New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[jarestel]

Well, it's certainly within the rules ...

It certainly is today. But as we all know, rules change when DVC feels it's necessary.

 

[jarestel]

but that would be fair and after all thats what all you pro enhancement members seem to want fairness but only under your terms!

Actually, I have no self-interest to promote in any of this. If I don't get my primary reservation, it's not a big deal since I don't see nefarious schemes and "unfairness" as culprits for cheating me out of it, it's just the way it goes. And I always have an alternative plan that has never failed me yet in 8 years.

If the above cancellation/rebooking scenario ever comes to pass, I could live with that as well but as I said, this thread would be but a whisper in the wind compared to the howls we would hear then.

 

[jdg345]

Nor do we have any reason to believe that people think switching resorts multiple times makes for a "magical" Disney vacation.

Again, this is a choice they make. Can we at least agree that at 11 months, something in some room/category should be available for LOS based on Departure date? If so, those that want the specialty rooms are effecting a CHOICE whereas they want the room/view/etc badly enough that they are willing to move. No one is telling them they have to. I think if we agree that at 11 months, something is available, then we can also agree that no one Has to move and switch resorts multiple times. Remember, some folks move resorts because they want to -- it was their intent. Just because you don't want to move doesn't mean someone else is looking to do just that.

Is there any reason to believe that people will "walk" reservations in greater numbers than those currently booking day-by-day?

Let's say the amount of people walking are about the same as would DBD. If just one of those people books an extra day earlier to 'get a jump', you now have one extra call that wouldn't have been made DBD.

How is it better? If we can eliminate all of the baseless FUD from people's minds, most will make one phone call (instead of 5 or 6) and still get exactly what they want.

How is it worse?

People booking low-supply room classes will either be guaranteed their entire trip duration in their first choice of accommodation, or they will be given a fair chance to select another.

Same as with the old system then, except they had the choice to get a partial stay in a specialty class if it was a priority to them. The new system shuts those people out completely. If inventory is reduced, as it should be on Day-1 since people are booking up to a week before you, then it's going to be harder to get 7 full days than it would be to get a partial stay. So before you had people with partial stays, making a choice, who were likely fine with moving; whereas now you have more people calling on Day-1 to find nothing available, at all. Those people now need to call Day-2, and they find nothing.

You are assuming here that someone is going to call Day-1 and get it or not. If they don't get it, they're going to book something else for their LOS. That is a dangerous assumption. What if they decide to WL Day-1 and call back on Day-2? Now what if Day-2 is booked? So they call Day-3 and they get that + 4. So what do they do at the begining? Keep their waitlist? Book somewhere else? What if they don't get Day-3? Do they just WL the entire stay? In the end, people will still need to decide and prioritize what they want to do.

Member dues will no longer have to subsidize thousands of unnecessary DBD bookings, nor the excess room cleaning fees that go along with people who "choose" to move from one room to the next to the next.

Do you know there were thousands of unnecessary DBD bookings? People may still end up having to move, as above. People may still *want* to move, as above. Member dues might now have to subsidize people calling and booking rooms they don't even want. This is better?

DBD bookings may be "fairer" (in some minds) to those booking the smaller room classes, but IMO the new system serves the greater good. And there is ample evidence to suggest that success levels under the new system will be much higher than this FUD-filled thread portrays.

And this evidence is where? I could say that there is ample evidence which suggests that success levels under the new system will be much lower. The truth is, we have no idea as we haven't hit a prime booking season yet.

That said, we do know for a fact that DBD wasn't always successful for prime seasons and there were 'holes' at 11 months. The new system creates a scenario where LESS rooms are likely to be available on a Day-1 call than before. Statistically, that would suggest that the new system would be worse, no?

 

[SuzanneSLO]

. . . What has changed is that DBD is no longer available for the difficult ressies and a member can no longer book their entire vacation in one call (i.e., stays of greater than 7 days). . . .

While I agree with your post in general, this statement is not true. No matter how long your vacation, you can still book it with one phone call by calling 7 days priro to your check out date. The problem is that fear prevents many from waiting that long and causes them to call multiple times.

To many other posters:

No one should be surprised that those who have been generally successful in booking difficult reservations in the past are the most vocal in their dislike of the changes.

I think someone compared this change to a change in baseball where a strike out changed to 4 strikes from three. If your team is winning under the old system, are you really going to wait around and lose a bunch of games before you take a hard look at changes that may need to be made to your pitching staff due to the new rule?

With many members, they vaction at DVC once a year, if they "wait and see" and lose one reservation, it has a big impact on them.

And many members are asking on the Board how to improve the likelihood of getting the reservation they want and no one has a good answer for them. The only answer seems to be call when you can and hope for some pixie dust. How can anyone be surprised that this is frustrating to them?

Under the old system, you might not be guaranteed a room, but you could guarantee that you did everything you needed to do to maximize your chance of getting what you wanted.

-- Suzanne

 

[jdg345]

I fail to understand why anyone is in favor of the new system unless you are a proponent of eliminating DBD booking. The new system is much more restrictive than the old one. Booking on the first day of your stay adds nothing.

For example, under the new system, a member calls on the 1st of the month and reserves days 1-7. Member 2 calls on the 3rd of the month for days 3-10, but the room is booked. Under the old system, member 1 calls on the 7th and books days 1-7, while member 2 calls on the 10th and again can't reserve days 3-10. Nothing has changed. You can still make your entire booking with one call if it is available.

What has changed is that DBD is no longer available for the difficult ressies and a member can no longer book their entire vacation in one call (i.e., stays of greater than 7 days).

Unless this change is saving DVC $$$$, there is no other reason for it, and if this is the situation, DVC will not return to the old system.

Exactly! I think DVC made the change thinking it would save them $$$ and this 'overwhelming member request' spin is just that. In the end, it might end up costing them more. I guess time will tell.

Considering I've seen way many more posts requesting Booking Categories at SSR, I suspect we should see that change pretty soon too.

 

[jarestel]

Yes Disney can change things, but I WOULD NOT have bought DVC if it was not flexible and resembled a traditional timeshare company as it is starting to do. I did not give those other timeshare companies over $25,000 either.

If you decide DVC no longer works for you, at least there's a thriving resale market out there.

Good luck!

 

[tjkraz]

Exactly! Let's say I want (7) days with the old system, so I call DBD. The chances of me getting *some* of those 7 days are higher than me getting the full (7) days with the new system. With the old sytem, I have (7) chances with full inventory available every morning.

Exactly! I have NO problem with that.

If it means another member can get their entire vacation period uninterrupted, without having to worry about someone else calling 2 minutes earier or getting a faster MS rep, I'm all for it.

IMO, it's much better than people having to "choose" to move (your words, mine would be "forced to move") to a different accommodation because they were unsuccessful calling day by day for the entire period.

With the new system, I have one chance with all inventory at best, and more realisitically a reduced inventory I'm competing for,

You also have an equally smaller number of members with whom you are competing.

 

[LIFERBABE]

Has the 11 month window for NYE opened up? What about the 11 month window for President's Week? What about the 11 month window for July 4?

There has yet to be a high demand holiday that has been booked under the new system. What I know is that people were denied reservations for accomodations for high demand periods on the day the eleven month window opened in the past. This problem, necessarily and without any ambiguity or question, will be worse under the new system for high demand periods and high demand accomodations.

I agree with Dr. P ! Most members don't have a clue about the change yet. 2. We are months away from high demand time booking. Anyone that wants to take a sit back and wait approach, is not someone worth waiting on in the first place.

I am strictly against this change, yet I have no faith in DVC to do anything but make further "enhancements" that will make the situation even worse.

 

[jdg345]

Why would you pick a "random" scenario that has no factual basis? Let's not start throwing around "random" statistics for individual gain. All that does is skew perception.

While the numbers are random in that I don't know how much greater the chance of success/failure is, the overall gist is that there is a greater chance of success/failure. The point was simply that the chances of you getting some of your 7 day stay DBD are going to be higher than you getting all 7 days under the new system. Like I stated earlier:

DBD: 7 Chances with FULL Inventory available.
New System: 1 Chance, with likely a PARTIAL inventory available.

The 'reward' might be better for some under the new system, but would not necessarily be the case for the others. And since you are likely to have less winners with the new system, you're going to end up with a higher level of complaints.

And, it's no different than some suggesting the change will remove thousands of needless DBD calls and lower our dues.

btw, I don't have any "individual gain" here with this post. I think I've made it pretty clear that I have enough points that I'll be able to do and get whatever I want. That said, it doesn't make it more fair for those that are going to get stepped on by the new system.

 

[jdg345]

While I agree with your post in general, this statement is not true. No matter how long your vacation, you can still book it with one phone call by calling 7 days priro to your check out date. The problem is that fear prevents many from waiting that long and causes them to call multiple times.

To many other posters:

No one should be surprised that those who have been generally successful in booking difficult reservations in the past are the most vocal in their dislike of the changes.

I think someone compared this change to a change in baseball where a strike out changed to 4 strikes from three. If your team is winning under the old system, are you really going to wait around and lose a bunch of games before you take a hard look at changes that may need to be made to your pitching staff due to the new rule?

With many members, they vaction at DVC once a year, if they "wait and see" and lose one reservation, it has a big impact on them.

And many members are asking on the Board how to improve the likelihood of getting the reservation they want and no one has a good answer for them. The only answer seems to be call when you can and hope for some pixie dust. How can anyone be surprised that this is frustrating to them?

Under the old system, you might not be guaranteed a room, but you could guarantee that you did everything you needed to do to maximize your chance of getting what you wanted.
-- Suzanne

I think people will just get more creative to give themselves the best shot under this new system. I think they will begin walking reservations. I think more people will be looking for Spec Renters as well, as I think they certainly have an advantage they did not have before.

 

[jarestel]

I think more people will be looking for Spec Renters as well, as I think they certainly have an advantage they did not have before.

Yikes, jdg! Pulling out the old spec renters boogeyman to frighten folks just isn't right man!

 

[tjkraz]

And this evidence is where? I could say that there is ample evidence which suggests that success levels under the new system will be much lower. The truth is, we have no idea as we haven't hit a prime booking season yet.

The evidence lies in the lack of evidence. People were NOT being denied rooms when booking DBD in any great numbers. Therefore the new system will work just fine.

The number of rooms is not changing. The number of people seeking those rooms is the same regardless of the booking system. The only thing with any potential to change is the manner in which rooms are allocated.

That said, we do know for a fact that DBD wasn't always successful for prime seasons and there were 'holes' at 11 months. The new system creates a scenario where LESS rooms are likely to be available on a Day-1 call than before. Statistically, that would suggest that the new system would be worse, no?

No. There is a corresponding reduction of members who booked the day earlier due to the new policy. Example: 12 people want to occupy 10 concierge rooms on a Monday.

Day-by-day result: All 12 are calling 11 months out and 2 will not get what they want.

New system result: 5 have Sunday arrivals and are already booked. That leaves 7 people trying to get 5 rooms. 2 will not get what they want. Same result.

The only thing changing is the manner in which rooms are distributed. And I firmly believe member satisfaction will only increase. Wanting 7 nights and getting 2 is not "satisfaction"...that's settling.

 

[jdg345]

Exactly! I have NO problem with that.

If it means another member can get their entire vacation period uninterrupted, without having to worry about someone else calling 2 minutes earier or getting a faster MS rep, I'm all for it.

IMO, it's much better than people having to "choose" to move (your words, mine would be "forced to move") to a different accommodation because they were unsuccessful calling day by day for the entire period.

You would have no problem with it, likely because you would prefer the term 'forced to move'. It doesn't sound like you would ever want to move and would rather give up a reservation with a hole in it and pick something else that was contiguous. And that's perfectly fine, that is your choice. Some people wouldn't mind moving, they are okay with it because that Concierge stay and Safari is a once in a decade trip for them. The new system completely takes that choice away from these people. If you want it bad enough, you can choose to move. If you don't, you'll book elsewhere.

You also have an equally smaller number of members with whom you are competing.

Not necessarily. We don't know how many people would continue to try if they failed Day-1 (in either system).

 

[zulaya]

I really think this is much to do about nothing and as a PP has suggested panic and fear by those who are used to using DBD to get what they want, even when it wasn't necessary. Give the system a chance to work before you get all cranked up about how unfair and unlikely it is to work.

Perhaps you should re-read some of the postings you are accusing of exhibiting panic. I'm not a DBD booker. I have used it once, on the recommendation by an MS advisor.

No one is panicking and frankly, I'm a little tired of those of you who approve of this policy accusing those of us who have legitimate concerns of being panicked and paralyzed with fear. It is an over-exaggeration.

If you have a difference of opinion, that's fine. I can agree to disagree with your point of view. But for you to tell me that I am panicked and paralyzed with fear is not true. There are others who have posted on this thread that also are not obsessive DBD bookers that are opposed to this as well.

If you like the policy, fine. Leave it at that.

 

[maminnie]

jarestel:

I happen to have children who love Disney and grew up with Disney and rather then disappoint them and sell at this time I will be forced to work within a system for which I did not agree to at the time of purchase. Fortunately my children are now older and having to move mid-week due to my multiple contracts/resorts, will not be as difficult as when they were little. I am thankful for that believe me. My having to move mid week is not really going to save Disney money though as that extra housekeeping expense for a two bedroom villa at the second resort will far exceed the money it cost for them to take my day by day calls. So much for reducing expenses.

maminnie

 

[jdg345]

Yikes, jdg! Pulling out the old spec renters boogeyman to frighten folks just isn't right man!

Hey, I have to do something with my points!

 

[zulaya]

I agree. I'm hoping the wait times for MS calls will go down as a result of this. Too many people were booking day-by-day just for the peace of mind and the assurance that they would get their reservation -- even though it really wasn't necessary in most cases.

Can those of you who have experienced terrible wait times please clarify what that means?

What time of day did you call?
What dates were you trying to book?
How long was your hold time?

I have to say in the 5+ years I've been a member, I've waited at most 15 minutes. Now I admit, I don't go during Easter/Thanksgiving/Christmas week/President's Week or the Spring Break times that seem most popular for the east coast members, so maybe that's why.

I've seen sporadic reports of longer waits and vaguely recall one posting about 1 hour waits, but I want to say that was for the DVC cruise. I fully admit to not being the waiting-on-hold police so maybe I've missed those threads. But they certainly haven't been as huge as this one nor stayed long enough on the front page to garner much notice.

 

[jdg345]

The evidence lies in the lack of evidence. People were NOT being denied rooms when booking DBD in any great numbers. Therefore the new system will work just fine.

Where they being denied rooms at 11 months of departure? What was the propensity for that? If that is high, it shows DBD was necessary. If it is not, then either system should be just fine. And, are we including specialty classes in this comparison?

The number of rooms is not changing. The number of people seeking those rooms is the same regardless of the booking system. The only thing with any potential to change is the manner in which rooms are allocated.

But one person's threshold for inconvenience is not the same as another's.

No. There is a corresponding reduction of members who booked the day earlier due to the new policy. Example: 12 people want to occupy 10 concierge rooms on a Monday.

Day-by-day result: All 12 are calling 11 months out and 2 will not get what they want.

New system result: 5 have Sunday arrivals and are already booked. That leaves 7 people trying to get 5 rooms. 2 will not get what they want. Same result.

Or all 12 could get nothing as there might be nothing at all available on Monday.

The only thing changing is the manner in which rooms are distributed. And I firmly believe member satisfaction will only increase. Wanting 7 nights and getting 2 is not "satisfaction"...that's settling.

I could say that Wanting SV Studio at BWV and having to book at SSR is settling as well, no? If that's the case, the fact that you can't get even partial stays (ie: chances of you getting all 7 days are lower than getting a partial stay), you are going to have more members 'settling', and thus a lower overall member satisfaction.

Some may consider wanting 7 to be great, but getting 2-3 days of those 7 and having to move to be just fine -- if they *really* wanted that category badly enough.

 

[jarestel]

I happen to have children who love Disney and grew up with Disney and rather then disappoint them and sell at this time I will be forced to work within a system for which I did not agree to at the time of purchase. Fortunately my children are now older and having to move mid-week due to my multiple contracts/resorts, will not be as difficult as when they were little. I am thankful for that believe me. My having to move mid week is not really going to save Disney money though as that extra housekeeping expense for a two bedroom villa at the second resort will far exceed the money it cost for them to take my day by day calls. So much for reducing expenses.

I'm glad to hear you're staying with us. I understand the effects of this new policy at this point are mostly unknown since we have no actual data to make any fact-based determinations and that's what has many folks concerned. But give it a shot and see what happens. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Regards,
Joe

 

[maminnie]

jdg345:

Booking and renting busy weeks does sound like a bit easier at this time...great idea!!! New Years Eve week should get what $12 to $15 per point. We can take our money and run to a non-Disney resort!!!!! And Disney no longer gets our incidental money for park tickets, food, expensive foo foo drink, bottles of fine wines, souvenirs, etc.

I have always wanted to travel the Caribbean, Europe, Bermuda........but those darn Disney kids of mine are really going to mess this theory up for me!!!!!!!

I really have to laugh and joke about all this or I might cry!!!! With that note, I really have to start enjoying this beautiful Sunday.

maminnie