New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[LisaS]

May be a little late with this but.....

I have a Sunday - Friday stay for President's Week in February 2009 at SSR
Sunday is February 15, which means that the 7th month window started for me today.
I called Member Services at exactly 9:00AM this morning to try to change to Beach Club or Boardwalk.

Nothing at Boardwalk, however Monday through Friday was available at the Beach Club.
They were unable to book the four days at the Beach Club because I was one day shy of the 7 month window, even though I would be wait-listed for one night.

Now I need to call tomorrow to see if the four nights are still available.
Not sure if this anyone anticipated this scenario, but right now many people, including those who work at Member Services are still working through this change

The Prophet

This scenario has been discussed but I'm curious about why you only wait listed for one night. People have reported being told that in this situation, you can waitlist for up to 7 nights. Then you call back the next day and if that day (and any days following) is/are available, you can book them and adjust your waitlist. In your case, it sounds like MS only wait listed you for one night and then when you call back, if those BCV nights are still available you will book them, otherwise you will add on to your waitlist, is that correct?

I'm just trying to understand if they restricted you to wait listing one night at a time or if a one-night WL was set up because they are expecting that you will be able to grab the remaining nights when you call back the next day.

 

[pilferk]

Jumping back in to add in regards to the section I bolded--I've seen at least one other post in this thread stating that the poster was NOT told about DBD booking by MS. I was not told about it, either by my guide or by MS when I made my reservations. It is not in the literature anywhere, nor on the website (well, until they mentioned it as a reason for changing the new policy ). I've seen several posts here and on other boards by people saying essentially "I'm new to DVC and didn't know I needed to book DBD..." Whether or not a majority or minority knew I don't know, but the fact remains that some of the members didn't know, so they were at a disadvantage to those who did (yes, I'll concede a disadvantage caused by DVC not by the system itself). I personally feel that because it was NOT communicated to the entire membership that DBD was an option the "policy" was unfair, as some people had the advantage of knowing about it while others did not.

The policy, and the system itself, was completely fair.

DVC's inability or unwillingness to communicate might have effected things, though. I agree with that. If people were not informed of their options, DVC wasn't doing their job. But then you don't junk the system....you simply improve your communication about what the system does, and does not, allow. That's a heck of a lot simpler fix than the one they put in place. Of course...it doesn't reduce their call volume and cut their costs.

Again, I go back to the sports analogy. If there's a basketball game at 3 PM, and only ONE team is told what the start time is....the rules of the game are still fair. The commisioner of the league or the person scheduling the games is just not doing their job very well. Unfair to the team not being told? Yeah,probably. But the SYSTEM and POLICIES (meaning the rules and regulations governing the game) aren't unfair.

See the difference?

I don't think it's a semantic difference at all. Conceptually, you're talking about two very different things.

 

[The Prophet]

This scenario has been discussed but I'm curious about why you only wait listed for one night. People have reported being told that in this situation, you can waitlist for up to 7 nights. Then you call back the next day and if that day (and any days following) is/are available, you can book them and adjust your waitlist. In your case, it sounds like MS only wait listed you for one night and then when you call back, if those BCV nights are still available you will book them, otherwise you will add on to your waitlist, is that correct?

I'm just trying to understand if they restricted you to wait listing one night at a time or if a one-night WL was set up because they are expecting that you will be able to grab the remaining nights when you call back the next day.

They waitlisted me for the entire stay (5 days) yesterday, even though 4 of the 5 days were available.

I guess you could argue both ways of whether or not the policy permits you do such a thing, but I believe the person or people who came up with this policy did not anticipate this scenario happening.

When I called back this morning, the 4 available days were gone.
I am still waitlisted for the 5 day stay at the Beach Club.

The Prophet

 

[aurorafan]

The policy, and the system itself, was completely fair.

DVC's inability or unwillingness to communicate might have effected things, though. I agree with that. If people were not informed of their options, DVC wasn't doing their job. But then you don't junk the system....you simply improve your communication about what the system does, and does not, allow. That's a heck of a lot simpler fix than the one they put in place. Of course...it doesn't reduce their call volume and cut their costs.

Again, I go back to the sports analogy. If there's a basketball game at 3 PM, and only ONE team is told what the start time is....the rules of the game are still fair. The commisioner of the league or the person scheduling the games is just not doing their job very well. Unfair to the team not being told? Yeah,probably. But the SYSTEM and POLICIES (meaning the rules and regulations governing the game) aren't unfair.

See the difference?

I don't think it's a semantic difference at all. Conceptually, you're talking about two very different things.

I do see the difference, and as I said in a subsequent post I put policy in quotes because I wasn't sure what to call it, since technically it wasn't an official policy. To me it was a loophole, because regardless of the fact that some MS reps allowed people to do it or told people to do it, never was it stated anywhere in the official rules and regulations that you could book a series of one day reservations but not be required to check out and check back in and be allowed stay in the same room for the whole time. Yes it's a timeshare based on daily rather than weekly reservations, but the rules and regulations required that the reservation be made from your check out date--that means you have to check out that day. Call it a situation, call it a lack of communication (which I totally agree with) but it wasn't a policy, because it wasn't written down anywhere that it was allowed.

 

[TyRy]

Jumping back in to add in regards to the section I bolded--I've seen at least one other post in this thread stating that the poster was NOT told about DBD booking by MS. I was not told about it, either by my guide or by MS when I made my reservations. It is not in the literature anywhere, nor on the website (well, until they mentioned it as a reason for changing the new policy ). I've seen several posts here and on other boards by people saying essentially "I'm new to DVC and didn't know I needed to book DBD..." Whether or not a majority or minority knew I don't know, but the fact remains that some of the members didn't know, so they were at a disadvantage to those who did (yes, I'll concede a disadvantage caused by DVC not by the system itself). I personally feel that because it was NOT communicated to the entire membership that DBD was an option the "policy" was unfair, as some people had the advantage of knowing about it while others did not.

But now won't this lack of communication/disadvantge continue with walking? People didn't know about DBD unless they were told. People will not know at all about walking unless they are on a forum or told and I don't think MS will be telling anyone. So its seems we still have the same problem, at least I'm not sure what the difference is except that I see walking screwing things up for more people who are trying to book their real days (which everyone pretty much did with DBD) whereas walking will be taking bunches of days people don't want.

 

[mjy]

that's a horse of a different color and a discussion for another day.

Gotcha.

I had misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[aurorafan]

But now won't this lack of communication/disadvantge continue with walking? People didn't know about DBD unless they were told. People will not know at all about walking unless they are on a forum or told and I don't think MS will be telling anyone. So its seems we still have the same problem, at least I'm not sure what the difference is except that I see walking screwing things up for more people who are trying to book their real days (which everyone pretty much did with DBD) whereas walking will be taking bunches of days people don't want.

Yes, but someone said a few posts back that MS is watching for walking which they consider an abuse of the system (I hope they mean excessive walking as many people need to change plans sometimes). If they consider walking an abuse then they will presumably take steps to stop it, whereas with DBD they didn't.

My argument was that people keep saying DBD was fair--it may have been fair as far as the system went, but in practice it wasn't because it wasn't communicated to the WHOLE membership that it was allowed. Therefore those members who didn't know about it were at a disadvantage to others who did.

 

[LisaS]

They waitlisted me for the entire stay (5 days) yesterday, even though 4 of the 5 days were available.

Thanks for the clarification. This is what people reported MS told them would be done in this case (set up a wait list for up to 7 nights) and when I read your post I thought you had been told you could only wait list for one night so I was wondering if things had changed.

I guess you could argue both ways of whether or not the policy permits you do such a thing, but I believe the person or people who came up with this policy did not anticipate this scenario happening.

It is ironic because it encourages calling DBD to try to grab any days that are still available 11/7 months in advance. But at the 11-month window it has to work this way in order for those booking stays of more than 7 nights to have any hope of getting all of their nights.

When I called back this morning, the 4 available days were gone.
I am still waitlisted for the 5 day stay at the Beach Club.

Did you call back right at 9am today? Just curious.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

Thanks for the clarification. This is what people reported MS told them would be done in this case (set up a wait list for up to 7 nights) and when I read your post I thought you had been told you could only wait list for one night so I was wondering if things had changed.

It is ironic because it encourages calling DBD to try to grab any days that are still available 11/7 months in advance. But at the 11-month window it has to work this way in order for those booking stays of more than 7 nights to have any hope of getting all of their nights.

Did you call back right at 9am today? Just curious.

I guess I didn't realize that WL for up to 7 nights were being allowed (and only allowed even for nights that were available if Day 1 was not available). I guess this might mean that walking waitlists may also make sense from time to time.

What is the purpose of allowing a 7 night WL at the opening of the booking window? Is there any member that won't call back the next day when they might be able to book days 2-7?

This new system just seems to get more & more complicated in its application. Add in some other rules to "fix" perceived abuses and you will need a law degree just to book at DVC when the booking window opens. -- Suzanne

 

[jdg345]

This brings up a good point:

If they're looking to reduce call volume, I'm not sure this system, as it is now, will do that. ESPECIALLY if "walking" becomes widespread.

While DBD calls were, after the first, quick hit and runs, I'd think the "walking" calls would be a bit more lengthy, right? I've never called to add and remove days, but I'd think there's a bit more involved than the minute or so it would take to extend a DBD ressie. It might reduce VOLUME, I suppose, but I'm not sure it will actually reduce resource useage. The average call might get longer, if walking becomes the SOP.

What do you all think? Anyone gone through both (DBD and adding/removing days) processes?

Yes, walking definitely takes longer on the phone. With DBD, they already know your desired LOS, which is why it's so easy to add. With Walking, they have no documentation to indicate that's what you are going to do, so they need to add and drop and go through whatever rebooking and reallocation they need to do. It's certainly messier.

 

[jade1]

never was it stated anywhere in the official rules and regulations that you could book a series of one day reservations but not be required to check out and check back in and be allowed stay in the same room for the whole time. .

So you will admit everyone knows/knew you could book one day reservations in succession (that is day by day), and at the worst you would have to check out and into another room. Any logic would tell you that at check in, THE RESORT ITSELF would request you stay in the same room if its available-and do an automated check in /out each day. I would still take that today over the current system because of premier times like NYE, and take my chances of having to move or not.

 

[jdg345]

Jumping back in to add in regards to the section I bolded--I've seen at least one other post in this thread stating that the poster was NOT told about DBD booking by MS. I was not told about it, either by my guide or by MS when I made my reservations. It is not in the literature anywhere, nor on the website (well, until they mentioned it as a reason for changing the new policy ). I've seen several posts here and on other boards by people saying essentially "I'm new to DVC and didn't know I needed to book DBD..." Whether or not a majority or minority knew I don't know, but the fact remains that some of the members didn't know, so they were at a disadvantage to those who did (yes, I'll concede a disadvantage caused by DVC not by the system itself). I personally feel that because it was NOT communicated to the entire membership that DBD was an option the "policy" was unfair, as some people had the advantage of knowing about it while others did not.

The same can be said of the new policy. It hasn't really been communicated yet either, so for now it's unfair. They can fix it by posting about it in Disney Files -- they could have done the same with DBD.

Another question: Were you ever denied a reservation? Typically, CM's only floated the option to DBD if you asked about a reservation during a key time or you called at 11 months from departure (or close to that window) and you were shut out. If you were able to book, there really was no reason for them to suggest the alternative.

Taking this a step further: Do you think CM's are going to advertise walking? Do you expect to see that in Disney Files? It's clearly within the rules, and nothing says you can't do it ... but it doesn't mean they're going to suggest it. It's a tip or trick of the trade. Do you know there are several things you can do to give yourself a better shot at an upgrade on an airline? There are. Does that mean it's unfair or cheating? Nope, it just means someone figured out something you haven't yet.

That's not unfair. Unfair would be if you called to book DBD and they told you that you could not. And then I called and they said it would be okay for me to do so. That is unfair. Not knowing about it does not make it unfair.

 

[dvcdisney]

I guess this might mean that walking waitlists may also make sense from time to time.

If this happens, there is no doubt that they not only INCREASE the call volumes, they have increased it multiple times.

 

[LisaS]

I guess I didn't realize that WL for up to 7 nights were being allowed (and only allowed even for nights that were available if Day 1 was not available). I guess this might mean that walking waitlists may also make sense from time to time.

What is the purpose of allowing a 7 night WL at the opening of the booking window? Is there any member that won't call back the next day when they might be able to book days 2-7?

This new system just seems to get more & more complicated in its application. Add in some other rules to "fix" perceived abuses and you will need a law degree just to book at DVC when the booking window opens. -- Suzanne

The advantage of setting up the WL for up to 7 nights on the first call is that it gets the member on the wait list as early as possible. Even if nights 2+ are available when the member calls on day 1, they may not be available when the member calls back on day 2 to try to book them. It's not clear what happens to your WL priority if you WL for just the first night and then have to amend the WL the next day (and possibly several times over the next 6 days) if the member calls back and finds those nights that were available yesterday have already been snapped up.

It's also not clear what happens to your WL priority if you WL the entire stay on the first call and then call back each day and manage to get some of the nights you need. If you start filling in your own WL, MS would have to split your initial WL into several WLs. Do all those mini-WLs retain the same place in the queue or do the spinoff WLs get added to the end of the queue as they are created? I expect they get added to the end of the list but haven't heard anything definitive.

 

[aurorafan]

So you will admit everyone knows/knew you could book one day reservations in succession (that is day by day), and at the worst you would have to check out and into another room. Any logic would tell you that at check in, THE RESORT ITSELF would request you stay in the same room if its available-and do an automated check in /out each day. I would still take that today over the current system because of premier times like NYE, and take my chances of having to move or not.

Actually I think there were lots of members who wouldn't have known that you could make a series of one day reservations in succession--it certainly never occurred to me before reading the boards. Again I point to the many posts here and elsewhere where people would say "I'm new to DVC and I don't understand DBD booking/what is this DBD booking I keep reading about...". I think it wouldn't occur to many people simply because that's not how you make regular hotel reservations. And because DVC is a daily timeshare and not weekly, I think a lot of people looked at it (rightly or wrongly) as similar/the same as hotel reservations. I think the new policy makes more sense to those people because of that.

I won't argue whether DBD was better or worse than the new system because I see points to both sides. I'm simply saying that while the system that allowed DBD may have been fair, the implementation of it wasn't because the WHOLE membership was not informed that it was allowed. People who didn't know about it were at a disadvantage, so when they called to book their reservations 11 months from their checkout date (of their whole vacation, since it never would have occurred to them to think of each day of the vacation as a separate reservation) they found themselves locked out of where they wanted to stay.

 

[dvcdisney]

Taking this a step further: Do you think CM's are going to advertise walking? Do you expect to see that in Disney Files? It's clearly within the rules, and nothing says you can't do it ... but it doesn't mean they're going to suggest it. It's a tip or trick of the trade. Do you know there are several things you can do to give yourself a better shot at an upgrade on an airline? There are. Does that mean it's unfair or cheating? Nope, it just means someone figured out something you haven't yet.

That's not unfair. Unfair would be if you called to book DBD and they told you that you could not. And then I called and they said it would be okay for me to do so. That is unfair. Not knowing about it does not make it unfair.

Exactly!

Many of us, including myself, were told by MS to book DBD. You will not hear them say this about "walking". Especially since it takes more work to add and drop a reservation. By the way, when I dropped a day in the beginning of my reservation (a few vacations ago), they said that I needed a new reservation number (which they gave me) because I am beginning my stay at a different date. That in itself requires more keystrokes. If you add at the end of your reservation, DBD or not, they just book the day and link. As I mentioned, quite a few pages ago, I had called DBD for a vacaton, and before I can say what I wanted, they already knew as soon as I gave them my membership number. It was literally less than a minute, even with me asking to verify what she did. She just chuckled and said, I know what you want to do, it's done. It didn't sound like she was upset or annoyed about it.

 

[LisaS]

Yes, walking definitely takes longer on the phone. With DBD, they already know your desired LOS, which is why it's so easy to add. With Walking, they have no documentation to indicate that's what you are going to do, so they need to add and drop and go through whatever rebooking and reallocation they need to do. It's certainly messier.

You have posted that you are currently walking a reservation. Did you tell MS your real dates of stay so that will hold off sending any confirmation letters?

 

[Bopsmom]

IMHO
It seems the DBD option is moot; it is no longer allowed. MS would have probably stopped the method had enough members written them a letter (a real letter) to complain. I actually thought it was a way to book-according to all the research I did.
The "walking a reservation" process is a new twist. It is not unknown to the MS agents it's just not been a method that has been complained about in writting-yet. It seems only real letters do the trick.
I do have to admit that if you need info on Disney or DVC than the Disboard members will always give you the "scoop". I have learned a ton from here. I checked here before I ever bought DVC and will keep coming to find all the "need to know" information. I am sure if "wallking" is allowed this will be the thread that thinks of all the ways to do it.

Just spit-balling here:
I kinda equate the process of "walking a reservation" to busy intersections and red-light cameras. (Booking though DVC)
You know not to run a red light(you should make your reservation according to check in +7) but you can cruise a yellow(walk a reservation) and stay in the intersection to catch that next green light (get that prime time))-whoops, but the lights aren't syncronized correctly, you are in a hurry, the other cars are doing it, etc. (the system isn't fair, I need "my" spot, I have to plan ahead, the kids are in school)
You and others may go ahead and block the intersection on someone else's green light, waiting for the next light to change-whoops again (walking a reservation).

Well, everyone knows that by doing that you are keeping cross traffic from using the intersection(throwing others on a WL and keeping them from planning their Disney Vacation), Oh, well.

It is only a small inconvience right-it's not just you and, as soon as the next light turns green you will move to give them space(when you give up the days you aren't going to use). Won't they be so happy you did this for them?
Well, if enough people do this it causes problems....
The powers that be decide that installing red light cameras at these intersections will ticket/penalize all of those that practice this. (set up restrictions, 1 change per reservation, cancel and rebook on 2nd change, no re-scheduling days into prime times, etc)
It should stop the problem, but what if there is an emergency, an ambulance needs the intersection and you move out of the way, or you can't stop because of a wet road....etc. (really need just one change in reservation)
Too bad, you have to pay the ticket (give up and rebook)
A few can change everything for everyone.


If you have a concern about walking, write to the Member Satisfaction Team. Don't think that just by reading the posts they will change a policy-that's how DBD came about-no one really complained.....

 

[jdg345]

I put the word policy in quotes because honestly I wasn't sure how to describe it, considering it wasn't actually an official policy . However you want to phrase it--the idea of it, the distribution of information, the situation--it was unfair because some knew about it and some didn't. People keep getting into semantics while still insisting DBD was fair. Argue if you want that the system was, but the implementation (because some were informed about the option and others were not) was not.

Again, it's not like you could not do it. Everything, every system, has a way to be worked. Airlines, Hotel Stays, Car Rentals, everything. Because they don't disclose these things publicly doesn't make that system any more or less fair. If you know the tricks, you can certainly use them to your advantage if you so desire.

I did not know you could book ADR's 180+10. Does that in itself make it unfair? Nope. It makes me ignorant of the situation, that's all. There are tips and tricks to everything, and sometimes these things aren't widely published. That is not unfair.

Again, my calling and asking to book DBD and being allowed, followed by your call asking to do the same and being disallowed (not due to inventory), would be unfair.

Another example: If I call and WL DBD right now, today. And you call after me and they tell you that you have to WL for the whole stay. That is unfair.

 

[jdg345]

Just a question (and I'm being sincere, not trying to be smart alecky)--do we know DVC itself is considering new rules etc. to "fix" the problem? I was under the impression that all the "rules, regulations and sanctions" are just conjecture from this thread, not things that DVC is actually considering implementing?

The member satisfaction team has stated that they are monitoring the situation and will make changes if they find there is abuse of the system. Whatever that means is likely another 100 page thread all by itself.