New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[dvcdisney]

What information people get from outside sources is irrelevant... IF DVC, the managing entity for our timeshare system, provides information that guarantees booking preferences for one member via MS, they need to do it for all or else this is an issue of fairness. I'm only discussing DVC disseminated information. If fairness/level playing fields is truly a concept most folks believe in, I can't see why anyone would disagree with this basic premise. However, if the concept of fairness is tinted by personal agendas, this explains a lot of the resistance. Consistency is good!

I disagree with this as well. As you mentioned, "fairness should not be tinted by personal agendas" and yet you feel that because some members do not know about it can be considered unfair. As jdg345 have numerously mentioned, you have the option to find out everything you can about it. DVC did not keep it a secret and if you inquire they do not say "NO, we absolutely do not do that". No one is purposely trying to keep other members out of the loop. The information is out there. Just because people choose not to research doesn't mean that the system is unfair.

You are calling it unfair because of personal issues which do not have anything to do with the system. Just because I didn't know about it doesn't mean it's not fair to me. DVC can and have booked this way. The only way this would be UNFAIR is (as mentioned several times) if DVC will do it for one member but not for another. I believe you are using personal choice/circumstance as part of fairness and (as I mentioned in most of my post, as well as have seen in many other posts) and this is just not the case.

We all joined DVC and all information is available to all. Again, unfair would be if a member called and was told that there is no such thing as DBD. Then this person would not be treated (or have the same opportunity) as the rest of the members.

I also found out from MS and it was 3 years after I joined. I didn't get upset that I didn't know about it. I didn't say "UNFAIR, UNFAIR!". I said, thanks for the info, I'll know better next time.

I would admit that DVC is not always efficient in their communications. But the info is there. Other members find it quicker than others because they want to learn as much as they can, but that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the other members who choose to know just the minimum they need to use the membership. Some are not as fanatical as others. Everyone is different. But just because you know and I didn't, it doesn't mean it's unfair to me.

The old system with DBD booking was fair, (and I still believe that) because it gives everyone equal opportunity REGARDLESS of personal circumstance/choice (ie. choose to find out further info or not). Again, I just want to make it clear, that I, myself, just tried to get by with booking at checkout, until I had a problem and MS gave me a solution. I will admit, if I hadn't experienced a time when I couldn't get my reservation dates, I would not have known it. But this isn't unfair, that's my problem. If I had asked, they would have told me.

 

[aurorafan]

Again, I'll agree that if the communication of the ability to do it wasn't made by DVC...that's an issue (and it's an ongoing one, apparently) with them. They need to correct that....and not just with this issue. But I don't think DVC's lack of ability to communicate to it's membership should be reason to junk the old for this new system.

Agreed . I wasn't trying to argue that it was a reason to change systems. They really do need to improve their communication--this whole issue has certainly proven that

 

[jekjones1558]

19% of the posts were posted by 1 Diser

That's 527 posts by a single poster on one thread?? Wow!

 

[jarestel]

I disagree with this as well. As you mentioned, "fairness should not be tinted by personal agendas" and yet you feel that because some members do not know about it can be considered unfair. As jdg345 have numerously mentioned, you have the option to find out everything you can about it. DVC did not keep it a secret and if you inquire they do not say "NO, we absolutely do not do that". No one is purposely trying to keep other members out of the loop. The information is out there. Just because people choose not to research doesn't mean that the system is unfair.

You are calling it unfair because of personal issues which do not have anything to do with the system. Just because I didn't know about it doesn't mean it's not fair to me. DVC can and have booked this way. The only way this would be UNFAIR is (as mentioned several times) if DVC will do it for one member but not for another. I believe you are using personal choice/circumstance as part of fairness and (as I mentioned in most of my post, as well as have seen in many other posts) and this is just not the case.

We all joined DVC and all information is available to all. Again, unfair would be if a member called and was told that there is no such thing as DBD. Then this person would not be treated (or have the same opportunity) as the rest of the members.

I also found out from MS and it was 3 years after I joined. I didn't get upset that I didn't know about it. I didn't say "UNFAIR, UNFAIR!". I said, thanks for the info, I'll know better next time.

I would admit that DVC is not always efficient in their communications. But the info is there. Other members find it quicker than others because they want to learn as much as they can, but that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the other members who choose to know just the minimum they need to use the membership. Some are not as fanatical as others. Everyone is different. But just because you know and I didn't, it doesn't mean it's unfair to me.

The old system with DBD booking was fair, (and I still believe that) because it gives everyone equal opportunity REGARDLESS of personal circumstance/choice (ie. choose to find out further info or not). Again, I just want to make it clear, that I, myself, just tried to get by with booking at checkout, until I had a problem and MS gave me a solution. I will admit, if I hadn't experienced a time when I couldn't get my reservation dates, I would not have known it. But this isn't unfair, that's my problem. If I had asked, they would have told me.

If you prefer the old system because it works better for you, then just come and say that. There's nothing wrong with self-interest. Hiding behind a smoke-screen of fairness & level playing field rhetoric is what I object to.

If one is truly interested in fairness, the idea that DVC would inform some members of information that guarantees them booking advantages over another member is simply too basic to even argue over. Unless one is more interested in preserving the sanctity of the "old" system and therefore can't admit that there could have possibly been any problems with that at all. Because some here are more interested in bringing back the "old" system than in looking at anything objectively, I don't expect to change any minds.

Now if it suits your purposes for the sake of argument, you may think of me as a lyin' Zach or a lazy member who SHOULD have sought out information from web-sites or mailmen or whatever, but in 8 years and almost 3 dozen reservations, MS has never mentioned DBD to me, though I can see from this thread they have mentioned it to many others.

Fair? Objectively no, but if I needed to defend the old system I would do as you have and shift the burden of blame from the system to the member in the classic political maneuver to see if it deflects the basic point.

 

[aurorafan]

If you prefer the old system because it works better for you, then just come and say that. There's nothing wrong with self-interest. Hiding behind a smoke-screen of fairness & level playing field rhetoric is what I object to.

If one is truly interested in fairness, the idea that DVC would inform some members of information that guarantees them booking advantages over another member is simply too basic to even argue over. Unless one is more interested in preserving the sanctity of the "old" system and therefore can't admit that there could have possibly been any problems with that at all. Because some here are more interested in bringing back the "old" system than in looking at anything objectively, I don't expect to change any minds.

Now if it suits your purposes for the sake of argument, you may think of me as a lyin' Zach or a lazy member who SHOULD have sought out information from web-sites or mailmen or whatever, but in 8 years and almost 3 dozen reservations, MS has never mentioned DBD to me, though I can see from this thread they have mentioned it to many others.

Fair? Objectively no, but if I needed to defend the old system I would do as you have and shift the burden of blame from the system to the member in the classic political maneuver to see if it deflects the basic point.

Thank you for stating it much more eloquently than I ever could .

 

[BeccaG]

2775 posts; 242 unique posters
19% of the posts were posted by 1 Diser
77% of the posts were posted by 42 Disers

Now how in the world did you figure that out besides going through and hand counting them? That is impressive!

 

[The Prophet]

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.

Yes I called back exactly at 9:00 AM yesterday
As expected, the 4 days that were available on Tuesday, were no longer available.
So I continue to be waitlisted for my entire 5 day stay.

I keep hearing the same theme....That this change was implemented to decease call volume.
The only way to accomplish this is to have on-line booking capability
But this is another topic for another day

The Prophet

 

[pilferk]

I pointed out that it wasn't a question of "if"--it had not been communicated to all members.

I used the term "if" because, quite frankly, we're going by some anecdotal information here. I don't ever expect commincation to hit 100%. I would venture there are things...like free valet parking, for example...that DVC has communicated that not EVERY member knows about.

Combine that with the fact...lets be honest here...we're conversing over an anonymous internet message board here. I'm certainly not going to sit here and call ANYONE a liar. Or say they're being intentionally, or unintentionally, disingenuous. But I'm not exactly going to take everyone's word as gospel, here, either....especially when my experience has been so VASTLY different, where DBD was practically slapped up side my head in just about every interaction with MS, and even a bit with our guide. And I don't expect anyone to take MY word for it, either, FYI. But that's why, unless we have something more compelling than anecdotes, I hedge with "if"....because even though it's possible...even probable...I don't KNOW it to be true for the majority of the membership.

In another post he referred to DBD as a policy:

I pointed out that DBD was not a policy. A policy is written down or communicated in some other way(s) to the entire membership as being an officially sanctioned way of doing something. Fine, call DBD a tip or trick of the trade, but don't call it a policy because it wasn't.

But it was communicated in "some other way"...through "official interaction" with MS. Just like, initially, the new booking policy was....it wasn't until DAYS later that anything quasi-official went up...and then via the web site (which I'd venture isn't accessed by 100% of the membership). I don't think anyone would contend that this new system isn't policy....right?

As I said, though...I do agree. If it wasn't communicated well...just like this current change wasn't...that's a big problem. Personally, since I haven't seen that, I have to rely on "if"....but I certainly acknowledge it's possible (even probable).

 

[pilferk]

Now how in the world did you figure that out besides going through and hand counting them? That is impressive!

When you're on the "main" DVC-Planning page, you see the thread title. Then you see who and when the last post was by. To the right of that, you see the number of replies.

Click on that number and you get a break down, by user, of the number of posts.

 

[Bopsmom]

When you're on the "main" DVC-Planning page, you see the thread title. Then you see who and when the last post was by. To the right of that, you see the number of replies.

Click on that number and you get a break down, by user, of the number of posts.

cool

 

[aurorafan]

When you're on the "main" DVC-Planning page, you see the thread title. Then you see who and when the last post was by. To the right of that, you see the number of replies.

Click on that number and you get a break down, by user, of the number of posts.

Very cool!

 

[SuzanneSLO]

I find it funny that some posters apparently believe that DVC has an obligation to keep members informed about how to maximize thier DVC vacation value. If that were true of DVC or any other timeshare boards like this one and TUG would not need to exist. In a similar vien, if using FF miles was compeltelys triagforward, flyertalk woudl also not need ot exist.

All timeshares (and yes, DVC is a timeshare) require an investment of time to educate yourself about the rules and the best way to use them. I found it interesting that Worldmark, for example, actually has classes for members about using their ownership interests! -- Suzanne

 

[keishashadow]

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.

indeed what i was told by MS...and that the team is the same one responsible for monitoring commercial renting abuse...we all know what a resounding success that is

But the 180+10 is published everywhere--on the Disney website, in guide books, etc. . If the information is available and you don't make yourself aware of it then yes, that's your fault. DBD wasn't published at all.

fyi, will change back to 90 days (after 1st of year as i recall?...check out dining board for all the details )

In theory, you wouldn't need to call daily to walk, only about once per week, as the room you have booked can not be booked by anyone else unless they call 11 months from your vacate date. So if you are walking, you'd only need to call evey 6 days to drop/book 7 days forward. This whole booking policy is quite curious.

if u only intend to walk a week or so (less wear & tear, perhaps flying under the DVC radar?); you'd need to call every day the last week (cancel 1 day & move forward) if im looking @ it correctly.

Sorry, but reservations at 7 months were never guaranteed even under the old system. My question should read has anyone been denied a reservation at the 11 month mark? Any reservation made after the 11th month day always will have a chance that it wouldn't be available, regardless of which system you chose to use.

yet with walking, u still could have the rooms missing from inventory that a person with the exact same UY as you do walked a week earlier, who calls DBD & moves it up a week each day until they gain their ressie....even more phone call s to MS

I only booked DBD a couple of times but I always started with a 1-night reservation and just modified it each day to extend the check out date by one day. That way you end up with just one reservation rather than several 1-nighters that had to be linked. I see your method described quite often and I've always been curious why people chose to do it that way since it seems more complicated than necessary. The only reason I can see for doing it that way is if there was a time when any change to a reservation was a cancellation and rebooking. Was that the case at some point in the past?

i've done it every time @ 11 month window to insure that we got the week we wanted (DHs vacation dates are inflexible) and i want to stay where i bought points (the reason i paid more money for them resale)

You are calling it unfair because of personal issues which do not have anything to do with the system. Just because I didn't know about it doesn't mean it's not fair to me. DVC can and have booked this way. The only way this would be UNFAIR is (as mentioned several times) if DVC will do it for one member but not for another. I believe you are using personal choice/circumstance as part of fairness and (as I mentioned in most of my post, as well as have seen in many other posts) and this is just not the case.

.

According to posts i've read over the years on the general boards, especially re resort codes, best kept secret with Disney...if u don't like the answer u get the 1st time u call, keep calling

JMHO, depending on the CM, etc.; walking will easily pass muster UNLESS the practice is specifically prohibited IN PRINT on the website/newsletter/mailing, etc. Only then can they attempt to "catch it", then enforce it.

Now how in the world did you figure that out besides going through and hand counting them? That is impressive!

there is a way to check each thread as to post count, cannot recall though sorry Perhaps one of the techies can let u know

 

[jdg345]

Since when can they 'hold'?? There's too many posts about ppl losing their first ressie while trying to get the 2nd.


Sorry, I'm wayyyyy

Not sure why that would be the case, unless they are doing a complete swap. If the intent is to extend something, they don't necessarily have to put those rooms back in inventory. Now, it's possible that the additional rooms you want could disappear while the CM redoes the initial part of the vacation.

But they can certainly hold, it's how point re-allocations are handled.

 

[jdg345]

What information people get from outside sources is irrelevant... IF DVC, the managing entity for our timeshare system, provides information that guarantees booking preferences for one member via MS, they need to do it for all or else this is an issue of fairness. I'm only discussing DVC disseminated information. If fairness/level playing fields is truly a concept most folks believe in, I can't see why anyone would disagree with this basic premise. However, if the concept of fairness is tinted by personal agendas, this explains a lot of the resistance. Consistency is good!

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I cannot and do not expect DVC to communicate every tip or trick some member finds and disseminate it to the membership as a whole. DBD did not guarantee a booking preference, it was just the equalizer for the departure date booking policy.

Doesn't DVC have some sort of 'Did You Know?' Fun Facts section in the Disney Files / Vacation Magic? Would you have considered anything mentioned there to have been 'unfair' before it was printed?

Would you consider those that book Cash Reservations to be using the system unfairly? How about those that Waitlisted DBD instead of for the whole Period before? How about those that link reservations? Is that unfair? We could go on and on ... These are all just things one can do, within the rules, to help improve their shot at getting a reservation. DVC did not choose to share this with just some members ... some folks just figured it out.

For example: Walking. DVC didn't even think about this occurring, apparently. Should DVC make this process and how it works public and inform everyone of it in Disney Files or the Member Web Site? Or is it a tip/trick to improving your chances to get what you want?

To be clear: Walking is unfair because it potentially ties up dates one doesn't want that someone else might. It is not unfair just because we don't see it in the POS.

Again, we may just have to agree to disagree here ... I don't see why it's DVC's responsibility to teach everyone every in and out of the system. They lay the groundwork, tell us what the rules are, and then it's up to us to find the best way to use our membership to our advantage (within those rules).

 

[jdg345]

Well, we have some pretty bright people on these boards, yourself included, and nobody has taken credit for "figuring" this out. If it's as easy to figure out as you seem to think, one would wonder why most people don't.

Well, DBD has been around for something like 15-17 years, no? It's likely someone thought about it on another forum and it was brought over here, where a CM learned it and began to share the procedure. Or maybe someone here figured it out and posted about it more than a decade ago.

Again, someone had to figure it out ... all it takes is one person with the way the internet speeds information around the world. I also wouldn't be surprised if several people were doing it and just weren't sharing so they could keep it to themselves. Is that unfair? I'd say no, they figured it out, good for them.

 

[jdg345]

That's 527 posts by a single poster on one thread?? Wow!

Is that a record? I wonder who this verbose person could be?

 

[jdg345]

Now if it suits your purposes for the sake of argument, you may think of me as a lyin' Zach or a lazy member who SHOULD have sought out information from web-sites or mailmen or whatever, but in 8 years and almost 3 dozen reservations, MS has never mentioned DBD to me, though I can see from this thread they have mentioned it to many others.

Did you ever get boxed out? If so, was it at 11 months from departure?

 

[jdg345]

I used the term "if" because, quite frankly, we're going by some anecdotal information here. I don't ever expect commincation to hit 100%. I would venture there are things...like free valet parking, for example...that DVC has communicated that not EVERY member knows about.

Combine that with the fact...lets be honest here...we're conversing over an anonymous internet message board here. I'm certainly not going to sit here and call ANYONE a liar. Or say they're being intentionally, or unintentionally, disingenuous. But I'm not exactly going to take everyone's word as gospel, here, either....especially when my experience has been so VASTLY different, where DBD was practically slapped up side my head in just about every interaction with MS, and even a bit with our guide. And I don't expect anyone to take MY word for it, either, FYI. But that's why, unless we have something more compelling than anecdotes, I hedge with "if"....because even though it's possible...even probable...I don't KNOW it to be true for the majority of the membership.



But it was communicated in "some other way"...through "official interaction" with MS. Just like, initially, the new booking policy was....it wasn't until DAYS later that anything quasi-official went up...and then via the web site (which I'd venture isn't accessed by 100% of the membership). I don't think anyone would contend that this new system isn't policy....right?

As I said, though...I do agree. If it wasn't communicated well...just like this current change wasn't...that's a big problem. Personally, since I haven't seen that, I have to rely on "if"....but I certainly acknowledge it's possible (even probable).

I think that it depends on when you book. If you book at 7, 8, 9 months at home resort, they might not suggest it ... you're already well within your window. Booking DBD likely wouldn't have gotten you much at that point.

Now, if you often book in that 10-11 month window, and you get shut out, it's likely they'll suggest DBD as an option going forward. And if you ask, "What's the best way to get a NYE Stay at BWV", I'm sure they'd tell you DBD 9 times out of 10. Every CM I ever spoke to was familar with the processes (hence their ability to note the LOS and check off days as you called back).

 

[jdg345]

I find it funny that some posters apparently believe that DVC has an obligation to keep members informed about how to maximize thier DVC vacation value. If that were true of DVC or any other timeshare boards like this one and TUG would not need to exist. In a similar vien, if using FF miles was compeltelys triagforward, flyertalk woudl also not need ot exist.

All timeshares (and yes, DVC is a timeshare) require an investment of time to educate yourself about the rules and the best way to use them. I found it interesting that Worldmark, for example, actually has classes for members about using their ownership interests! -- Suzanne

Exactly!

Their only responsibility, imo, is to lay down the rules and regulations/procedures and communicate those to the membership -- which, imo, they've failed to do with the new policy anyways, but that's a separate issue. I don't think it's their responsibility to tell us how to best use our points ... I think that's our problem to figure out.