their situation or made life choices along the way, it is not the systems responsibility to cater to them over other members which is essentially what you're advocating. And no, it's not the same in reverse. Even if their options changed along the way without their input, it still is not applicable. I personally think MOST will be better off with the change but more will be if the alterations happen that I think are likely, but even if not, I still think it's a better system than previously.

 

[Dean]

Do any of you think that most members didn't bother to complain about not getting something at the 11 month window simply because they did not do what they have been advised to do and that is to call day by day????

Why would you complain if you did not follow a reservation strategy which has been strongly suggested by DVC sales guides, member services, and members on these boards who have experience.

maminnie

I doubt most members (meaning more than half) are even aware of DBD bookings and even those that are, I doubt it's been recommended to many of them by MS or a guide. But I understand MS has gotten a lot of complaints in two areas. One from those that knew about it and did it but would rather not and two from those that didn't (?couldn't) do it, many of which likely didn't even know the option existed. While it likely wasn't DVC's best kept secret, it wasn't something a lot of people were aware of and thus when they called to reserve their time exactly 11 months out, nothing was available for many times. And that's how many actually found out about DBD bookings, after getting such a surprise.

 

[maminnie]

Dean:

When the teachers, health care professionals, law enforcement people, and store managers bought, they understood the sytem; no member would have access to inventory prior to 11/7 months. That is now not the case.

The old DBD system put everyone on the same playing field despite what their profession might be or their personal travel needs. The old system provided flexibility which DVC so aggressively sold.

This is now reached the point of being ridiculous and as you have said to me in the past I will no longer argue this with you.

maminnie

 

[chloe]

Maminnie,

You are correct. There will be some who loose out with the new system. But for everyone who looses another, equally dissevering, member will win. The overall number of folks vying at 11 months for the specialty room categories rooms will not change.

Regardless of the reservation policy there will be winners and losers. The question to ask is: will this policy benefit the most folks the majority of the time.

Trying to be objective, I think the change is overall positive and a necessary step given the growing size of DVC.