New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[jdg345]

But with only a 7 day "window" to book your room...if you're going for say...14 days...you're going to have to modify that initial reservation. So you can't really just apply a "cancel and rebook edict". It's more complicated than that.

If everyone follows the same rules, everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages. That's not what makes the system, to me, unfair. What's "unfair" is that any member has access to inventory BEFORE any other member...based either on the number of points they own (walking) or via the fact they happen to be starting their trip a couple days before you. It's no longer equal opportunity booking....unless everyone starts walking reservations. Then you're pretty much right back to where we started...heck, with walking you don't even really NEED to call dbd, right? Because of the anomaly we talked about (YOUR room doesn't hit inventory, if you book for 7 days, til 7 days past your booking date), you can call to "walk" about 6 days AFTER your initial booking. One call per week, and you could walk a ressie for MONTHS. Right?

Again, I understand all the different opinions here. And I respect them....truly, I do. Ultimatley, I'll let Disney decide how to handle this. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that, if Disney leaves this system in place, and doesn't do something to at least prevent walking, that "walking" will become a heck of a lot more common than anyone will want to admit. People WILL do it....it's the nature of the beast.

I'm doing it now! Locking in my AKV Concierge 1BR for Christmas 2009!

 

[jdg345]

No, Tuesday the 10th was not available, even though it obviously was yesterday when you reserved it a day ahead of me.


So because you called yesterday and reserved for 7 days, I could not get a Std View Studio at BWV for my desired 7 days. DBD I would have had an even chance. Exactly what many are trying to point out.


.

You could have called Thursday/Saturday (Friday was closed) and Walked it ...

 

[jdg345]

It's interesting that the night that was not available is a Tuesday night.

Middle week, lower point stay ... though I suspected that the Sunday would be the most difficult day to get.

 

[Dean]

My ONLY issue is with this is with "long stays" and ADDING to an existing reservation.

It is NOT fair to tell someone who wants to stay 14 days that they have to book, cancel, and rebook, to get their stay...or to make them book 2 separate reservations in, potentially, 2 rooms. You're now really effecting the flexibility of the points system in terms of using your points for stays of varying lengths. I don't think it's "fair" to penalize those folks (and, for the record, I'm NOT one of them!).

Now, if you make the rule that only CANCELING a day on a reservation (begining, middle, or end) requires cancellation of the entire ressie and rebook....I'm right there with you. But not "any change"....

Normally cancellations are just that. Adding a day within the rules would not be a cancellation. The only questions then is whether to allow DBD additions under this rule or require waiting until 11 months from the new day you want to add, I'd think either are OK as long as their consistent and if you cancel part, you cancel all. Actually a change or cancellation fee would likely still serve the system better.

On the "definition of fairness", I agree. I spoke to that in a previous post to another poster. You seem to define "fairness" in a useage of the system point of view. I define it in a membership availability point of view. I doubt we'll ever bridge that disconnect.

My definition of a fair system would be one that best balances the needs of the system to the needs and desires of the members as a whole realizing that some will not get what they want. It seems many definite is as the best chance for a specific person to get what they want basically every time and usually they mean the best chance for them to get what they want. While I understand the sentiment, it's a poor judge of the system as a whole.

My point on the change is I think the elements of DISNEY being served by the change are a heck of a lot more than the elements of the membership. I suppose that goes without saying, in some respects, but the system DOES need to serve both masters, and serve them well....because ultimately NOT serving the membership WILL cost more in Disney resources. It remains to be seen whether the system will "fail" the membership or not....we'll see.

It is my judgement the current new system will do that, improving the overall lost of all involved. I believe it will decrease phone calls while keeping the percent of those truly successful at 11 months out the same or slightly higher depending on how much an issue it was having some days while someone else held the other days you wanted. And I know that if it does not do that, DVC will change it.

On your perception of how wide spread walking will be....I have my doubts. I think that, at first, you're probably right. Very few will do it. But if it has a noticeable effect (and by that, I don't mean noticeable by Disney..I mean by a segment of the membership), or if it's PERCEIVED to have an effect by certain segments of the membership (and you can see that playing out right here), then it will become more and more wide spread. People will feel they have to do it to "compete". Disney, IMHO, would do well to nip it in the bud BEFORE that happens, rather than taking a wait and see approach.

I'd tend to go the other way that some will do it then realize they don't need to and stop but we'll see, again, they'll change it if it's seen as a problem.

 

[jdg345]

Exactly. Even if you prefer NOT to have to walk, because you don't find it...I don't know...."within the spirit of the game"...if enough people do it, you'll either have to do it, or risk not getting what you want. Which means eventually the culture will shift from DBD booking, to ressie walking....it's the potential nature of the beast. Heck, if people DON'T walk en masse, but members find they're not getting the ressie they want and SUSPECT there's walking going on, locking them out...that PERCEPTION alone could create the culture.

Now, it might not happen. That's doomsday thinking, to be sure. But it COULD. And I think that's an issue, at least, that needs to be addressed.

I certainly prefer the prospect of DBD booking to the potential "culture of walking", personally. Guess we'll have to wait and see, eh?

Agreed! Walking is basically just a very complicated version of DBD that impacts members more negatively. With DBD, at least people were competing for rooms they wanted ... with walking, they may not even want the room they just locked up.

 

[Dean]

Agreed! Walking is basically just a very complicated version of DBD that impacts members more negatively. With DBD, at least people were competing for rooms they wanted ... with walking, they may not even want the room they just locked up.

Still they will cancel those days at some point and the wait lists will fill.

 

[pilferk]

Normally cancellations are just that. Adding a day within the rules would not be a cancellation. The only questions then is whether to allow DBD additions under this rule or require waiting until 11 months from the new day you want to add, I'd think either are OK as long as their consistent and if you cancel part, you cancel all. Actually a change or cancellation fee would likely still serve the system better.

Yes, but your quote said "each change', not "each cancellation". Even in the context of the previous poster's contribution, it wasn't clear to me what you meant.

Thanks for the clarification. In that light, I'm right there with you.

My definition of a fair system would be one that best balances the needs of the system to the needs and desires of the members as a whole realizing that some will not get what they want. It seems many definite is as the best chance for a specific person to get what they want basically every time and usually they mean the best chance for them to get what they want. While I understand the sentiment, it's a poor judge of the system as a whole.

Not quite, in depicting the alternate view point.

It's not about "a specific person getting what they want every time".

At least for me, it's about providing equal opportunity access to the entire membership for the set of inventory in question on any given day. This system doesn't do that...there are those in the membership with decided advantages by being able to walk, and people traveling before you have an opportunity to book days BEFORE you do. It's "fair" in the context of the system, because the rooms are booked and less resources are used. It's not "fair" to the membership, as a whole, because we're not all on equal footing.

Everyone realizes that some won't get what they want, in either case.

Again, I don't think we're going to get past this disconnect. It's just alternate points of view.....

It is my judgement the current new system will do that, improving the overall lost of all involved. I believe it will decrease phone calls while keeping the percent of those truly successful at 11 months out the same or slightly higher depending on how much an issue it was having some days while someone else held the other days you wanted. And I know that if it does not do that, DVC will change it.

You think it will be functionally fair. Or will be changed.

Fair enough.

I see plenty of opportunity for it NOT to be so....I won't categorically say it won't be, though. I haven't seen it function long enough to say, on way or the other. We'll have to see which way it plays out. I actually HOPE you're right...and all this is just "armegeddon", doom and gloom discussion.

But there's no real way to know until it actually plays out, and both the membership, and Disney, get their say.

I'd tend to go the other way that some will do it then realize they don't need to and stop but we'll see, again, they'll change it if it's seen as a problem.

We'll see. I think you can look at DBD booking the same way....it's not necessary for much of the year. But by the posts in this thread, it sure sounds like it was going on an awful lot, because members thought they HAD to do it, to compete for the inventory they wanted. I think that's at least a compelling benchmark to hold "walking" up against....not entirely apt, but at least worthy of comparison. You'll have less takers, certainly, because the points requirement to do it is higher...thereby leaving some "out in the cold", even if they wanted to do it. Which speaks, again, to what IMHO is an inequity in the system.

If Disney addressed that ONE issue, up front, and don't "wait and see" too long on it, my objections will be a lot less vehement. I still don't like the membership not having equal opportunity access on any given day to inventory...I think it's conceptually unfair, though it may not turn out to be functionally unfair. But I think that would be easier to live with than that AND the opportunity for "walking".

 

[jdg345]

Making each change a cancellation and rebooking or adding a modest fee makes this a non issue. And yes, if you have other reasons to change, it's still fair for everyone.
I don't think we know exactly how the wait list is going to be adjudicated. It wasn't necessarily first come under the old system but rather the first person that their wait list was filled completely by the availability. If you were day by day, you would get if it first on the list for that resort and unit type but if you were looking for several days in a row, they would skip you. Given you're taking away the option to WL day by day (other than when you only need one day), the chances of filling a WL for several days will be higher. But the question I have is whether they'll still only fill things that the availability will fill completely or if they'll piece together the days as they come available. Either is OK, I simply don't know for certain how they're going to handle it. It will either be the first person looking for that day or the first person that the availability fills their WL totally, my guess is the latter given their past methods.

I don't know that this will actually be the case ... not to mention it creates another negative 'side effect'. Even removing the ability to drop DBD Waitlist doesn't really solve anything.

For example, I WL the 2nd thru the 9th. That's my Waitlist. The whole thing needs to be available for it to trigger.

So I call, every single day, more than once, asking if any one of those days is available. If it is, I book it, and adjust my waitlist.

See how quickly all this does is add to the volume of calls? What is DVC going to do? Charge a 'Waitlist Checking Fee'?

And, while I'm doing this, and others are doing this, we're taking up the days that might back up someone elses full WL ... so those people will have to do it to if they want a chance at getting their days.

We know from anecdotal evidence in the WL thread(s) that DBD WL filled 'better' in that you would get days here and there and could adjust accordingly. Some waiting on the full week never got filled. Maybe it was their position in line, maybe it was because of the 'all or nothing' ... maybe a combination of both?

 

[Dean]

At least for me, it's about providing equal opportunity access to the entire membership for the set of inventory in question. This system doesn't do that...there are those in the membership with decided advantages by being able to walk, and people traveling before you have an opportunity to book days BEFORE you do. It's "fair" in the context of the system, because the rooms are booked and less resources are used. It's not "fair" to the membership, as a whole, because we're not all on equal footing.

Everyone realizes that some won't get what they want, in either case.

Again, I don't think we're going to get past this disconnect. It's just alternate points of view.....

Actually everyone has the same opportunity at the same reservations subject to their ownership limitations of course. It's just that the availability on a given day may not be the same as another day.

You think it will be functionally fair. Or will be changed.

Fair enough.

I see plenty of opportunity for it NOT to be so....I won't categorically say it won't be, though. I haven't seen it function long enough to say, on way or the other. We'll have to see which way it plays out. I actually HOPE you're right...and all this is just "armegeddon", doom and gloom discussion.

But there's no real way to know until it actually plays out, and both the membership, and Disney, get their say.

Frankly if I didn't believe DVC would make it work, I wouldn't own. I don't know why anyone would own in a system they see as truly unfair and don't have enough faith in to correct major issues realizing there will always be minor issues. The questions is whether the current ripples with the new system are major or minor to DVC, my guess is somewhere in between. I doubt they'll institute fees but they do have precedence for making changes a cancellation and rebooking in relationship to reallocating points.

We'll see. I think you can look at DBD booking the same way....it's not necessary for much of the year. But by the posts in this thread, it sure sounds like it was going on an awful lot, because members thought they HAD to do it, to compete for the inventory they wanted. I think that's at least a compelling benchmark to hold "walking" up against....not entirely apt, but at least worthy of comparison. You'll have less takers, certainly, because the points requirement to do it is higher...thereby leaving some "out in the cold", even if they wanted to do it. Which speaks, again, to what IMHO is an inequity in the system.

The saw the DBD as an issue and made a change, if they see the same problems with the change, they certainly will make a further change and it won't be to go back to DBD.

If Disney addressed that ONE issue, up front, and don't "wait and see" too long on it, my objections will be a lot less vehement. I still don't membership like not having equal opportunity access on any given day to inventory...I think it's conceptually unfair, though it may not turn out to be functionally unfair. But I think that would be easier to live with than that AND the opportunity for "walking".

It simply depends on how much of an issue it really is in practice. My guess is we're talking mountains (DBD) to molehills (walking) but I doubt we'll ever have much hard data.

 

[Dean]

I don't know that this will actually be the case ... not to mention it creates another negative 'side effect'. Even removing the ability to drop DBD Waitlist doesn't really solve anything.

For example, I WL the 2nd thru the 9th. That's my Waitlist. The whole thing needs to be available for it to trigger.

So I call, every single day, more than once, asking if any one of those days is available. If it is, I book it, and adjust my waitlist.

See how quickly all this does is add to the volume of calls? What is DVC going to do? Charge a 'Waitlist Checking Fee'?

And, while I'm doing this, and others are doing this, we're taking up the days that might back up someone elses full WL ... so those people will have to do it to if they want a chance at getting their days.

We know from anecdotal evidence in the WL thread(s) that DBD WL filled 'better' in that you would get days here and there and could adjust accordingly. Some waiting on the full week never got filled. Maybe it was their position in line, maybe it was because of the 'all or nothing' ... maybe a combination of both?

As I said, it depends on how they handle the WL. But if there's a wait list for a given day, it shouldn't be available for simple bookings and after you call 3 or 4 times and don't get anything and are told those days will to to WL first, you'll quit calling. I'm amused at how some want to take fringe ideas like this for the WL and even "walking" and make them mainstream and a reason to abandon a reasonable approach to a known problem.

 

[jdg345]

Still they will cancel those days at some point and the wait lists will fill.

Not necessarily, not if someone calling in and grabs the room before the WL check runs ... and since many are going to be looking for periods and not just single days, it makes it even tougher.

For example:

I call and Book Friday to Thurs (I only want Sunday through Thurs), I get the last room.
You call and ask for Friday to Thursday, you want the whole period, but it's sold out. You WL Friday.
You call the next Day, you WL Saturday.
You call the next Day, you book Sunday through Thurs (maybe, if it's even available and not blocked out too).

Now, I call and release Friday and Saturday.

Someone elsecalls in, before the WL batch runs to book Friday through Thursday. They're told they only have Friday/Sat available (or maybe the whole period, but we know the Fri/Sat are there since I released them), so they at least book Fri/Sat.

So now, that someone else, who called after you, actually got the Fri/Sat you wanted even though you had waitlisted several days before them.

How do you get around that? You would have had to call every day checking to see if Friday or Saturday were now available and hopefully get in after me, but before 'Someone Else'. So you'd really have to call multiple times per day to make sure you got it. See how quickly this can actually add to call volumes?

 

[DVCBELLE]

My ONLY issue is with this is with "long stays" and ADDING to an existing reservation.

It is NOT fair to tell someone who wants to stay 14 days that they have to book, cancel, and rebook, to get their stay...or to make them book 2 separate reservations in, potentially, 2 rooms. You're now really effecting the flexibility of the points system in terms of using your points for stays of varying lengths. I don't think it's "fair" to penalize those folks (and, for the record, I'm NOT one of them!).

Now, if you make the rule that only CANCELING a day on a reservation (begining, middle, or end) requires cancellation of the entire ressie and rebook....I'm right there with you. But not "any change"....

Adding days is not really changing your reservation...

A couple of years ago I stayed at BCV - I was there for 5 nights - nights 1,2 & 4 of my stay were available so I booked and did the WL for nights 3 & 5 - when they came through they had their own confirmation number and showed up on my reservations as 4 different reservations - I called and asked if I was running the risk of having to move rooms and they said no - they are all linked so even though it appears as 4 reservations - it will be treated as one.

The way the system is already set up shows that they can add days without technically "modifying" your reservation. This manner seems to be the best way to prevent walking.

It does appear that since I called to get the studio yesterday - I did get a room that someone wanted when they called to book today...which does appear to be a drawback but I had the same handicap against me from the people who could have been booking the week before.

I also agree that it is much easier for me to look at this without getting upset b/c we NEVER go in high season and we really don't care where we stay (except ironically - our home resort b/c we just don't care for it)

 

[jdg345]

But if you make the rule that CANCELING any part of the ressie means a cancel and rebook...they can't "walk". They start from scratch each day, anyway.

And they're not just going to add to the end, but never cancel from the front. Or, rather, if they do.....who cares? They're using their points...they just need to have someone check in for them. Whether they OCCUPY the room or not, their points are "functionally" out of the system for other times of year.

This affects people who may travel by air though, and book at 11 months before they have their airline itinerary. Maybe it would be better for them to arrive a day later ... or maybe they can only arrive a day later? Should they be forced to forfeit the points of that stay by keeping the reservation so as not to effect a cancel/rebook.

Now, that brings up the whole "Make a long ressie and rent out the first half" debate...but maybe that's for another thread?

Yup! Plenty of ways to get around the system ... none of which were necessary with DBD.

 

[jdg345]

I'd tend to go the other way that some will do it then realize they don't need to and stop but we'll see, again, they'll change it if it's seen as a problem.

But DBD did not work this way ... the consensus seems to be that many people DBD's because they thought they needed to, and continue to do so. It doesn't seem like they wanted to risk not getting their reservation, so they did not 'stop' doing it.

 

[DVCBELLE]

Not necessarily, not if someone calling in and grabs the room before the WL check runs ... and since many are going to be looking for periods and not just single days, it makes it even tougher.

For example:

I call and Book Friday to Thurs (I only want Sunday through Thurs), I get the last room.
You call and ask for Friday to Thursday, you want the whole period, but it's sold out. You WL Friday.
You call the next Day, you WL Saturday.
You call the next Day, you book Sunday through Thurs (maybe, if it's even available and not blocked out too).

Now, I call and release Friday and Saturday.

Someone elsecalls in, before the WL batch runs to book Friday through Thursday. They're told they only have Friday/Sat available (or maybe the whole period, but we know the Fri/Sat are there since I released them), so they at least book Fri/Sat.

So now, that someone else, who called after you, actually got the Fri/Sat you wanted even though you had waitlisted several days before them.

How do you get around that? You would have had to call every day checking to see if Friday or Saturday were now available and hopefully get in after me, but before 'Someone Else'. So you'd really have to call multiple times per day to make sure you got it. See how quickly this can actually add to call volumes?

Do we know for sure that cancelled rooms go straight into inventory? Seems to me they could have have a system where the rooms go into a holding place until they get run through the WL system...

 

[jdg345]

As I said, it depends on how they handle the WL. But if there's a wait list for a given day, it shouldn't be available for simple bookings and after you call 3 or 4 times and don't get anything and are told those days will to to WL first, you'll quit calling. I'm amused at how some want to take fringe ideas like this for the WL and even "walking" and make them mainstream and a reason to abandon a reasonable approach to a known problem.

But this hasn't been the case, those rooms do not necessarily go to the WL first ... why would people stop calling? Just call during lunch, or on your way home, or on your way to work ... it's just one quick call ... times X members doing the same.

 

[DVCBELLE]

This affects people who may travel by air though, and book at 11 months before they have their airline itinerary. Maybe it would be better for them to arrive a day later ... or maybe they can only arrive a day later? Should they be forced to forfeit the points of that stay by keeping the reservation so as not to effect a cancel/rebook.



Yup! Plenty of ways to get around the system ... none of which were necessary with DBD.

Not if the policy is that you may not modify in the first 10 days...this stops the walking but allows people to cancel nights later on in their reservations if they need to.

I guess I think that the people who read this board are a minority of DVC members and most members will never even think about walking their points...

 

[jdg345]

Do we know for sure that cancelled rooms go straight into inventory? Seems to me they could have have a system where the rooms go into a holding place until they get run through the WL system...

We know that the WL checks run in batches, at least overnight ... at best several times during the day. Cancelled rooms that are not held by the CM do go into inventory ... so anyone calling between the cancellation and the WL check for that room would get it before the WL does.

btw, I think this is a fundamental flaw of the WL system, and why we don't have any transparency into how it truly works. If we did, I think a lot more people would call DBD to check on them. IMO, of course.

 

[DVCBELLE]

We know that the WL checks run in batches, at least overnight ... at best several times during the day. Cancelled rooms that are not held by the CM do go into inventory ... so anyone calling between the cancellation and the WL check for that room would get it before the WL does.

btw, I think this is a fundamental flaw of the WL system, and why we don't have any transparency into how it truly works. If we did, I think a lot more people would call DBD to check on them. IMO, of course.

Then that is a flaw in the reservations system that DVC should address and it seems it would be easy to fix - but I don't know much about how their programming works so I could be wrong...

I guess letters to DVC asking them how they plan to address these specific problems would be the best course of action for those who are really concerned about this.

 

[jdg345]

Not if the policy is that you may not modify in the first 10 days...this stops the walking but allows people to cancel nights later on in their reservations if they need to.

7 becomes 10, 10 becomes 14, 14 becomes 21 ... where does it end?

And it still doesn't stop those with the larger point banks.

I guess I think that the people who read this board are a minority of DVC members and most members will never even think about walking their points...

This is something I don't understand though; it's been stated that most people didn't really know about DBD and it was only a minority of DVC members doing it -- yet DVC is suggesting that it created excessive call volumes. Walking and WL checking could easily create more call volume than DBD ever did.

If they really want to solve it, and reduce calls, implement online booking.