New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[jdg345]

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.

There is still a point maximum though, isn't there? Those small add-on's aren't new points -- they're points ROFR'd, etc, no?

I do understand Dean's logic here ... it's a "trickle down" type scenario he is proposing: Since more SSR owners are trading out at 7 months, it forced those that normally booked at 7 months to book at 8. It forced those folks to book at 9, etc, etc, back to the 11 month window.

This is all based on the assumption that SSR owners hate the place and don't want to stay there, ever, though.

Now, there is the liklihood that new owners are wanting to try out the other resorts as well, but that should work it's way out over time. It's one of the reasons why AKV is so hard to get into right now (plus the fact that Kidani still isn't open).

That said, I think the developers points are really what are pushing the limits at 7 months. People bought AKV and ended up with SSR-based Developers points to flood into the system at 7 months.

 

[DVC Mike]

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

The new system is easier for new members to comprehend, is simpler to use, eliminates the anxiety over feeling you must book DBD, and is fair enough. There is no perfect system that is perfectly fair to everyone while still being simple and easy to use. The new system strikes a good balance, IMO.

OMG, I can't believe how many posts this thread has gotten!

 

[rantnnravin]

As an SSR and BCV owner, here's what I'm going to do:
I will call tomorrow to book VWL for December 2009. I just have to book a ressie for 7mos + 7 days, then walk my ressie each day for the next year.

 

[jdg345]

I think I've lost touch of what's happening in this thread. I just wanted to say again, that although I don't believe this new policy would significantly affect me (I hope) in terms of getting the reservations that I want (since I try not to go at peak times), I am still not in favour of it.

However, that although reserving at Day 1 is an option and is NOT REQUIRED, I do feel compelled to do so at this point. I usually do my reservation with one or two calls for my summer vacation and a somewhat of a DBD for my Spring vacation. However, now I feel I need call at exactly 11 mths to check in day or else I will be out of luck. I do also feel that I will inevitable feel anxious, yes more anxious than when I called DBD, because there is a great chance that a member calling before me (whether their "walking" or not) will have priority over me. Now, although I don't want to "walk", I don't see a problem with it since DVC has provided a reason and thus some (or a lot) of members feel that they have no choice.

I will resign in saying that, although it is still in the "new" stage, I will see how my next few planning works out. I don't think we have much choice. Some of us have voiced our concerns with MS and have gotten a lot of call backs. I do like the idea that they have said that they will monitor any type of system abuse and will act accordingly. In the meantime, I think it'll be a mess. And whether they revert to the old system or make further adjustments to this new policy is at this point up in the air. Hopefully, they will do what they have to do in order that members are satisfied with the outcome.

As I mentioned again, I do not book for peak seasons, but I am against it since it does not provide equal footing for ALL members, personal experiences and circumstance aside. Again, I believe everyone has to deal with their own circumstances, it should not have any bearing on how the policy is implemented.

I emphathize with those who were not able to call DBD because of other priorities, but we all have circumstances that we deal with. I don't believe it would be correct for me to request that MS change their hours later because I have to take my children to school or go to work etc. We do what we can and we all set priorities. I don't believe anyone assumes that DVC takes priority over going to work on time (no matter how obsessed any of us are with Disney). That would be just ridiculous.

I bring this up because that's what MS said they did. They made changes because of members who complained that it was not fair that other members were able to call DBD and which created "holes" in their reservation. What MS should have done, imo, is to give them their options (book somewhere else, move etc) and leave it at that. I had called for my Oct vacation and I had to waitlist because a few days were not available. I didn't get upset with MS for allowing DBD, but instead, I told myself that if this was what I wanted then I'd call DBD (as they suggested) and if I couldn't get it, I would have no choice by to find alternative resorts. But at least I knew that all inventory was available to me each day.

Anyways, I will wait until the next few booking to see if the system worked for the "good" of members as a whole. But that doesn't mean that I'm fine with it. I just think that a lot of people have provided emails and had numerous discussions with MS to try to alleviate the potential for problems and I think our concerns have been noted and hopefully, they will come up with a great (or at least sufficient) solution.

I think it would be great if everyone posted their experiences with the new system for the next year or two, just so if we have to complain again, we will have a MUCH better understanding of the issues.

Excellent Post! Well Said!

 

[jdg345]

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:

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.

The second common scenario is when DVC acquires points through the ROFR process. Again, using BCV as the resort example, DVC acquires Member A's 150 pt contract through ROFR. Checking their BCV points waiting list, they find that SSR owners Member B, Member C, and Member D are all waiting for 50 point add-ons at BCV. Again, that original 150 points that was previously owned by a single member now belongs to 3 others who may now compete for reservations at the 11-month window.

I see where you're coming from, and it does make sense; but it does so on the assumption that those selling their points are still booking the same period that those buying those points are booking. Perhaps that seller originally booked a 2BR and a 1BR for their trips in December, but now don't have as much family going so they only book a 1BR and that's why they sold their points. The new buyer may or may not go during the same period as well.

Again, I see where you're coming from, and I agree that we would have additional members in this case, but the point pool is still the same. If both the seller and purchaser vacationed during the peak seasons, it's essentially a wash. If they did not, then it either eases or raises pressure -- but it does so times X number of sellers and buyers.

Put another way, I see it as something like this:

Member-A: Books a 2BR and a 1BR for Christmas Week every year. They sell their points, or part of them.
Member-B: A new member, buys some of their points.
Member-C: A new member, buys the rest of their points.

Member-A: Now only books a 1BR for Christmas Week every year.
Member-B: Books a 1BR for Christmas Week every year.
Member-C: Books a Studio for Christmas Week every year.

Of course, I'm making a lot of assumptions here as well, but in this scenario even though we have (2) additional members, we're using the same amount of actual inventory (assuming -- I know, another assumption -- that the 2BR was a Lockoff).

 

[jdg345]

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

If your assumption is correct in that only a small subset of people knew about DBD, then it would stand to reason that only a small subset of people would know how to walk a reservation. So at the end of the day, it's a wash, isn't it? Those that DBD'd before can give themselves a similar advantage by walking -- they're just booking rooms they don't want and potentially creating an inconvenience for other members. The old way, they were booking rooms they wanted. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that everyone is going to do whatever they can and use whatever advantages they have to get the reservations they want if it is that important to them.

Also, some posters opposed to the new policy have stated that it likely won't affect them anyways because they book during slow periods -- yet they still don't like it. Remember, vacation plans can and do change over time.

And, while I can't speak for all who are opposed to the new policy, I'm sure some of them have significant point banks to where they'll be able to walk, run, and sprint their reservation without breaking a sweat, much less having to worry about competing with someone for a day or two.

Finally, did you ever stop and think that maybe some of those who are for the policy are multiple thousand point owners who are looking to spec book those same periods of time you might want? Remember, this new policy certainly makes it easier for a spec renter to grab December 23rd to January 2nd in one fell swoop across quite a few rooms and categories -- all in one call.

 

[kimberh]

As an SSR and BCV owner, here's what I'm going to do:
I will call tomorrow to book VWL for December 2009. I just have to book a ressie for 7mos + 7 days, then walk my ressie each day for the next year.

I hope this is a desperate joke. All I can say is if reservations start with this type of a walk or gallop, then I truly hope Member Services disconnects the 800 number. I know we are only paying a certain percentage, but if people are going to abuse the system with a Gallop, then it needs to cost them (flame suit on) I am not for the new system, I think it is unfair, I stated so pages ago. This new system had to be put into place by Disney management that did not have a clue as to the abuse that can take place. I have my favorite time and place to stay, it is a hard sought after time and location, I am not happy with this new system... I have booked a new reservation under it for a regular stay at a regular time, it was very nice and easy to do so. I think for the normal times and locations this new system will work fine, it is for the Peak season or Concierge (all year) where the problem lies.

 

[jdg345]

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.

I believe one of Dean's points is that this is more fair to the 'System' in that it reduces costs to DVC.

I simply don't see where DVC has the need to morph itself into a more traditional system as it apparently has one of the largest recurring costs in membership dues as compared to other timeshares. These larger dues fund the flexibility and allow DVC to be different than other timeshares.

At the end of the day, reduced call volumes might reduce their bottom line, but it's likely not going to make my dues any less (12% Rule). Taking this line also puts everything else into question:

I don't want Flexibility, I like the new system. It keeps my dues lower.
I don't use the Internet, I want pay per day. It keeps my dues lower.
I don't use Valet, make DVC members pay to park. It keeps my dues lower.
I don't use Bell Services, get rid of it. It keeps my dues lower.

etc, etc.

 

[jdg345]

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

Awesome! Thanks!

my way to a Christmas 2009 stay ...

 

[waltfan1957]

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:

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.

The second common scenario is when DVC acquires points through the ROFR process. Again, using BCV as the resort example, DVC acquires Member A's 150 pt contract through ROFR. Checking their BCV points waiting list, they find that SSR owners Member B, Member C, and Member D are all waiting for 50 point add-ons at BCV. Again, that original 150 points that was previously owned by a single member now belongs to 3 others who may now compete for reservations at the 11-month window.

yes so obvious, yet for some so difficult to see how this will impact the new system

 

[jdg345]

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.)

I'd like to know when and how this survey went out. I certainly didn't get one. Not in email, not by phone, not when calling MS, not in my 'Welcome Home' package (of which I have received quite a few every year), not during checkin, not during checkout, not in any 'form' left in my room, and certainly not in my mailbox.

 

[jdg345]

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.

With the way the current system operates, this is completely wrong. If you have a group of days in your WL, you need all days to be available to trigger. You also need all those days to be available when the "WL Check" process runs -- it's not automatic. So, you could get end up with a situation where all the rooms are available for a moment and someone calls in and grabs one or more of the rooms before the WL Check runs and you're out of luck. How is that 'fair' ? If I WL weeks before, and you just happened to call today and grab the room before my WL had a chance to fill?

The more people that realize this, the more people will call DBD to check on their WL to see if that day they wanted came up. DBD you had a better shot as you could get bits and pieces (but even then, you could have someone call in and pull that same day out from under you). The WL system is a mess ... some assume that the moment a room is cancelled, the system checks to see if that room meets any WL requests before putting it back into inventory -- this is not the case. The WL Process runs 'several times a day' at best (though likely only overnight) and checks against available inventory to 'hold' a room. CM's then have to go through that report and follow instructions (automatic, call before, etc) -- though the rooms are already on hold by this point and are not part of the general inventory.

 

[jdg345]

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.

How many VWL points are ya selling? We're thinking we need to add a few more.

 

[waltfan1957]

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.

what is wrong with members wanting what they bought their points for, you don't seem to care what impact it has on you, yet you seem to belittle any owners who do care.

 

[waltfan1957]

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

why did'nt they know it was DVC MS that informed us, I would assume they made as many members as not aware of this.

 

[jdg345]

The new system is easier for new members to comprehend, is simpler to use, eliminates the anxiety over feeling you must book DBD, and is fair enough. There is no perfect system that is perfectly fair to everyone while still being simple and easy to use. The new system strikes a good balance, IMO.

OMG, I can't believe how many posts this thread has gotten!

The old system was pretty easy to comprehend though too -- book based on your departure date. I don't know that it eliminates anxiety as before any anxiety was based on someone calling in before you competing for a full complement of rooms. Now there is the anxiety that by the time you get a chance to call, all the rooms may have already been taken.

Both systems were pretty easy to use. You did not have to call DBD with the old system, just like you do not have to Walk with the new one. These are just different options people can use to give themselves a better shot at getting the days they want. People that understand the system are going to do what they can to maximize their return. Just like people that book cash some nights to avoid high weekend point costs, or schedule their trips during times when points are low, or book a Studio for the Weekend and a larger accomodation for the week. Not everyone is going to do this, as it's not as 'simple', but those that want to maximize their points can use all of these things as options.

 

[jdg345]

As an SSR and BCV owner, here's what I'm going to do:
I will call tomorrow to book VWL for December 2009. I just have to book a ressie for 7mos + 7 days, then walk my ressie each day for the next year.

Yup ... and as soon as you walk that reservation a few months forward, you've effectively potentially boxed out someone with Home Resort Priority using non-home-resort points as that room has been out of inventory during the whole period of time.

 

[rantnnravin]

Yup ... and as soon as you walk that reservation a few months forward, you've effectively potentially boxed out someone with Home Resort Priority using non-home-resort points as that room has been out of inventory during the whole period of time.

 

[Ragtime Gal]

As an SSR and BCV owner, here's what I'm going to do:
I will call tomorrow to book VWL for December 2009. I just have to book a ressie for 7mos + 7 days, then walk my ressie each day for the next year.

Um, long-term walking doesn't work so well for a 7 month situation. That eighth day that you can't book right now can already be booked by an owner of that resort. It's only when booking within your own resort that it makes the most sense. Not saying it makes no sense, but you just have to realize that a ton of people can swoop in on you anyway.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Then you and I would be among the few exceptions on this thread that aren't looking at their personal wants.

Actually, the impression that I've gotten from the thread is that the people who support this are the one's that feel this change will benefit themselves and I've heard a lot more who oppose it expressing that it probably won't affect them.

I've been opposed to it from the start, but having worked in the tourisim industry for the majority of my life I have little interest in traveling during peak periods. I did post one example relating to my concern over HA room's......but it was to point out one category that may have the most difficult time of all. It was in regards to ever getting a HA room at peak times and I mentioned inviting my sister (who does require HA) and BIL to travel.......BUT...my BIL is a minister, and since the two main peak times revolve around Easter and Xmas, it ain't gonna happen anyway! That's one of those life situations. But, I can see that the new system reduces opportunities for certain times and categories.....and that is not how the system has been sold and operated until now. And I bet they haven't changed the way their selling, just operating and thus my conclusion is that this is not an appropriate change to the booking policy.

My position is that the change doesn't make much of a difference for the majority of owners who may have been calling DBD when they didn't need to. But this booking policy change is not appropriate b/c the members it will affect probably bought the way they did because of the way the system was set up. That's my opinion and your opinion is different. It sounds like MS perpetuated a lot of the DBD calling, and while it would have been difficult to try and curb it, I think that would have been better to try than to make the change they did.

I also don't think the motivations for agreeing/disagreeing make much difference as long as the points are valid.

Actually, my apologies, I just realized I do have a personal want......my personal want is that when I buy a timeshare that says they are different from other timeshares......well, I want them to actually be that way!