New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[maminnie]

jmho, day-by-day booking is a commando (proud Disneyphile tradition ) way of increasing your odds of obtaining your DVC accommodations of choice; 'walking' toes the line . Glad i have a month to decide if im going to strap on my Nikes & sprint

Keishashadow:


Sitting over coffee this morning and reviewing posts on this thread my husband and I came up with a new DVC theme song. It is based on the new Playstation, Xbox, WII video game that just released. It is Guitar Hero, the Aerosmith edition and the new DVC theme song would be Aerosmith's "Walk This Way"!!!!

We thought it could replace "When You Wish Upon a Star" but feel that those of us who travel during peak travel times and those who own multiple contracts/resorts may be doing a lot more wishing when we are making reservations that for years and years we have had little to no difficulty making DBD at the 11 month or 7 month booking window.

Enjoy your Sunday everyone with family and friends.

maminnie

 

[Dean]

Actually there is one component in your argument that does change and that's the total number of owners. For high-demand resorts (VWL,BCV,BWV) small point add-ons do actually increase the number of owners over time. They are not fixed unlike the other components are (rooms, total points, total nights) so you do have more owners competing for the same number of rooms at 11 months.

It's hard to know if the total number of members has or will change since we don't have real info. Given BCV is sold out the number of previously sold contracts (even small ones) will not change in that respect but it could when DVC breaks up contracts bought back under ROFR. And given that almost all points sold from ROFR buy backs at the sold out resorts are to present owners, it's likely that most will be for smaller "add on" size contracts and that most will be specifically using those points for the 11 month window as a planned move. It's also likely that those that are selling aren't competing at the 11 month window and those buying those ROFR points are. So while the number of points stays the same and the number of contracts won't vary that much, the pressure for the 11 month window based on the ROFR points likely will continue to increase the pressure at the 11 month window as well.

 

[maminnie]

It's hard to know if the total number of members has or will change since we don't have real info. Given BCV is sold out the number of previously sold contracts (even small ones) will not change in that respect but it could when DVC breaks up contracts bought back under ROFR. And given that almost all points sold from ROFR buy backs at the sold out resorts are to present owners, it's likely that most will be for smaller "add on" size contracts and that most will be specifically using those points for the 11 month window as a planned move. It's also likely that those that are selling aren't competing at the 11 month window and those buying those ROFR points are. So while the number of points stays the same and the number of contracts won't vary that much, the pressure for the 11 month window based on the ROFR points likely will continue to increase the pressure at the 11 month window as well.

All the more reason for members to be concerned about the new reservation policy that gives certain advantages to some members over others even at the 11 month window.

maminnie

 

[TenThousandVolts]

The point is the number of owners are not fixed at a given resort. (total number of points is fixed, but the number of people owning those points does change) Two common examples:...

ahhh- I get what you're saying now.

 

[Dean]

All the more reason for members to be concerned about the new reservation policy that gives certain advantages to some members over others even at the 11 month window.

maminnie

Being concerned and feeling it's not "fair" are too different things. The more I see this thread, the more I realize that this isn't about being "fair" but about individuals being worried they won't get theirs. Two totally different things in my book.

 

[alldiz]

Being concerned and feeling it's not "fair" are too different things. The more I see this thread, the more I realize that this isn't about being "fair" but about individuals being worried they won't get theirs. Two totally different things in my book.

Exactly....MS has said that you can call on day 2 and book day 8. So one can still book day by day if you are staying longer than 1 week.

For the Sun-Thurs people (which is me)....we'll just have to see....I think the people who are most upset.....were quite happy to call day by day and get there ressie....when so many people did not KNOW they could call

Now that they can.....they don't want to compete
Just saying....
Kerri

 

[Inkmahm]

Keishashadow:


Sitting over coffee this morning and reviewing posts on this thread my husband and I came up with a new DVC theme song. It is based on the new Playstation, Xbox, WII video game that just released. It is Guitar Hero, the Aerosmith edition and the new DVC theme song would be Aerosmith's "Walk This Way"!!!!

We thought it could replace "When You Wish Upon a Star" but feel that those of us who travel during peak travel times and those who own multiple contracts/resorts may be doing a lot more wishing when we are making reservations that for years and years we have had little to no difficulty making DBD at the 11 month or 7 month booking window.

Enjoy your Sunday everyone with family and friends.

maminnie

I love it! "Walk this way" will be my new theme song for Disney reservation days...

 

[Inkmahm]

Being concerned and feeling it's not "fair" are too different things. The more I see this thread, the more I realize that this isn't about being "fair" but about individuals being worried they won't get theirs. Two totally different things in my book.

I never travel to Disney right at Christmas or for New Year's. It's WAY too crowded for me (I was there once at that time of year in 1975!) Buy I's still concerned for the other DVC member who DO travel during that time. Fairness is important to me, even if it doesn't affect me personally.

I think it is more the other way around. For many who it does NOT affect, who cares about fairness? They are happy as they see their lives easier only having to make one call under this new system. Who cares if the system is now unfair?

 

[maminnie]

Dean:

Fair should be defined as people being on the same playing field. A person now getting a reservation because they arrive earlier then another, have a large contract to book 7+ days, or because they have enough points to walk is absolutely ridiculous.

DBD allowed people to make a decision as to how they wanted to handle their reservation. They reserved days that they actually wanted. People may not have enough points to come on a different day or enough points to walk, or they may not be able to change the days on which they can travel.

maminnie

 

[jade1]

The point is the number of owners are not fixed at a given resort. (total number of points is fixed, but the number of people owning those points does change) Two common examples:
.

I could see that, but I also plan to now sell VWL and buy more BCV points to have more available for the new policy. How do you know there are not fewer members with more points as well?

 

[jade1]

Member A buys a 150 pt BCV contract and a 75 pt BCV add-on from Disney while BCV is the currently selling resort. After some time and for whatever reasons, Member A decides they no longer want these contracts and offer them for sale on the resale market. There is no guarantee, and in fact is quite unlikely, that the same buyer will purchase both of these contracts. So New Member B buys the 150 pt contract and New Member C buys the 75 pt contract. Now, the exact same number of points as when Member A owned them, now belongs to two different owners. Ownership at BCV has effectively increased from this sale.
.

In this scenario original Member A could call for example at 11 months for a 7 day consecutive ressie-so you compete against one. With 2 new smaller members (B and C), they can still only call for those 7 days. Granted the first 3 could be days they could each call-so you compete against 2, but then the next 4 you compete against nobody. Its still the same amount of points that can be used against the same amount of rooms.

 

[Dean]

Dean:

Fair should be defined as people being on the same playing field. A person now getting a reservation because they arrive earlier then another, have a large contract to book 7+ days, or because they have enough points to walk is absolutely ridiculous.

DBD allowed people to make a decision as to how they wanted to handle their reservation. They reserved days that they actually wanted. People may not have enough points to come on a different day or enough points to walk, or they may not be able to change the days on which they can travel.

maminnie

I don't buy that definition of "fairness" in this situation. No timeshare system is ever completely fair to every member, that is a fact of life. The question is how best to balance the "fairness" between the needs of the system and the members, at point seemingly lost of most in this thread. IMO, the new system is just as fair, maybe more so, than the old one was. It may decrease your personal chances, so be it, that does not make it unfair, only different.

I never travel to Disney right at Christmas or for New Year's. It's WAY too crowded for me (I was there once at that time of year in 1975!) Buy I's still concerned for the other DVC member who DO travel during that time. Fairness is important to me, even if it doesn't affect me personally.

I think it is more the other way around. For many who it does NOT affect, who cares about fairness? They are happy as they see their lives easier only having to make one call under this new system. Who cares if the system is now unfair?

Then you and I would be among the few exceptions on this thread that aren't looking at their personal wants. As I've said, I'll got a step further. If the worries in this thread are born out, it'll actually be worse for me personally as we essentially always go S-F and often early to mid Dec. We'd agree on the need for fairness regardless of whether one was affected or not, but simply have a totally different definition in this situation as I noted above. I would never include the chances of a specific individual getting their reservation in the determination of fairness. Simply put, it is not unfair if one calls and gets a 7 day reservation and another calls 2 days later and cannot get a 5 day reservation over the same period, even if they were likely to get it under the old system.

 

[Dean]

In this scenario original Member A could call for example at 11 months for a 7 day consecutive ressie-so you compete against one. With 2 new smaller members (B and C), they can still only call for those 7 days. Granted the first 3 could be days they could each call-so you compete against 2, but then the next 4 you compete against nobody. Its still the same amount of points that can be used against the same amount of rooms.

No doubt it's the same amount of points but with banking and borrowing and/or for smaller units they might be competing for 7 days. And they still might tie up units waiting on the other days possibly even at the 7 month window (which is OK BTW). Smaller contracts do tend to compete for smaller units and for shorter times on average. In your scenario there would still be more POTENTIAL members competing for the same days as you desire. Of course a member with more points could be planning to book multiple units as well for a number of reasons but overall the odds are that more total members (regardless of the # of points they own) will be competing for the same higher demand options. That's OK, just the way it is.

 

[Doctor P]

I don't buy that definition of "fairness" in this situation. No timeshare system is ever completely fair to every member, that is a fact of life. The question is how best to balance the "fairness" between the needs of the system and the members, at point seemingly lost of most in this thread. IMO, the new system is just as fair, maybe more so, than the old one was. It may decrease your personal chances, so be it, that does not make it unfair, only different.

Then you and I would be among the few exceptions on this thread that aren't looking at their personal wants. As I've said, I'll got a step further. If the worries in this thread are born out, it'll actually be worse for me personally as we essentially always go S-F and often early to mid Dec. We'd agree on the need for fairness regardless of whether one was affected or not, but simply have a totally different definition in this situation as I noted above. I would never include the chances of a specific individual getting their reservation in the determination of fairness. Simply put, it is not unfair if one calls and gets a 7 day reservation and another calls 2 days later and cannot get a 5 day reservation over the same period, even if they were likely to get it under the old system.

Dean,

I will ask again. What exactly is the established notion of fairness that justifies the new system? The new system might be EFFICIENT (according to some measures), but there is no established notion of fairness that can be used to defend the approach taken by the new system. I will stand corrected if you can provide one.

 

[Bopsmom]

We need a 'walking' emoticon!

here you go:

BTW-I called last week for a Sun-Thur ressie at BWV-1 BR BWview in the second week of June with no problem. Maybe it was because of the timing of school being out in the area or the ressie fairy was smiling on me.
I called at a time that wasn't exactly at the 11 month mark for the day, nor at the starting pistol time of MS.
*YMMV

 

[TyRy]

Finally touched base with Joy. She pretty much reiterate what we've heard already - that a survey was done of members and they didn't want to call DBD (which she acknowledge they did not have to) so that was the reason for the change. BUT now we are still calling DBD if we have more than seven days (in reality people can still just make one phone call if they choose.)

It didn't sound like they had any policy in place for walking..I asked if I could technically start my reservation now for next September instead of October since with banking I have enough for a full week…she had to concede that yes I could start now. I then pointed out how happy members were going to be when they had to BUY the holiday season off ebay from commercial renters. She stated they were trying to curb commercial renting, but to me it seems like they just helped them out a whole lot.

Also said she's heard a lot that it was fair before and now its not. Kept saying this is very high on managements list to see how membership reacts and that if its bad they'll change it…she used the glasses example, so make sure if you don't like it to let them know. I also asked if they maybe thought it was just a small amount of members complaining because unless you belong to a forum or have logged on to the site, you'd never know about the changes. She said they would wait and see what happens when the information is mailed out in the magazine to all members. And that from now on policy changes would be communicated better.

I expressed my worry that they would screw this up further by making people cancel and rebook if they needed to cancel a day in the beginning for whatever reason. She said they would look at this at an individual basis if that happen…at which point I wished her luck cause with airlines and other crazy things that individual basis could be in the thousands. Her statement that they would look at things individually almost leads me to believe that they are heading this way.

She kept saying if ithe new policy does not work and there is an outcry they might change things again. She thought that easier times of the year for DVC stays may stay easy once CGV and Hawaii opens because they may draw the west coast folks with the price of air travel. I then mentioned the super Wal-Mart going up and she laughed that she had not heard that one yet and may tell folks that what it was. Of course, complete denial on what it was, but we expect that

Ty

 

[Dean]

Dean,

I will ask again. What exactly is the established notion of fairness that justifies the new system? The new system might be EFFICIENT (according to some measures), but there is no established notion of fairness that can be used to defend the approach taken by the new system. I will stand corrected if you can provide one.

That's actually part my point, everyone has their own definition. I hesitate to give ONE as I doubt there is a single timeshare system, including the old one under DVC, that would be "fair" to everyone. I definitely don't buy the idea that for the system to be fair that every unit has to be available for reservation DBD at 11 months out. But even under that definition there were some calling DBD and still not getting what they wanted. In regards to this question, I'd say a "fair" system is one that balances the needs of the system (including the developer) with the desires (there are no needs in this context) of the members. I'd say the current system does that by likely reducing the number of phone calls overall (a plus to members and the system) and allowing for a reasonable chance of success on that one call. It is also likely increases the chance of a successful wait list for a group of days. Certainly one could have made one call under the old system but the chances of success are likely to be far higher for many options under the new one. I don't think anyone is saying the old system was truly unfair only that the new one is not or put another way, they may both be unfair to a certain subset of the membership if you use the definition of whether you get your reservation or not which I think is actually the definition many are using.

 

[jade1]

No doubt it's the same amount of points but with banking and borrowing and/or for smaller units they might be competing for 7 days. And they still might tie up units waiting on the other days possibly even at the 7 month window (which is OK BTW). Smaller contracts do tend to compete for smaller units and for shorter times on average. In your scenario there would still be more POTENTIAL members competing for the same days as you desire. Of course a member with more points could be planning to book multiple units as well for a number of reasons but overall the odds are that more total members (regardless of the # of points they own) will be competing for the same higher demand options. That's OK, just the way it is.

If that small member banks/borrows-then they have a year here or there that you dont have to compete at all against at 11 months. Regardless, DBD for any of these scenarios is the only even playing field for a given day/week.

Just glad for this outlet, if it makes sense to sell VWL and add on at BCV to obtain longer ressies-we will do that. Just want to make sure its the best route-thanks.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I don't buy that definition of "fairness" in this situation. No timeshare system is ever completely fair to every member, that is a fact of life.

Huh??
The old system was perfectly fair. As others have stated, certain people may have to get up earlier in the morning, or get someone to cover their shift at work so they can make the phone call, but the SYSTEM itself gave exactly equal opportunity to every Member to book a ressie.

The new system can not say that. That is not an opinion..

MG

 

[jdg345]

Proud DVC Walker , not sure the fairy will be doling out that 'lil gem

back from lovely vacation, including DLH , missed most of this simmering mess , who is running the store?

reminds me of situation we ran into @ DL during Fantasmic. We were in the 2nd roped off section over a half-hour before the last show...all that was lefta standing section.

After Fantasmic started elderly gent in front of me sat down on the cement. He was approached by CMs who insisted he rise. Problem was, he didn't speak English. More CMs summoned, one who spoke the gent's language. He was told to stand, refused & was hustled away.

I asked the CM who appeared to be senior rep "why". She said she didn't know...but, would find out. She radioed in to "somebody" and relayed that it was because a person sitting takes up 3 places while a standing one only takes 1. A moot point when the CMs were prohibiting ANYBODY from ducking under the rope to join the standees a good 10 minutes before the show . We could have all sat & still enjoyed our own version of personal space.

I understand that the rules are the rules, preferably when they're honestly explained, posted & enforced consistently. Problem here is ala the day-by-day booking...unless it is specifically prohibited...all bets are off.

jmho, day-by-day booking is a commando (proud Disneyphile tradition ) way of increasing your odds of obtaining your DVC accommodations of choice; 'walking' toes the line . Glad i have a month to decide if im going to strap on my Nikes & sprint