New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[EmptyNester]

Well, that's not fair!

I've been on the Disboards for a year and I didn't know about that!

Guess you didn't do your "research"

 

[Bopsmom]

Guess you didn't do your "research"

 

[rantnnravin]

Take it how you will. Will you at least admit that there are members who had no reasonable chance of finding out about DBD bookings? BTW, I didn't say DBD wasn't OK, only that it wasn't a level playing field for each and every member as many would like to believe. How would one find out about it if they didn't frequent such boards and MS didn't bother to mention it?

I actually addressed this red herring in post #2834 by paring down the reservation process to its most bare essentials. Here is is, as it appears you may have missed it:

ok, i think i get what jarestel and the others are saying here.
For those who never knew about DBD, this new system is no differrent than the old system.
However, now we have the added element of the walking reservation in which reservations have already been booked well before the 11month window by those who are walking them. So, instead of returning to the system in which all players would have the same opportunity to obtain a given night, only those with enough points to walk and/or lock in several days before hand can book that night.
For instance: Say I am a BCV owner who will be visiting family in FL for the Christmas Holidays. Wouldn't it be neat if we could all visit Epcot on New Years Eve and stay at the Beach Club? Before, all i had to do was call February 1st. Now, even if I call on February 1st at 8:59:59, someone with scads of points who has called an indefinite number of days before me has already secured those accommodations. I lost the game before I was ever allowed on the field.

 

[Dean]

I actually addressed this red herring in post #2834 by paring down the reservation process to its most bare essentials. Here is is, as it appears you may have missed it:

Certainly for those oblivious, both systems have negatives, whether you know it or not. But for one who didn't know about the DBD option, the old system was not a level playing field either as some would like you to believe. "Fairness" is an illusion with most any system. It is fact that not everyone knew of the DBD option and those that didn't, had no assured way of finding out. All know or will know (or at least have the opportunity to know) of the new system since DVC is advertising it in options that will go to every primary contact. Same cannot be said for walking as it will fall under the same variables as DBD did which is one of the reasons I expect it to be controlled in some way, we shall see.

 

[skelooch]

Certainly for those oblivious, both systems have negatives, whether you know it or not. But for one who didn't know about the DBD option, the old system was not a level playing field either as some would like you to believe. "Fairness" is an illusion with most any system. It is fact that not everyone knew of the DBD option and those that didn't, had no assured way of finding out. All know or will know (or at least have the opportunity to know) of the new system since DVC is advertising it in options that will go to every primary contact. Same cannot be said for walking as it will fall under the same variables as DBD did which is one of the reasons I expect it to be controlled in some way, we shall see.

All certainly had the opportunity to find out about DBD booking. You did, I did and many others did, we did'nt know when we joined but we did find out in some way.
It could have been very simple, all DVC had to do is post the information about the DBD option and then everyone would have known about it and then all would have been on a level playing field. If members chose to use it was their choice, they can no longer blame DVC for not knowing.
While no system will be 100% successful for 100% of members, there will always be one system that is more successful to the majority ( but we're not talking a Democracy here are we) and that is the one that should be used. Unfortunately DVC doesn't seem to care what system is the most successful for the majority of their members only which system uses the least MS resoures, I'm sure you'll agree with that.

I wonder if CM's will be advising members to "walk" their reservations, it is within the rules just as DBD booking was.

 

[TisBit]

While no system will be 100% successful for 100% of members, there will always be one system that is more successful to the majority ( but we're not talking a Democracy here are we) and that is the one that should be used. Unfortunately DVC doesn't seem to care what system is the most successful for the majority of their members only which system uses the least MS resoures, I'm sure you'll agree with that.

Umm, to interject some statistical logic here....there is NO system that could be more successful than another. If there are 10 rooms at a resort and 100 members...only 10% can be successful. The only thing that can occur is that a different ten have success.

 

[bevis]

Hey everyone! First ever post, but i've been following this thread for a couple of weeks (and lurking for a lot longer) and thought i would chime in, so here goes.
Wasn't DVC's primary reason for the change a response to folks upset about DBD?

That indicates to me that more than a few must have known about it. Or is DVC being disingenuous???

So the argument from some comparing "unfairness" of DBD because not all knew about it to "unfairness" of new policy seems moot. Were DBD not known by enough to have an impact on MS, why would they cite it as a reason for change? Sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees.

Sorry to seem argumentative to some as I really don't have a dog in this fight. We are dink's so can pretty much travel when we want, although we may go around Christmas '09 bringing good friends with school age kids We'll see how it goes!

Anyway, just my 2 cents (though probably worth much less

 

[Disneyhappy]

Hey everyone! First ever post, but i've been following this thread for a couple of weeks (and lurking for a lot longer) and thought i would chime in, so here goes.
Wasn't DVC's primary reason for the change a response to folks upset about DBD?

That indicates to me that more than a few must have known about it. Or is DVC being disingenuous???

So the argument from some comparing "unfairness" of DBD because not all knew about it to "unfairness" of new policy seems moot. Were DBD not known by enough to have an impact on MS, why would they cite it as a reason for change? Sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees.

Sorry to seem argumentative to some as I really don't have a dog in this fight. We are dink's so can pretty much travel when we want, although we may go around Christmas '09 bringing good friends with school age kids We'll see how it goes!

Anyway, just my 2 cents (though probably worth much less

I think you have very articulately deflated the argument being posed here that the old system was unfair because people were not aware of DBD. Personally, I was staying out of this most recent fight because I thought it was a red herring and the only argument that one side could come up with but your logic has debunked it IMHO. Kudos for helping us see the "forest through the trees".

 

[rantnnravin]

Originally Posted by Dean
Certainly for those oblivious, both systems have negatives, whether you know it or not. But for one who didn't know about the DBD option, the old system was not a level playing field either as some would like you to believe. "Fairness" is an illusion with most any system. It is fact that not everyone knew of the DBD option and those that didn't, had no assured way of finding out. All know or will know (or at least have the opportunity to know) of the new system since DVC is advertising it in options that will go to every primary contact. Same cannot be said for walking as it will fall under the same variables as DBD did which is one of the reasons I expect it to be controlled in some way, we shall see.

more rhetoric.
Maybe it's a language thing.
OK - let's try this a different way

DBD was a strategy for obtaining the dates [plural]that a member wanted.
The policy was that you called according to check-out day for a given night [singular].

No one EVER had the opportunity to obtain a reservation for any given night before anyone else was permitted to. Every owner of a given resort was allowed to call on the same day to obtain a reservation for a given night. NO ONE was ALLOWED to get that date any earlier.
Now, some are able to secure any given date prior to others even being allowed to.
I'm fairly certain that DVC did not intend to lengthen the booking window indefinitely. However, I don't think that adding cumbersome regulations and/or sanctions to correct an ill-conceived policy is the right way to go about it.

1-night reservation for New Years Eve:
​

Before - EVERYONE must call no earlier than February 1st to secure a reservation for this night.
​

Now- SOME with enough points can secure a reservation for this night an indefinite period of time before others are permitted to call.

​

 

[TisBit]

more rhetoric.
Maybe it's a language thing.
OK - let's try this a different way

DBD was a strategy for obtaining the dates [plural]that a member wanted.
The policy was that you called according to check-out day for a given night [singular].

No one EVER had the opportunity to obtain a reservation for any given night before anyone else was permitted to. Every owner of a given resort was allowed to call on the same day to obtain a reservation for a given night. NO ONE was ALLOWED to get that date any earlier.
Now, some are able to secure any given date prior to others even being allowed to.
I'm fairly certain that DVC did not intend to lengthen the booking window indefinitely. However, I don't think that adding cumbersome regulations and/or sanctions to correct an ill-conceived policy is the right way to go about it.

1-night reservation for New Years Eve:
​

Before - EVERYONE must call no earlier than February 1st to secure a reservation for this night.
​

Now- SOME with enough points can secure a reservation for this night an indefinite period of time before others are permitted to call.

​

As I have pointed out, there would not need to be cumbesome policies to prevent walking....it would be a very simple policy that would have no negative impacts on the general membership....

Everyone will try to sway their argument and try to use anecdotal evidence to support their personal point of view, but that doesn't make your point of view right or wrong. Every system has flaws...including the old one. I am sure there would be more upset people if they merely refused to link reservations to accomodate DBD bookings.

Everyone has their own opinion on this matter....and no one is willing to concede on either side. I personally don't mind either system...they both have their upsides and downsides.

 

[rantnnravin]

I find it funny that so many people think in order to stop "walking" would involve some complex penalties system, etc. You can pretty much eliminate "walking" with a simple rule that you cannot modify a reservation (i.e. cancel days) until the last day of the reservation. So if you call at 11+7 you cannot cancel a day until eleven months out exactly of checkout date.

ummmmmm .... can you say old booking system?

This would require people to either tie up points if they have them or wait. While some members with large point contracts might be able to reserve early and walk it a week at a time to reserve the room, it will tie up their points....if they aren't already being used for other reservations.

this actually supports my point

.

 

[Inkmahm]

more rhetoric.
Maybe it's a language thing.
OK - let's try this a different way

DBD was a strategy for obtaining the dates [plural]that a member wanted.
The policy was that you called according to check-out day for a given night [singular].

No one EVER had the opportunity to obtain a reservation for any given night before anyone else was permitted to. Every owner of a given resort was allowed to call on the same day to obtain a reservation for a given night. NO ONE was ALLOWED to get that date any earlier.
Now, some are able to secure any given date prior to others even being allowed to.
I'm fairly certain that DVC did not intend to lengthen the booking window indefinitely. However, I don't think that adding cumbersome regulations and/or sanctions to correct an ill-conceived policy is the right way to go about it.

1-night reservation for New Years Eve:
​

Before - EVERYONE must call no earlier than February 1st to secure a reservation for this night.
​

Now- SOME with enough points can secure a reservation for this night an indefinite period of time before others are permitted to call.

​

Dean knows all that. He doesn't care. He's said many times in this thread that he is perfectly fine with someone else who has a reservation started having priority over someone just starting a reservation in getting a specific night. While WE think it is an obvious issue of fairness, Dean doesn't.

 

[jdg345]

Hey everyone! First ever post, but i've been following this thread for a couple of weeks (and lurking for a lot longer) and thought i would chime in, so here goes.
Wasn't DVC's primary reason for the change a response to folks upset about DBD?

That indicates to me that more than a few must have known about it. Or is DVC being disingenuous???

So the argument from some comparing "unfairness" of DBD because not all knew about it to "unfairness" of new policy seems moot. Were DBD not known by enough to have an impact on MS, why would they cite it as a reason for change? Sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees.

Sorry to seem argumentative to some as I really don't have a dog in this fight. We are dink's so can pretty much travel when we want, although we may go around Christmas '09 bringing good friends with school age kids We'll see how it goes!

Anyway, just my 2 cents (though probably worth much less

Hmmm ... very interesting point ... so we have either:

Not many people knew about DBD, making it unfair; but then DVC made changes for the minority and not overwhelming member request.

Many knew about DBD; and it was tying up DVC resources so they had to make a change to improve their bottom line.

Hmmm ... very interesting indeed.

 

[jdg345]

Umm, to interject some statistical logic here....there is NO system that could be more successful than another. If there are 10 rooms at a resort and 100 members...only 10% can be successful. The only thing that can occur is that a different ten have success.

But you may have a higher percentage of successful reservations. For example, the new system seems to improve the chances for spec renters, which means less members using the rooms and a lower overal success (unless you want to count a spec renter's success?).

The new system doesn't reward those that 'try harder' in that those that booked DBD might be more willing to move around a day or two to get the views that they wanted. The other member that may not want it that badly will just stay somewhere else. Both are successful, both are happy. With the new system, the one that doesn't really care one way or another might get that room before the person that really wants it. Sure, they can stay somewhere else, but they're not as happy about it -- overall less satisfied.

 

[jdg345]

more rhetoric.
Maybe it's a language thing.
OK - let's try this a different way

DBD was a strategy for obtaining the dates [plural]that a member wanted.
The policy was that you called according to check-out day for a given night [singular].

No one EVER had the opportunity to obtain a reservation for any given night before anyone else was permitted to. Every owner of a given resort was allowed to call on the same day to obtain a reservation for a given night. NO ONE was ALLOWED to get that date any earlier.
Now, some are able to secure any given date prior to others even being allowed to.
I'm fairly certain that DVC did not intend to lengthen the booking window indefinitely. However, I don't think that adding cumbersome regulations and/or sanctions to correct an ill-conceived policy is the right way to go about it.

1-night reservation for New Years Eve:
​

Before - EVERYONE must call no earlier than February 1st to secure a reservation for this night.
​

Now- SOME with enough points can secure a reservation for this night an indefinite period of time before others are permitted to call.

​

Exactly!

With the old system, based on Departure, people had access to rooms if they were leaving earlier than you.

With the new system, based on Arrival, people have access to rooms if they are arriving earlier than you.

It sounds like a wash, doesn't it?

Now, let's add in DBD; DBD was the great equalizer that allowed everyone to have a fair shot based on their stay with the old system. It gave everyone access to full inventory at 9am every day. People were booking days they wanted and were only competing with other members who wanted those days.

Now, let's add in Walking; Walking is the great equalizer for the new system as it allows a DBD type of reservation to be made by starting a week you're actual arrival date. Unfortunately, you might not have access to full inventory at 9am every day, even if you walk. People will be booking days they don't want and are affecting other members reservations for those days. You can start walking months before you really want to stay.

So, overall, which system was more harmful to the membership as a whole?

The first one, where members were competing for days they wanted, with full inventory available at 9am on any given day?

Or the second one, where members are competing for days they want and don't want and are locking other members out of those days.

In the first case, you could always figure another member got the room they wanted, and you didn't.

In the second case, the room you want might be tied up by someone who doesn't really want it. And because the WL system needs a significant revamp, you now need to call several times a day to see if that room ends up released so you can fill in your WL.

 

[jdg345]

btw, Kathi, if you are still browsing this thread, I'm still curious to know what room type and what resort you were able to book successfully for the last 8 Spring Break/Easter weeks based on 11 months of departure date. :

 

[jdg345]

Dean knows all that. He doesn't care. He's said many times in this thread that he is perfectly fine with someone else who has a reservation started having priority over someone just starting a reservation in getting a specific night. While WE think it is an obvious issue of fairness, Dean doesn't.

Dean is looking at it from a system perspective. This supposedly reduces costs, which is good for the system -- whether we get any benefit of these supposed reduced costs is up for debate.

From a system perspective, the room is still being booked and occupied so some member is getting something and therefore it is seen as a wash -- in both cases, members got rooms.

Of course, we're not taking into account the new perks given to spec renters.

Which, frankly, I find curious ... if they have a team dedicated to stopping the 'abuse' of spec renters, wouldn't that team see a subtle flaw in this system like we all have in that respect? If this is the same team that is monitoring walking abuse, then it could last for the next 17 years as well.

I'm not saying that those on the team don't know what they're doing, they likely see these issues; but they're likely also hand tied in what they can and cannot do. If they haven't been able to stop spec renting which by all accounts creates a loss of revenues to DVC in the millions of dollars, then why/how would they be allowed to prevent walking? :

 

[TisBit]

I find it funny that so many people think in order to stop "walking" would involve some complex penalties system, etc. You can pretty much eliminate "walking" with a simple rule that you cannot modify a reservation (i.e. cancel days) until the last day of the reservation. So if you call at 11+7 you cannot cancel a day until eleven months out exactly of checkout date.

ummmmmm .... can you say old booking system?

This would require people to either tie up points if they have them or wait. While some members with large point contracts might be able to reserve early and walk it a week at a time to reserve the room, it will tie up their points....if they aren't already being used for other reservations.

this actually supports my point .

How is that the old system? You can still book your whole stay at check in date...but cannot cancel one day to add another...you either have to wait until the 8th day to cancel any dates. You can add whatever you want based on your points. No DBD, but no walking either. No cancellation penalties for those that have reasons to modify their reservations later.

 

[dvcdisney]

Wasn't DVC's primary reason for the change a response to folks upset about DBD?

That indicates to me that more than a few must have known about it. Or is DVC being disingenuous???

I really don't know. They say it's because of the "overwhelming feedback from members", but it does sound like all they want is to lower their costs.

However, I do believe that they didn't think this all out and it may in itself, because of outrage by some members, walking etc, the calls will actually increase.

And as someone had pointed out, those who participate or "lurk" through this and many other boards tend to take a different approach to their DVC membership. The calls may not increase until at least everyone has a chance to find out how it affects them. I, for one, do not plan on walking. But that doesn't mean that I won't walk if that is my only option to get the reservation that I want.

 

[rantnnravin]

How is that the old system? You can still book your whole stay at check in date...but cannot cancel one day to add another...you either have to wait until the 8th day to cancel any dates. You can add whatever you want based on your points. No DBD, but no walking either. No cancellation penalties for those that have reasons to modify their reservations later.

it's like the old system because even you want to revert to the check-out date policy.
Once you hit the 8th day, you can cancel walk your way to whatever reservation you really want - which could be several months from then.
it is giving a distinct booking advantage to some who have enough points to book earlier than others are permitted to book.