New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[pilferk]

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.

Good point.

You can effectively give yourself 11 month (or longer) windows at any resort you want, assuming availability at 7 months.

Book at 7 months, and walk forward 3 or 4.

Right now, certainly possible.

 

[pilferk]

Not at all. It's simply based on the apparent fact that a larger % of SSR owners plan (and will) use the points at the 7 month window to trade out to higher demand options than the smaller resorts owners will to trade to SSR. Given it's size, even a couple of % difference would accomplish the impact I've suggested though it's likely at least a 10-20% difference. Ultimately it does require the other owners in question (BCV, BWV, AKV, & VWL) to WANT to trade to SSR just as much as the reverse.

I don't want to turn this into another of the famous "SSR threads" but...

when did we establish the above as "apparent fact". I know it's a long standing, uncorroberated opinion....one that's been mentioned for a LONG time.

But I was unaware we had gotten any corroboration or that it had entered into "fact" territory. Can you point me to where that happened?

Thanks!

 

[pilferk]

If you are a non-home booker, you can only reserve any room 7 months and 7 days prior. (Any new day you are able to book would never be more than 7 months and 7 days later than today's date.) For instance, today you could book for a check-in of February 13th and are allowed 7 days of reservations, which would put you at a check-out of February 20th. You cannot book for February 21st, no matter how many points you have and how long you have been walking, as you are only allowed 7 days. However, someone who owns at that resort can call today and book that February 21st right out from under you.

BUT, the next day you can book the 21st, and cancel the 13th.

Do that long enough, and you've gotten your 11 month "window".

Now, granted, someone able to book at 11 months got access to the inventory FIRST AND could do the same thing...walk their ressie forward, giving them more like a 12, 15, or 24 month "window".

So, yes.....11 month walkers would still have the advantage over 7 month walkers.

But the 7 months walkers could gain themselves an advantage on the 11 month "non-walkers", thereby making walking more necessary for the 11 month people, and perpetuating that "culture of walking" we've talked about before.

Sort of a vicious circle.

 

[pilferk]

I'm sorry, but having to get someone to cover your shift so you can call early enough to get a ressie is absolutely insane. Besides, not everyone has that option.

The new system might not be "fair," but the old one wasn't either.

Again, with feeling:

The SYSTEM was fair.

LIFE wasn't.

Big difference.

As has been pointed out, your individual ability to take advantage of the system in place, or get what YOU, personally, want, isn't the barometer of fairness.

You, along with the rest of the membership, were afforded the opportunity to call at 9 AM EST exactly 11 months prior, in order to book your room. Your ability to take advantage of that opportunity, due to personal issues, commitment, choices, or failure of your alarm clock does NOT mean the system was unfair. It means your life might be....

 

[dvcdisney]

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.

Exactly.

(I didn't want to get into the FAIRNESS debate again, but I thought I need to bring up this point.)

I, for one, do not view fairness in terms of whether a member gets what they want or not. I still believe the old system was fair. I didn't always get the reservation that I wanted, but that would be my choice. If I didn't take the opportunity to call (whether I had prior commitments or some other personal reason), then that's no one's fault but my own.

Fairness is about whether each and every member (irrelevant of their personal circumstance/situation) has the exact same opportunity to book (of course based on the 11/7 mth priority) REGARDLESS of whether they do or do not get the reservation. It is completely fair for both members if one calls at 9am and the other at 10am. If the member who calls earlier gets the last available room, it is fair for both parties. Just because the member who called at 10am didn't get the room, it doesn't mean that it's not fair, it means that that member did not call early enough. And again, everyone had personal situations that they choose over calling, that's okay, but it certainly is not unfair. If I call at 10am because I have to take my children to school and did not get the room, I made a choice (of course the CORRECT choice to make my children a priority). But certainly, I would not consider it unfair that I couldn't call while someone else was able. Life happens. In this case, I wouldn't even say that Life is unfair. Priorities and responsibilities are chosen, other things will have to be set aside.

 

[ScottakaMickey]

Exactly.

(I didn't want to get into the FAIRNESS debate again, but I thought I need to bring up this point.)

I, for one, do not view fairness in terms of whether a member gets what they want or not. I still believe the old system was fair. I didn't always get the reservation that I wanted, but that would be my choice. If I didn't take the opportunity to call (whether I had prior commitments or some other personal reason), then that's no one's fault but my own.

Fairness is about whether each and every member (irrelevant of their personal circumstance/situation) has the exact same opportunity to book (of course based on the 11/7 mth priority) REGARDLESS of whether they do or do not get the reservation. It is completely fair for both members if one calls at 9am and the other at 10am. If the member who calls earlier gets the last available room, it is fair for both parties. Just because the member who called at 10am didn't get the room, it doesn't mean that it's not fair, it means that that member did not call early enough. And again, everyone had personal situations that they choose over calling, that's okay, but it certainly is not unfair. If I call at 10am because I have to take my children to school and did not get the room, I made a choice (of course the CORRECT choice to make my children a priority). But certainly, I would not consider it unfair that I couldn't call while someone else was able. Life happens. In this case, I wouldn't even say that Life is unfair. Priorities and responsibilities are chosen, other things will have to be set aside.

Personal opinion is that the older system was more fair, but counter point to the above.

New system is equally fair, in that each person has the opportunity to walk a reservation just as in the old system each person could call and do DBD. Difference as I see it is with points, but that again is a personal decision that each person chooses to have more or less points to give them the ability to book. Yes, I agree that additional factor is harder to stomach, but with regard to fairness, the scales can still be balanced and the new system could be perceived as fair.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Personal opinion is that the older system was more fair, but counter point to the above.

New system is equally fair, in that each person has the opportunity to walk a reservation just as in the old system each person could call and do DBD. Difference as I see it is with points, but that again is a personal decision that each person chooses to have more or less points to give them the ability to book. Yes, I agree that additional factor is harder to stomach, but with regard to fairness, the scales can still be balanced and the new system could be perceived as fair.

I disagree. If a Member has more points, the only thing they should be entitled to is more vacation time, not a booking advantage.

To illustrate:
If a 25 pointer at AKV wanted one night concierge to do the Sunrise Safari, they could get blocked out by someone booking a week, then cancelling six days.

MG

 

[keishashadow]

I don't think anyone has said it was the policy, just that they thought it should be.

thought i saw the term abuse team floating about ...who would be monitoring system...was that somebody's supposition too?

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



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.

and i appreciate the fact that many of them like to play deep throat

think others like to bait us & watch us squirm

i was hoping to sneak in under the wire lol, not sure how popular the week of July 4th is with DVC membership as opposed to general WDTC vacationers

 

[pilferk]

How do you define liberal? In the past 8 years I've probably made between 12 and 15 ressies and have never been told about booking DBD by any CM. That doesn't seem very liberal to me, but again, it's based on personal experience. I've only ever been told that I can waitlist, which, BTW, have always come through for me, again, there's that personal experience thing.

I don't think that nearly as many people will consider walking their ressie as the people on this thread seem to think will. My personal opinion is that some people will always looking for a way to manipulate systems for their own agenda and that most of the time the system can handle those few cases. It's not until the loopholes become publicized that system becomes overwhelmed and a change is necesary. DBD did it to the old system and walking will do it to the new system.

IMO, those looking to take advantage for their own gain are those who are sapping the flexibility from DVC. People have no one to blame but themselves.

And if DBD booking, in your opinion, "morphed" into this huge problem...why wouldn't walking?

See, that's what I don't understand from those saying "oh, well...walking won't be a big problem. People just THINK it will.". That's the crux of the problem!

How do you think DBD booking became so popular? People started to think it WAS NECESSARY for every stay. It was a "culture of DBD booking".

I can't fathom why people think "walking" won't take the same route....

 

[dvcdisney]

Personal opinion is that the older system was more fair, but counter point to the above.

New system is equally fair, in that each person has the opportunity to walk a reservation just as in the old system each person could call and do DBD. Difference as I see it is with points, but that again is a personal decision that each person chooses to have more or less points to give them the ability to book. Yes, I agree that additional factor is harder to stomach, but with regard to fairness, the scales can still be balanced and the new system could be perceived as fair.

I agree with your points. And this is why I have posted many times saying that although I do not have any plans on "walking", I can see why others would choose to walk. I do believe that they are doing this in order to try to "even the field", which is somewhat flawed in reason. For example, if they can walk their reservation so that they are able to get the reservation that they wanted 2-3 weeks into the future, they believe that they have made it more equitable in terms of chances of getting the desired room and dates. If someone is going to call 6 nights (or less) before me, I would think that calling at the same time as they are will give me an equal footing for the reservation. However, this is a neverending pursuit.

I believe that people are doing something that some will perceive as unethical (maybe they do think this as well) in order to put themselves in the game. In a sense, trying to make it FAIR.

I guess I just don't believe that booking DBD is comparable in fairness as "walking". Yes, we could all "walk" and we all have the opportunity to "walk" (again, the number of points, as you said, is also personal...so that would be removed from the equation in terms of fairness). But for every day or week or month that someone else walks, each of us do not have the same opportunity for that one date and room. How does one decide when we would be at equal footing??

Now if MS has agreed that the maximum they will allow "walking" is one week, then maybe in this case, the inventory will be available 7 nights before your preferred dates and so you can have equal chance at those nights by calling exactly 14 days before. But this sound ridiculous since it is useless to provide a 7 nights guideline and then open it up 7 days before that.

Isn't it more simple to say, the inventory of rooms are available exactly 11/7 months to check OUT or even check in (I don't think either one makes a difference)? One day, not possibly hundreds of days before.

I understand some people do not believe that it was fair for others to be able to call DBD. But those who complained will probably be in worst position since now they would have to compete for rooms with those who have 7 days before, and 6 days before, and 5 days before and so on, and on top of that, they will have to deal with all those that will "walk" their reservation. They should have more to complain about now.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Yes, we could all "walk" and we all have the opportunity to "walk" (again, the number of points, as you said, is also personal...so that would be removed from the equation in terms of fairness).

I disagree with this.
That's like saying the guy driving the Porshe should be able to cut in front of the guy in the Toyota in a traffic jam.

In my opinion, there's no room for "paying for booking priority" in the system.

MG

 

[abeyst]

At least DBD, people were booking nights they were going to use.

 

[jdg345]

Again, with feeling:

The SYSTEM was fair.

LIFE wasn't.

Big difference.

As has been pointed out, your individual ability to take advantage of the system in place, or get what YOU, personally, want, isn't the barometer of fairness.

You, along with the rest of the membership, were afforded the opportunity to call at 9 AM EST exactly 11 months prior, in order to book your room. Your ability to take advantage of that opportunity, due to personal issues, commitment, choices, or failure of your alarm clock does NOT mean the system was unfair. It means your life might be....

Well Said!

 

[jdg345]

At least DBD, people were booking nights they were going to use.

Exactly! Myself and others have mentioned this as well. While the new policy will lead to cancellations, the issue is compounded by the limitations of the WL system. It creates a situation where someone who waitlists weeks before could lose to their room to someone calling a month after they did!

 

[dvcdisney]

I disagree with this.
That's like saying the guy driving the Porshe should be able to cut in front of the guy in the Toyota in a traffic jam.

In my opinion, there's no room for "paying for booking priority" in the system.

MG

I understand your point. However, that is not what I'm saying.

My point was that the number of points a member has is irrelevant in terms of fairness. With regards to FAIRNESS, it should only matter whether each member has the same opportunity to get the rooms/dates. So it absolutely should not matter whether I have more or less points than you. But to be FAIR, I should have the same chance to call as you do.

We are saying the same thing. In your traffic jam scenerio, the only thing that matters is who gets there first. It doesn't matter whether you own a porche or a Toyota. And of course, the Porche doesn't take precedence over the Toyota, just because it cost more.

So, my point, using your scenerio, is that if the Porsche and Toyota are side by side on a two lane highway and it turns to a one lane both have to merge, then they both have the same opportunity. However, if the Porsche goes faster and gets there before the Toyota, it doesn't mean it's unfair because he may have a better engine or faster acceleration etc. They were both presented with the opportunity at the same time, and one got there first. That's fair.

And certainly, everyone does have the same opportunity to "walk", whether you have a lot of points or not. The opportunity is still there. So if you don't have enough points to "walk" (for some reason or other) that's personal. The amount of points you choose to buy is your choice. It doesn't have anything to do with being fair. You may be upset that someone will be able to "walk" because they have more points that you and that's completely understandable. But that is not unfair.

IMO, unfair would be calling on the first chance you have to book your dates and being told by MS that you have to waitlist because someone has a vacation before yours, so they take precedence over you.

 

[bookwormde]

I just got a call back (from Sheila I believe) about my idea about blending the old and new system (see post 2455). Again it was obvious that she had read it and understood the concept. I also added the idea of allowing unlimited length reservation during the “enhanced” times.

No real new news, just that they are still looking at ways to improve the system.

bookwormde

 

[keishashadow]

received my phone call from member satisfaction

acknowledged my concerns, doesn't make me feel any better

she did state that there is an team in place that monitors ressies for abuse...i.e. the same team that is "catching" commercial renters...so,why am i not convinced they will stop the walking process?

when i mentioned to her that i had eliminated the 1st 2 days from my Oct. ressie this am and was told "not to worry", she agreed that I shouldn't...as i don't fit the pattern.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

And certainly, everyone does have the same opportunity to "walk", whether you have a lot of points or not. The opportunity is still there.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, however the above is where I disagree.

I don't see how a Member with less than a weekends worth of points has the same opportunity to walk.
I know that's not overly common, but I'm thinking of the 50 point add on at AKV so the Member can do a Sunrise Safari. They can't walk simply because they have too few points.

MG

 

[Maistre Gracey]

she did state that there is an team in place that monitors ressies for abuse.

Well, they need to define abuse.
At least with commercial renters they put a number on it.

MG

 

[jdg345]

Well, they need to define abuse.
At least with commercial renters they put a number on it.

MG

Well then, I guess as long as you don't walk more than 20 separate reservations in a year, you'll be fine.