New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[BEASLYBOO]

I'm not familiar w/ the term walking a reservation? Some one please enlighten me!

 

[jdg345]

Actually, once they get on-line booking, that will be a moot point. Joy seemed fairly certain on-line booking was coming sooner rather than later.

I've got my fingers crossed ... but why bother with this last change if that was 'so close' ? That in itself should reduce call volumes significantly.

 

[mmcguire]

I would hope that it is well thought out if they go to online booking. It will be a disadvantage to those who have no daily access to a computer or have a dial-up modem rather than high-speed access. I know it is a computer age, but sometime the member may not be into computers or only uses the workplace or library computer giving them some of the same timing disadvantage you elaborate on here. It would still have to be a dual system but with no advantage given the computer over the phone. How do you work that out?

It would only be a dual-input system. All members, regardless of whether they were booking online or via telephone will still be hitting the same pool of rooms in the same back-end system. In all liklihood, the MS people would be using the exact same system as the online booking system, and nobody would get an advantage.

On a related note, automated booking "bots" could be thwarted with CAPTCHA (where you have to manually key in those funny looking letters) or an IP lockout after so many access in a set amount of time, or a combination of the two.

 

[jdg345]

Good question. I would hope that DVC provides restrictions to prevent this type of violation of the policy (and clearly state that IT IS a violation). But then again, who knows . I'm sure we will have a thread discussing the possible "loopholes" to online booking but hopefully, it would not be as problematic as the new system seems to be.

They'd have to do something to make sure the api was variable to prevent someone from writing a script to book all the rooms. But this types of systems are available and easy to implement. In fact, everyone who posts here has had experience with them (when you have to type in those characters to register).

EDIT: I see someone posted a similar response just before me.

I'd love to be able to see our ADR's and WL's online too!

 

[jdg345]

I for one would love on-line booking, but I am hesitant to believe it will automatically solve the issues that some are having with the new reservation policy. There is nothing to gaurantee that on-line booking for DVC will allow day by day reservations that are linked - or the ability to open a reservation and add a day. There may be no ability to modify a reservation or to cancel individual days with on-line. It all depends on the programming.

Agree, but all of these things should be quite easy to implement from a programming standpoint ... especially if they're building it ground up.

 

[jdg345]

I see several folks who are defending the new policy suggesting and even advocating to prevent walking that a policy should be put into effect that any reservation changes should require a cancellation or rebook. Can you really make plans 11 months out and never change or modify them? In my short 2 years as a DVC member, here are some of the reasons I have needed to or thought about making changes to my reservations:
1. prego-didn't really want to be puking my entire vacation so wanted to delay it a week or two
2. cheaper flights
3. work requirements/can't get days off
4. death in the family
5. better flight times
6. extending my vacation to visit with family

I for one think that the policy described above would lead me to sell. I don't like the new policy, but this fix would lead me to vacation elsewhere. My inlaws have a great timeshare with locations in Cabo, Vegas, and Tahoe among others and I got DL 35 miles away for my Disney fix. . .

As a side note, if you like the new policy, why do you care if someone who does not, or is scared they won't get their important dates does walk?

Probably for the same reasons they did not like DBD: They chose (or choose) not to book in that fashion, and since they don't want to, they don't want you to be able to do it either as you might be able to get their dates.

 

[jdg345]

fyi, i called MS today to cancel the 1st 2 dates of AKV (10/18 & 10/19-should make somebody happy on the WL )

1st i asked if eliminating the 1st 2 days would cancel my whole ressie...

CM found it amusing and asked if i read the DISboards

she said even with enhanced policy, no problem to cancel any dates in any ressie w/i the normal 30 day rule that's in place ; despite what i may have read here

Well, we've always had CM's lurking and posting here.

while i need to call & book for next year beginning the 28th of this month, unless somebody here posts issues with securing ressies in next week or so; don't think i'm going to bother walking it...even though it includes 4th of July...i'll be the test case

I still think it's too early for test cases ... until this is released in Disney Files -- and even then, I just don't think many will know about the new policy. It's going to take a few months to trickle, imo.

 

[jdg345]

I would hope that it is well thought out if they go to online booking. It will be a disadvantage to those who have no daily access to a computer or have a dial-up modem rather than high-speed access. I know it is a computer age, but sometime the member may not be into computers or only uses the workplace or library computer giving them some of the same timing disadvantage you elaborate on here. It would still have to be a dual system but with no advantage given the computer over the phone. How do you work that out?

I figure they would release inventory at the same times as the phones open up, giving both the phone folks and the online folks the same access to available rooms. Online *should* be faster than getting a CM, but there are all sorts of intangibles here -- what if your internet is down one day?

The key here is that the phones would also have to be available for those that cannot and/or will not use Online Booking; and, of course, Inventories would have to be released simultaneously as well.

 

[jdg345]

I'm not familiar w/ the term walking a reservation? Some one please enlighten me!

It's when you book days you don't want and walk it forward to get days you do want. For example, if you want to stay the 22nd to the 29th, you could call in and book the 15th to the 22nd, then call the next day, drop the 15th, add the 23rd, etc.

It's like DBD, with a twist ... as you can start on the 15th or even earlier.

 

[disneydisneydoo]

Agree, but all of these things should be quite easy to implement from a programming standpoint ... especially if they're building it ground up.

I agree, but the issue for me is whether they will actually implement all the programming necessary to do that? I have my doubts. Also, maybe I'm not thinking this through enough, but I don't see how someone booking Saturday through Friday still doesn't beat out the person trying to book one day later for Sunday through Thursday with on-line unless there is still walking of a reservation involved.

 

[jdg345]

I agree, but the issue for me is whether they will actually implement all the programming necessary to do that? I have my doubts. Also, maybe I'm not thinking this through enough, but I don't see how someone booking Saturday through Friday still doesn't beat out the person trying to book one day later for Sunday through Thursday with on-line unless there is still walking of a reservation involved.

Agree; there would still be walking here ... they just wouldn't have to deal with the phone calls. At the end of the day, I think this policy change was made to limit phone calls more than it was to prevent DBD or whatever they're spinning it as. Just like they didn't really care about DBD, I dont think they care about walking if they can ultimately get volumes down.

I, for one, would like to see them go back to DBD and Online booking though.

 

[pilferk]

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'm coming late to the party, and I'm also going to assume Dean answers this in a later post I haven't gotten to.

But I'm also going to agree with you, in that I think the system is unfair in it's current incarnation.

I think Dean's perspective/Point of view is skewed toward the needs of the system, and the ultimate GOAL of the system (to book all the rooms). In THAT perspective, the two systems are roughly equivalent (and I think, to him, "fair"). In both incarnations of the system, there is an empty room, a member books it, and one member's need is satisfied. In the "new" incarnation, that goal is accomplished with less resources, and with less strain on the system. So it's "fair" in that it "satisfies" both masters. If 2 competing members both want the time frame...and only one was going to get it anyway, Dean seems to feel you were going to get 50% member satisfaction anyway....so ultimately the new system is "as fair" as the old.

Maybe I'm wrong, and Dean's explanation (which I expect to find a bit further down the page) will correct me.

My perspective is very different. And I, too, must be "one of the few in this thread not looking out for my own needs"...because we typically travel during slower times (September, NOT food and wine October, early January) when DBD isn't necessary. For my money, "fair" means equal access for the entire membership, for the entirety of available inventory, on the same day and time. Keep in mind, by "available" I mean within the confines of the 7/11 month rules. Dean, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to "get" that perspective. I just allow for the disconnect...people's brains are wired very different ways, so where I see vases, Dean probably sees 2 female statues.

I can't see how "spotting" someone time to get at the same inventory another member might want (and should have every right to access) FIRST is fair. To me, it would go towards a sports analogy: It wouldn't be fair for the other basket ball team to be afforded the opportunity to play for 3 minutes before my team is allowed to take the floor. If the rules permit that, they're unfair...whether I have to live with them or not. That's MY perspective.

Again, we'll have to see if the new rules play out to provide the advantage they potentially could. They might not. In the end, the two systems might be functionally equivalent. That STILL won't mean the new system is fair, IMHO, just that's it's workable.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I would hope that it is well thought out if they go to online booking. It will be a disadvantage to those who have no daily access to a computer or have a dial-up modem rather than high-speed access. I know it is a computer age, but sometime the member may not be into computers or only uses the workplace or library computer giving them some of the same timing disadvantage you elaborate on here. It would still have to be a dual system but with no advantage given the computer over the phone. How do you work that out?

Frankly, I agree with you. I have not been one who has been all that interested in online booking. I feel there are just too many things that can go wrong, and I would MUCH rather speak to a real person when I make my reservations.

 

[jdg345]

I'm coming late to the party, and I'm also going to assume Dean answers this in a later post I haven't gotten to.

But I'm also going to agree with you, in that I think the system is unfair in it's current incarnation.

I think Dean's perspective/Point of view is skewed toward the needs of the system, and the ultimate GOAL of the system (to book all the rooms). In THAT perspective, the two systems are roughly equivalent (and I think, to him, "fair"). In both incarnations of the system, there is an empty room, a member books it, and one member's need is satisfied. In the "new" incarnation, that goal is accomplished with less resources, and with less strain on the system. So it's "fair" in that it "satisfies" both masters. If 2 competing members both want the time frame...and only one was going to get it anyway, Dean seems to feel you were going to get 50% member satisfaction anyway....so ultimately the new system is "as fair" as the old.

Maybe I'm wrong, and Dean's explanation (which I expect to find a bit further down the page) will correct me.

My perspective is very different. And I, too, must be "one of the few in this thread not looking out for my own needs"...because we typically travel during slower times (September, NOT food and wine October, early January) when DBD isn't necessary. For my money, "fair" means equal access for the entire membership, for the entirety of available inventory, on the same day and time. Keep in mind, by "available" I mean within the confines of the 7/11 month rules. Dean, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to "get" that perspective. I just allow for the disconnect...people's brains are wired very different ways, so where I see vases, Dean probably sees 2 female statues.

I can't see how "spotting" someone time to get at the same inventory another member might want (and should have every right to access) FIRST is fair. To me, it would go towards a sports analogy: It wouldn't be fair for the other basket ball team to be afforded the opportunity to play for 3 minutes before my team is allowed to take the floor. If the rules permit that, they're unfair...whether I have to live with them or not. That's MY perspective.

Again, we'll have to see if the new rules play out to provide the advantage they potentially could. They might not. In the end, the two systems might be functionally equivalent. That STILL won't mean the new system is fair, IMHO, just that's it's workable.

How's the back?

 

[pilferk]

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.

Again, my apologies for being "Johnny come lately"....

Except, well...that's NOT the definition many are using. They're using the one you cite further back: equal access to inventory.

As you say, getting or not getting your ressie isn't what makes it fair. That's as true at the end of your explanation as it would be earlier on, when you use it as the barometer of the "old way".

The difference is that, under the old system, whether you got it or not was the result of the competition..that is, the rules and system allowed for DBD calling and you either had the fastest fingers or you didn't. You could either take advantage of the opportunity or you couldn't. At least you knew you started on equal ground with everyone else. This all goes back to the "Life vs system" fairness. Life might not be, the system should be.

The new system....not so much. You POTENTIALLY can be "taken out of the game" before it even starts. How often that actually occurs....we'll have to see.

I know...we disconnect on this one. While I understand your POV, I don't agree with it. But from some of your recen posts, you don't even seem to understand the alternate POV. You cite it as selfishness, rather than simply acknowledging the difference in perspective, and moving on. This one isn't going to be a "win/lose" debate. You're not right...everyone arguing the contrary isn't wrong. It's just different ways to look at things......

 

[pilferk]

How's the back?

With 800 milligrams of ibuprofen, lots of getting out of my chair to stretch, a heating pad, and an ice pack (alternating, obviously)...I'm just mostly immobile, in a lot of pain, and able to make it through a day of work (so far...catch me in an hour before I leave).

Which is better than yesterday when, even with all that, I was laid up in bed, pretty much completely immobile (I could sit for 15 min or so at a stretch...thank god for laptops and wireless internet...at least I could surf a LITTLE bit), and in agony.....

Baby steps, I guess.

Thanks for asking, though!

 

[Maistre Gracey]

The new system....not so much. You POTENTIALLY can be "taken out of the game" before it even starts. How often that actually occurs....we'll have to see.

In my opinion, even if it NEVER happens, just the possibility that it could happen makes it unfair.

MG

 

[jdg345]

With 800 milligrams of ibuprofen, lots of getting out of my chair to stretch, a heating pad, and an ice pack (alternating, obviously)...I'm just mostly immobile, in a lot of pain, and able to make it through a day of work (so far...catch me in an hour before I leave).

Which is better than yesterday when, even with all that, I was laid up in bed, pretty much completely immobile (I could sit for 15 min or so at a stretch...thank god for laptops and wireless internet...at least I could surf a LITTLE bit), and in agony.....

Baby steps, I guess.

Thanks for asking, though!

Better is better, happy to hear!

Here's some for ya!

 

[pilferk]

In my opinion, even if it NEVER happens, just the possibility that it could happen makes it unfair.

MG

Agreed.

The concept and implementation makes it unfair, IMHO.....but maybe not unworkable.

We'll see.

 

[dzorn]

I'd love to be able to see our ADR's and WL's online too!

I would love this. I WL for our Feb vacation today changing out resorts (todays the 7 month window) for our first week and it would be nice to have our WL listed on line so you could check it for errors before it is filled (fingers crossed).

Denise in MI