New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[jdg345]

I'm not sure DVC has said the average stay is 5 days, I know they said that 92% stayed 7 days or less. Part of the reason I think it's in the best interest is the ability to call and get your reservation on 1 call, that it should control costs and that it should make getting through to MS easier in the long run. Obviously some want to disagree on these specific aspects but those are most of the reasons I think it is in the best interest of the members are a whole. Besides, as I've said, I think it's in the systems and the members best interest to encourage full week stays which I believe this policy does.

You could always do that. DBD was not forced on anyone, and you could always call based on departure date. DBD equalized the system so that those departing before you would not have a booking advantage.

Now they just flipped it around, so those arriving before you have a booking advantage. Walking equalizes that, but also includes a bunch of problems that DBD did not have.

Fair enough, is that what you want, a system where majority rules and no more. I expect better than that but in addition there are multiple masters here (DVC and the members as the main players). Personally I expect more of DVC than just to cater to a thin majority and I think they've done far better over the years. Truth is we don't know what the majority would say if there were a vote, I have my suspicions and I'm sure most others do as well.

Weren't we talking about how this is better for the membership as a whole? How would that be if only a minority were complaining about the old system?

And yes, I agree, a vote could very well surprise, especially since the question can be asked in such a way as to skew the results. For example:

Vote Yes if you would like DBD Reinstated and be forced to call once a day for every day of your vacation and risk not being able to stay the whole period.

Vote No if you would like to very easily book your vacation based on arrival date in one call using an enhanced system overwhelming requested by other members.

It's kinda like the post you quoted from the website suggesting that 'many were excited about the new change' ... how is that possible if there wasn't (and really still isn't) any sort of widespread notification of said change?

DVC's marketing group seems to be very good at what they do. Look at the glassware issues. They had to do it for hygiene reasons? So were we to think that those new styrofoam cups they were distributing that were not sealed, were touched by several different people, and just thrown into a cabinet were made of some super special anti-bacterial and anti-viral styrofoam?

I'll say it again: This is about reduced call volumes and the DVC bottom line. It has nothing to do with what we want or what is better for us.

You keep saying that these changes are and have been inevitable. Why? Because DVC has enough people on the hook now that they can do what they want? Or because the system cannot self sustain itself with all this added flexibility and our dues can't subsidize it any longer?

I liken this to their changes after OKW -- It sold so very well, that they stopped the Park Ticket Incentive and reduced the room sizes by 20%. Is it possible DVC is looking at what other time shares are doing, and since they are trimming some of the benefits, then DVC feels they can get away with it as well?

How does this benefit the membership again?

 

[waltfan1957]

I'm not sure DVC has said the average stay is 5 days, I know they said that 92% stayed 7 days or less. Part of the reason I think it's in the best interest is the ability to call and get your reservation on 1 call, that it should control costs and that it should make getting through to MS easier in the long run. Obviously some want to disagree on these specific aspects but those are most of the reasons I think it is in the best interest of the members are a whole. Besides, as I've said, I think it's in the systems and the members best interest to encourage full week stays which I believe this policy does.

Fair enough, is that what you want, a system where majority rules and no more. I expect better than that but in addition there are multiple masters here (DVC and the members as the main players). Personally I expect more of DVC than just to cater to a thin majority and I think they've done far better over the years. Truth is we don't know what the majority would say if there were a vote, I have my suspicions and I'm sure most others do as well.

So if 92% booked 7 days or less what would the vote be if the question was put, vote yes for new rule but its in your best interest (Dean thinks so)
so we can encourage full week stays

this is not what members paid into, flexability was the key selling point yet you continually advocate for full week in your own words be honest as to why

 

[LisaS]

The CM can hold the room for you, so that it isn't released back into the inventory pool. So by having the 7th pre-booked from the original reservation, I can cancel the entire thing and just drop that last night off -- but ask them to hold the room as I'd like to book that day, plus today + 7 based on the new policy (for a total of 8 days).

You describe it as "cancelling that night but asking MS to hold that night so you can rebook it". If they hold it for you, it amounts to allowing you to cancel nights 1-6 and keep night 7. Under TisBit's rule, MS would not be allowed to do that for you any longer. You would have to cancel the entire set of nights and start over.

We may just need to agree to disagree here. Chances of you losing that room on a cancel and extend are pretty slim in my xperience.

But the risk is there. You might not get that night back and if you don't, then your only option would be to waitlist for that night plus the remaining nights of your stay. Even if nights 2+ were available, MS would not allow you to book them if you can't get that first night back. Plus you're making multiple transactions on the call: first releasing the dates and then trying to get them back. Meanwhile I'm on the phone with MS and the CM is saying, "Oh your dates just became available!" and grabs them while your CM is still entering your new dates into the computer. And there have been reports here of MS accidentally cancelling a reservation and it went right to someone on the waiting list, so that is another risk you will face if you are cancelling and then trying to grab one of the nights back again.

 

[jdg345]

You describe it as "cancelling that night but asking MS to hold that night so you can rebook it". If they hold it for you, it amounts to allowing you to cancel nights 1-6 and keep night 7. Under TisBit's rule, MS would not be allowed to do that for you any longer. You would have to cancel the entire set of nights and start over.

It's not a matter of keeping the reservation intact, it's a matter of holding the inventory for that call so that it can be rebooked. If they kept MS from doing this, then there goes the ability to reallocate points to reservations (ie: If you end up with borrowed points you don't need, MS can assign those points to an existing reservation that used current UY points so that your current points would become available and could be banked).

But the risk is there. You might not get that night back and if you don't, then your only option would be to waitlist for that night plus the remaining nights of your stay. Even if nights 2+ were available, MS would not allow you to book them if you can't get that first night back. Plus you're making multiple transactions on the call: first releasing the dates and then trying to get them back. Meanwhile I'm on the phone with MS and the CM is saying, "Oh your dates just became available!" and grabs them while your CM is still entering your new dates into the computer. And there have been reports here of MS accidentally cancelling a reservation and it went right to someone on the waiting list, so that is another risk you will face if you are cancelling and then trying to grab one of the nights back again.

Yes, but the dates shouldn't come available, as my CM is holding the room. But, let's just say that they take this ability away. What's the net result? That there is no guarantee I'll be allowed to continue to walk and I'll have to Waitlist, right? Well, if I wasn't walking, I'd have to do that anyways, no? So I'm no worse for the wear attempting to walk, even trying to cancel and rebook. So I'm still taking up inventory I don't want. And, if it works this way, then that is even more incentive for people to call multiple times a day to see if a room opens up because of a walker making a change. So that's even more calls to MS.

At the end of the day, even this rule doesn't prevent walking. It just throws a little asterick into the procedure that you should make changes during non-busy times to increase your chances that no one will take that room from you while you're making the change.

Of course, there is nothing that would prevent MS from stacking the cards in your favor as well, so that even if they had to drop that room into general inventory, they could drop it and grab it right back right away without much delay. Remember, they want the caller to be happy. It's one thing to say, "Sorry, no room" versus, "Sorry, you had a room, but I just lost it as I wasn't fast enough." I would imagine the same member would have two very different reactions to each of those statements.

And this is only if they take this suggestion and put it into action and also prevent CM's from putting a room on 'temp hold' when reallocating or changing a reservation so that it doesn't get released into general inventory. The latter reduces flexibility even more.

 

[jdg345]

So if 92% booked 7 days or less what would the vote be if the question was put, vote yes for new rule but its in your best interest (Dean thinks so)
so we can encourage full week stays

this is not what members paid into, flexability was the key selling point yet you continually advocate for full week in your own words be honest as to why

I believe Dean feels full weeks are better for the system as there is less money spent on room turnover functions, etc.

That doesn't mean it's better for the membership.

I understand that the system has to serve itself, but not necessarily at the expense of the members and their flexibility. The worst case scenario is dues go up, right? People can choose to sell a contract or two at that point, or pay higher dues to maintain that flexibility. We all knew dues would and could increase, and we should all know what the annual caps are I would think. I don't think DVC should make those decisions without consulting the membership first. And, in this case, I have a hard time believing that even if MS could reduce call volumes that I'd see a break in my dues -- instead, DVC would likely just pocket more of the 12%. So we lose flexibility and they make more money? Yah, that's sounds fair.

 

[Dean]

You could always do that. DBD was not forced on anyone, and you could always call based on departure date. DBD equalized the system so that those departing before you would not have a booking advantage.

It is my opinion that the chances of getting the reservation on one call will be much better under the new system.

Weren't we talking about how this is better for the membership as a whole? How would that be if only a minority were complaining about the old system?

As a whole, not just what the majority wants, to me there is a significant difference. There are other factors involved that the membership doesn't really understand or care to hear about. For example, DVC has to consider costs, % of rooms utilized, competitions for high demand options, long term maint and many more.

It's kinda like the post you quoted from the website suggesting that 'many were excited about the new change' ... how is that possible if there wasn't (and really still isn't) any sort of widespread notification of said change?

They sent out an email to all registered with them, pasted it on the website and it's been discussed on various boards/email lists. It's light years ahead of DBD awareness in the same time frame. If you chose to think their being dishonest, that is up to you, I've never though of DVC as dishonest and would sell all tomorrow if I did think that.

I'll say it again: This is about reduced call volumes and the DVC bottom line. It has nothing to do with what we want or what is better for us.

You keep saying that these changes are and have been inevitable. Why? Because DVC has enough people on the hook now that they can do what they want? Or because the system cannot self sustain itself with all this added flexibility and our dues can't subsidize it any longer?

I'm sure there's more to it than just DVC's $$$ but it likely is part of it. The reasons I think this or a similar change was inevitable are several. They include believing that having a hotel type reservation system where you can stay just a single day is inefficient and far more expensive in a number of ways. Having some type of system that approximates full week stays is far more efficient, generates higher room saturations (average % of rooms occupied) and less expensive to operate in a number of ways including reservations, front desk and housekeeping.

I liken this to their changes after OKW -- It sold so very well, that they stopped the Park Ticket Incentive and reduced the room sizes by 20%. Is it possible DVC is looking at what other time shares are doing, and since they are trimming some of the benefits, then DVC feels they can get away with it as well?

How does this benefit the membership again?

To a degree, every timeshare is a competition between management and the membership plus a number of other forces. There are many items where both win or both lose but there are always some items where each is pitted against the other. When you have a BOD with members sitting there is more direct input and to a degree, more control. But the trade off is often members who don't have enough info, knowledge, training and abilities to make the decisions. Even with a formal BOD, the management company can have their way in most cases due to structuring the info they provide to the BOD or simply playing hardball. Marriott has dropped several resorts over the years due to this exact type of issue where the BOD and management simply couldn't get on the same page. But didn't you and others imply that other timeshares were irrelevant when it came to DVC?

But this does illustrate why I feel there should at least be direct member input at the highest levels with members directly on the BOD. It is my opinion that there are conflicting items in the POS and that DVC is in violation of the ones that require them to turn over control when a certain % of each resort is sold out. The reason I've stayed on is that I have a certain amount of trust in DVC to make good decisions overall.

 

[Dean]

So if 92% booked 7 days or less what would the vote be if the question was put, vote yes for new rule but its in your best interest (Dean thinks so)
so we can encourage full week stays

this is not what members paid into, flexability was the key selling point yet you continually advocate for full week in your own words be honest as to why

I'm sure any vote would totally depend on the info provided and how it was worded. And I wouldn't be surprised if a vote of DBD vs the current system head to head would favor DBD if all the items spelled out in this thread were provided including walking. But I feel an honest statement of the issues involved including costs, maint fees, phone volumes, wait times, occupancy rates, etc. and the statement of DBD vs all at one time would pass with flying colors. I'm reminded of a vote by a timeshare I previously owned at where they offered the budget including an increase in fees as one item and the improvements planned as a separate item. The improvements passes but the budget did not and that caused quite a pickle for the resort.

I believe Dean feels full weeks are better for the system as there is less money spent on room turnover functions, etc.

That doesn't mean it's better for the membership.

I understand that the system has to serve itself, but not necessarily at the expense of the members and their flexibility. The worst case scenario is dues go up, right? People can choose to sell a contract or two at that point, or pay higher dues to maintain that flexibility. We all knew dues would and could increase, and we should all know what the annual caps are I would think. I don't think DVC should make those decisions without consulting the membership first. And, in this case, I have a hard time believing that even if MS could reduce call volumes that I'd see a break in my dues -- instead, DVC would likely just pocket more of the 12%. So we lose flexibility and they make more money? Yah, that's sounds fair.

To a degree, more specifically I feel it's a balance. DVC is already the most expensive timeshare in terms of dues and one of the most expensive to buy into period including resale. Four Seasons and Ritz are the only two I'd put above DVC on this scale, a few Marriott might also be there but we'll have a head to head comparison in a couple of years if/when HI starts sales. I'd love votes but on a lot of things, not just this item.

 

[LisaS]

It's not a matter of keeping the reservation intact, it's a matter of holding the inventory for that call so that it can be rebooked.

If I "cancel" my 7th night but they hold it for me and give it right back to me, it's the same as if it was never cancelled, so it would not be allowed in this situation.

If they kept MS from doing this, then there goes the ability to reallocate points to reservations (ie: If you end up with borrowed points you don't need, MS can assign those points to an existing reservation that used current UY points so that your current points would become available and could be banked).

One has nothing to do with the other.

Yes, but the dates shouldn't come available, as my CM is holding the room.

The CM is not holding the room with this change.

But, let's just say that they take this ability away. What's the net result? That there is no guarantee I'll be allowed to continue to walk and I'll have to Waitlist, right? Well, if I wasn't walking, I'd have to do that anyways, no?

Correct, it takes away your guarantee. You are cancelling and rebooking each time rather than walking. You are competing with everyone else (and with those on the WL) for the dates you need. If I end up on the WL unnecessarily due to long-term walkers, I now have a chance of my WL coming through as "walkers" cancel and rebook.

So I'm no worse for the wear attempting to walk, even trying to cancel and rebook. So I'm still taking up inventory I don't want. And, if it works this way, then that is even more incentive for people to call multiple times a day to see if a room opens up because of a walker making a change. So that's even more calls to MS.

If the guarantee is taken away, it may reduce the incentive to start walking weeks ahead of time. And if we can stop some people from doing that, we will reduce the number of innocent bystanders who end up on the WL. It won't stop everyone but knowing that you could get stopped at any point along your walk and have to start over may make some people decide it's not worth the effort to start so early.

At the end of the day, even this rule doesn't prevent walking. It just throws a little asterick into the procedure that you should make changes during non-busy times to increase your chances that no one will take that room from you while you're making the change.

Yes you can reduce your chances of losing the room to another caller but it doesn't save you from losing dates to the WL.

Of course, there is nothing that would prevent MS from stacking the cards in your favor as well, so that even if they had to drop that room into general inventory, they could drop it and grab it right back right away without much delay. Remember, they want the caller to be happy. It's one thing to say, "Sorry, no room" versus, "Sorry, you had a room, but I just lost it as I wasn't fast enough." I would imagine the same member would have two very different reactions to each of those statements.

It depends on who they want to make happy, those making lots of calls to MS in an attempt to work the system or those members who simply call once 11 months prior to their true check-in date. If I were an MS CM, I know which group I would prefer to help be successful.

And this is only if they take this suggestion and put it into action and also prevent CM's from putting a room on 'temp hold' when reallocating or changing a reservation so that it doesn't get released into general inventory. The latter reduces flexibility even more.

Yes it would require that CMs follow the rules.

 

[jdg345]

It is my opinion that the chances of getting the reservation on one call will be much better under the new system.

You've said this before, and I've disagreed before. Statistically and mathematically, it would be tough for that to be the case.

With the old system, you were competing with those departing before you and with those booking DBD for rooms they wanted within a pool where all rooms were available on any given morning.

With the new system, you are competing with those arriving before you and with those walking reservations (The 'new DBD'). Except now, the pool is potentially smaller as it's likely that you are competing for less than the full inventory of rooms.

As a whole, not just what the majority wants, to me there is a significant difference. There are other factors involved that the membership doesn't really understand or care to hear about. For example, DVC has to consider costs, % of rooms utilized, competitions for high demand options, long term maint and many more.

But these would be things that affect DVC directly, and not the membership. ie: These are DVC problems that are becoming member problems because of the way DVC is chosing to handle them.

They sent out an email to all registered with them, pasted it on the website and it's been discussed on various boards/email lists. It's light years ahead of DBD awareness in the same time frame. If you chose to think their being dishonest, that is up to you, I've never though of DVC as dishonest and would sell all tomorrow if I did think that.

Wasn't it you that suggested a significant % of folks do not have internet access? The spread of information is much faster than it was 17 years ago, so if it were less known than DBD in the same time frame, that would be almost scary.

And I'm not saying DVC is being dishonest necessarily, I'm saying they're not telling the whole truth and are putting a bit of spin on things. Like they did with the glassware, for example. From their own statement, they made it seem like DBD was mandatory before -- we know that's not true. Did they make a mistake, or are they being dishonest? And you've pretty much sold everything off, haven't you?

I'm sure there's more to it than just DVC's $$$ but it likely is part of it. The reasons I think this or a similar change was inevitable are several. They include believing that having a hotel type reservation system where you can stay just a single day is inefficient and far more expensive in a number of ways. Having some type of system that approximates full week stays is far more efficient, generates higher room saturations (average % of rooms occupied) and less expensive to operate in a number of ways including reservations, front desk and housekeeping.

None of this should really be relevent. It's not like these costs 'snuck up' on DVC -- they marketed and planned this timeshare this way for the better part of the last 2 decades. I can't believe that suddenly they're realizing things are out of control.

To a degree, every timeshare is a competition between management and the membership plus a number of other forces. There are many items where both win or both lose but there are always some items where each is pitted against the other. When you have a BOD with members sitting there is more direct input and to a degree, more control. But the trade off is often members who don't have enough info, knowledge, training and abilities to make the decisions. Even with a formal BOD, the management company can have their way in most cases due to structuring the info they provide to the BOD or simply playing hardball. Marriott has dropped several resorts over the years due to this exact type of issue where the BOD and management simply couldn't get on the same page. But didn't you and others imply that other timeshares were irrelevant when it came to DVC?

Yes, and I think that they should be. If DVC is checking to see what the least common denominator is for benefits and my dues are still increasing and their profits are still rising and my flexibility is decreasing ... well ... I would think that would be a very bad thing for 'members as a whole'.

But this does illustrate why I feel there should at least be direct member input at the highest levels with members directly on the BOD. It is my opinion that there are conflicting items in the POS and that DVC is in violation of the ones that require them to turn over control when a certain % of each resort is sold out. The reason I've stayed on is that I have a certain amount of trust in DVC to make good decisions overall.

But if you feel this way, then why don't you feel they are being dishonest? If they are violating the POS, how is that 'honest' ?

 

[jdg345]

If I "cancel" my 7th night but they hold it for me and give it right back to me, it's the same as if it was never cancelled, so it would not be allowed in this situation.

I think we might be talking past each other. If you talk to the CM and tell them you want to cancel the night only to rebook it as part of another reservation, then they *can* hold it for you as a function of the system. If they say 'I'm not allowed to do that in this case', that's a different issue -- but then we may have issues where that happens less than universally; and I think we can all agree that that is unfair. If they have the means, but aren't allowed to for specific cases, then they would also have the means to stack the deck in your favor. What's worse for them? Telling one person, "Sorry, we're booked solid", or telling them, "Ooops, I wasn't fast enough and someone took the room you had.". I would imagine the member on the other side of the latter would be significantly more upset than the first; wrong or right, would score their satisfaction rating poorly.

One has nothing to do with the other.

How so? If they can cancel the room to rebook it using a different point pool (and hold it all the while) so that it doesn't get released back into inventory, then why can't they do the same in this case?

The CM is not holding the room with this change.

Again, they have the means to do so. If they are simply 'not allowed' for this type of change, it's another issue altogether and creates a scenario where they will likely do it sometimes and not others.

Correct, it takes away your guarantee. You are cancelling and rebooking each time rather than walking. You are competing with everyone else (and with those on the WL) for the dates you need. If I end up on the WL unnecessarily due to long-term walkers, I now have a chance of my WL coming through as "walkers" cancel and rebook.

Yes, but you are cancelling and rebooking strategically. You are not necessarily competing with everyone else, only with those who might be on the phone at the same time you are and that want your category and date. You are not competing with the WL as a WL scan does not occur as a room is released into inventory. WL scans run against available inventory at intervals, not as a function of a room entering inventory. The WL run would have to trigger right after the CM releases the room and before the CM grabs it back. Also consider that the waitlists are large and the scan takes time and resources to run. It's possible that the WL scan triggers and is running and your room is released into inventory and taken back out before the WL gets to whatever part of the 'list' your room was needed on. Using some common sense and strategy, you can pretty much continue your guarantee even if they don't hold that last day for you as a 'pending reservation' as they would for point reallocation.

If the guarantee is taken away, it may reduce the incentive to start walking weeks ahead of time. And if we can stop some people from doing that, we will reduce the number of innocent bystanders who end up on the WL. It won't stop everyone but knowing that you could get stopped at any point along your walk and have to start over may make some people decide it's not worth the effort to start so early.

Why would it reduce the incentive? It's still better than not doing it. The worst case scenario is you lose the walk and have to start over. That's where you would be if you weren't walking. And, if you're walking, you're likely trying to book before you want to stay anyways. Depending on how far ahead you're walking, you might have quite a few days of DBD calls (several times a day) between when you lost the room and when you really wanted to arrive anyways! For example, say I book 1-7 and try to extend 7-14 on the 7th under this new ruleset. Let's say I run into some bad luck and lose the room. Fine. The reality is that I don't really want to stay until the 23rd of December anyways! That means I can just call back later in the day and try again, and tomorrow (the 8th), and the 9th, and the 10th, etc. In this case, I can keep trying and I really dont need to get a day until the 16th (where the last day of that reservation would really be the first day I wanted). At that point, I'd likely just extend DBD for the week since I already got bumped. More and more phone calls, longer and longer hold times ... wasn't the new system suppose to reduce both of these?

Walking still gives you an advantage and if someone really wants those dates for a specific room and category, they're likely going to do everything they can to get them, even if the advantage is small. In this case, I don't think it's small, I still think it's a large advantage. Many didn't need to book DBD, but they did so that they knew they had done everything they could to secure. This is the same scenario.

If anything, this type of change could force people to walk every earlier so that they would have time to rewalk in case they got boxed out!

Yes you can reduce your chances of losing the room to another caller but it doesn't save you from losing dates to the WL.

It absolutely does. Again, when a room is released into inventory, the WL routine does not automatically trigger and see if that room is needed. That room is just released into inventory. You can get lucky and call right at the right time (after a cancellation, but before the WL scans) and get a night that someone has been on the WL for weeks or months.

It depends on who they want to make happy, those making lots of calls to MS in an attempt to work the system or those members who simply call once 11 months prior to their true check-in date. If I were an MS CM, I know which group I would prefer to help be successful.

It's not about that what you would want to happen, it's about that member on the other side of the phone. No one wants to be the bearer of bad news and it's certainly easier to say, "No rooms" than it is "I lost your room because I wasn't fast enough". Wrong or right, the member will likely blame the CM for losing the room in the latter case. No one wants to be yelled at. If you call and they're booked, what do you say? Likely, "Darn, oh well, I should have called earlier.", or maybe, "What do you have at Resort XYZ instead? or in a different category?". Now, if the CM loses your reservation because they weren't quick enough, what do you say? "What do you mean it's gone? How could someone take it? I had it booked!" The CM could respond with, "But, there are no guarantees, another CM took it from me while I was making the change.", and the caller, "I want to talk to a supervisor, that's my room, etc, etc.". Wrong or right, you will get those calls.

Put another way, what's worse: Not having something at all, or having something and then losing it?

Yes it would require that CMs follow the rules.

If CM's have the means to hold the room, I think they'll do it to avoid the situation as above. We know they have the means for point reallocation issues, and we know that CM's are less than consistent. Once you have a lack of consistency, then it's hard to argue that something is fair or unfair. Not knowing about DBD was one thing, but allowing one person to do it and another person not to 'just because' is certainly unfair.

Again, at the end of the day, walking still gives you a better chance than if you don't even if they effect this change and you may end up with a different type of irrate member on the phone (ie: worse overall satisfaction).

If they effect the change and still allow the CM to 'pending hold' that room for the new reservation, then the change is completely for naught. If they tell the CM they're not allowed to do that, they need to somehow track that to make sure CM's dont cheat or that they follow the rules. The CM's can also release to inventory and rebook very very quickly if they know that is your intent -- so even if they track it, the CM has the capability to stack the deck in your favor while still following the spirit of the rule.

Those that did DBD did so to make sure they exhausted all options, walking fits that same description. Just like DBD was not guaranteed, walking isn't either -- with or without this change. That said, with a little forethought and planning, you can make it pretty close to guaranteed.

 

[jdg345]

I'm sure any vote would totally depend on the info provided and how it was worded. And I wouldn't be surprised if a vote of DBD vs the current system head to head would favor DBD if all the items spelled out in this thread were provided including walking. But I feel an honest statement of the issues involved including costs, maint fees, phone volumes, wait times, occupancy rates, etc. and the statement of DBD vs all at one time would pass with flying colors. I'm reminded of a vote by a timeshare I previously owned at where they offered the budget including an increase in fees as one item and the improvements planned as a separate item. The improvements passes but the budget did not and that caused quite a pickle for the resort.

To a degree, more specifically I feel it's a balance. DVC is already the most expensive timeshare in terms of dues and one of the most expensive to buy into period including resale. Four Seasons and Ritz are the only two I'd put above DVC on this scale, a few Marriott might also be there but we'll have a head to head comparison in a couple of years if/when HI starts sales. I'd love votes but on a lot of things, not just this item.

Do any of those other timeshares have a ROFR clause? DVC helps maintain a price floor that I don't think anyone else does.

 

[liam1957]

help how do i book this know i will only have point left for the two days 29,30 nov need to book 29 30 nov 2009 with last of points for that year have dec user year then with 2009 point dec need to book 1,2,3 , 4,5 , at all star for week end to save points then what to book 6,7,8,9, have beach club points relly wanted to do old key west for 6,7,8,9 ,if i could get them at 7 mouths

 

[CarolMN]

help how do i book this know i will only have point left for the two days 29,30 nov need to book 29 30 nov 2009 with last of points for that year have dec user year then with 2009 point dec need to book 1,2,3 , 4,5 , at all star for week end to save points then what to book 6,7,8,9, have beach club points relly wanted to do old key west for 6,7,8,9 ,if i could get them at 7 mouths

To book 11/29/09 & 11/30/09, you call on 12/29/08. If your dates are not available, you can waitlist for them. If you need to waitlist (good chance you will not), you have an excellent chance of getting them since you only need two consecutive days.

You call on January 6, 2009 to book the nights starting on December 6, 2009.

On May 6, 2009, you call to try to switch to OKW.

Unless you are calling for a 2B w 2Q at the BCV, you have a very good chance of getting what you want at the BCV. I think you have a so-so chance of getting OKW at 7 months because there will be lots of other members trying to do the same thing.

If OKW is very important to you and you are willing to assume some risk, try to find an OKW member who wants to stay at the BCV for your same nights. You could trade reservations (essentially trading the 11 month booking advantage). Since this is a popular time to visit WDW, I think there is a good chance you could find someone. If you decide to use the DIS to find the OKW owner, be sure to read all of the posting guidelines on the Rent / Trade Forum.

 

[Dean]

Do any of those other timeshares have a ROFR clause? DVC helps maintain a price floor that I don't think anyone else does.

Actually a number do. Marriott, Westgate, Hilton I know do for many properties. Marriott has it for most properties but doesn't for all and Westgate tries to say they do even for properties they don't. Frankly, I don't believe ROFR helps members value overall and the ROFR certainly isn't intended to help members. It is my opinion that ROFR does help sellers in some areas, hurt them in others, overall it's a wash. I feel that much of the time over the years, market forces have been the major determinant of sales prices, not ROFR, but there have been blocks of time when ROFR was more important. What ROFR does is prevent the fire sale situation. In the past Westgate has gone a few steps further saying not only do they have ROFR (even when they didn't) but they are entitled to the sales commission also when submitted for ROFR determination. The result is that it is almost impossible to sell Westgate at any price and MOST resale companies simply quit listing them.

While in some cases ROFR does influence the price, it has other effects that can be negative to resales. It drives people away from buying the resort system in general and it drives people from resale to retail, ultimately it's actual goal.

 

[Dean]

You've said this before, and I've disagreed before. Statistically and mathematically, it would be tough for that to be the case.

With the old system, you were competing with those departing before you and with those booking DBD for rooms they wanted within a pool where all rooms were available on any given morning.

With the new system, you are competing with those arriving before you and with those walking reservations (The 'new DBD'). Except now, the pool is potentially smaller as it's likely that you are competing for less than the full inventory of rooms.

We'll likely never know for certain because we don't have the stats from before and will probably not have the later ones either.

But these would be things that affect DVC directly, and not the membership. ie: These are DVC problems that are becoming member problems because of the way DVC is chosing to handle them.

My view is we're all in this together to a degree. As I pointed out, there are somethings where the forces are competing and there must be a balance. If the answer is that this is a swing in balance that favors DVC itself, then so be it.

Wasn't it you that suggested a significant % of folks do not have internet access? The spread of information is much faster than it was 17 years ago, so if it were less known than DBD in the same time frame, that would be almost scary.

What I was trying to point out about computer access was that not everyone did. The into I saw from Wired Magazine said 75% did, our local data was 90%. Certainly the percentages are going up, there wasn't much when I bought resale in 1994 other than the old Prodigy BBS. Computer access alone wasn't enough with DBD as DVC NEVER wrote it anywhere that a member could know, same is currently true with walking which will be known overall more quickly but I believe many will chose not to fool with it (at least to the degree of starting early canceling days) that would have done DBD bookings. But if it's a big problem, I think DVC will fix it and I'm sure some (many on this thread) likely won't be happy with the fix.

And I'm not saying DVC is being dishonest necessarily, I'm saying they're not telling the whole truth and are putting a bit of spin on things. Like they did with the glassware, for example. From their own statement, they made it seem like DBD was mandatory before -- we know that's not true. Did they make a mistake, or are they being dishonest? And you've pretty much sold everything off, haven't you?

DBD likely was mandatory before for certain options, even then some failed getting what they wanted. Actually I do think you were saying they were being dishonest. It's true, I have sold many of my points. I had 885 at one point, sold 3 contracts down to 333, added 100 points at AKV and plan to sell the last 333 ending with 100. I toyed with the idea of keeping only 25 points simply for the perks. If I keep the 333, I'll likely rent them out. As I noted, it's not that I've soured on DVC, but that I have other plans and options and that most of my stays the last 4-5 years have been on exchanges. DVC is a great system and a great group of resorts (all of them, some better than others though), but it has always been an expensive specialty item.

None of this should really be relevent. It's not like these costs 'snuck up' on DVC -- they marketed and planned this timeshare this way for the better part of the last 2 decades. I can't believe that suddenly they're realizing things are out of control.

DVC does not have a history of going off half cocked and making spur of the moment decisions. They actually have a history of dragging their feet when they should make changes. So no, I don't believe they suddenly knew or did anything, I'm sure they've been batting this issue around for at least a couple of years. But even if they did, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, and I think that they should be. If DVC is checking to see what the least common denominator is for benefits and my dues are still increasing and their profits are still rising and my flexibility is decreasing ... well ... I would think that would be a very bad thing for 'members as a whole'.



But if you feel this way, then why don't you feel they are being dishonest? If they are violating the POS, how is that 'honest' ?

You'll have to decide whether changes are good or bad for you, at this point we really don't know how they're going to shake out, nor likely, the final rules. As I noted, the POS has competing clauses. But I'm a very practical person. For example, as I hinted earlier in this thread, many timeshare sales people and a number of sales systems are inherently dishonest to the point of boiler room status. And many systems have rules that are intended specifically to favor one group over another. That's why I suggested that if this change really bothers people, they should not look at other timeshares ever as I don't think they can separate out the good from the bad and live with it. My posts that essentially said that if you think it's dishonest, sell, were aimed at some that could only see this in black or white when in reality it's ALL gray and seemed to be so upset they were likely losing sleep over this. Now there's a good poll, "have you lost sleep over this change?"

 

[Robo-Daddy 3000]

I think everyone (both sides) who have had communication with Member Satisfaction on this issue, at least those that I know about or have posted, has gotten the same response slanted to their take. People keep posting like the individual responses mean anything, they don't. DVC is good at being non committal and nice, telling you what you want to hear. Not that they aren't honest about it, just that they aren't going to take one phone call or even all of them, and make decisions on just that. They will look at all their data as well as the aggregate of the feedback they get. And it's still possible, if not likely, that their decision will be somewhat different than that suggested by the complaints.

I have to agree with what you wrote above, Dean.

IMO, DVC doesn't care about all the emails to them and the follow-up phone calls are only a courtesy call from the Member Dissatisfaction Team that count for zero or perhaps even a little less than that. For all we know, eveyone who has written about being dissatisfied has already been put on an undesirable member or troublemaker list.

They tell you that we hear your concerns but we are not willing to act on any of those concerns because....we don't care. Now, we can debate if they "care" or don't "care" but in the end the decision was made for the good of the company and no amount of emails or phone calls will change things for members.

I am excitedly looking forward to my next Disney Files where Jim Lewis will write a big smiley happy column about how happy members and how thrilled memebers are with the new changes and how great this new ressie system is for everyone. Guaranteed that he won't even mention any dissatisfaction from members regarding this new system. Hey, I know... can we have an exercise where we can write Jim's column for him? Maybe we can see just how close we write comes to what Jim tells us in the fall. Any takers?

 

[waltfan1957]

If I keep the 333, I'll likely rent them out.

finally we see the real reason you are in favour of this change, so much easier for you to book peek weeks and rent them out. why you could'nt have stated this earlier then we would have all known where you were going with this.

 

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Dean
It is my opinion that the chances of getting the reservation on one call will be much better under the new system.

You've said this before, and I've disagreed before. Statistically and mathematically, it would be tough for that to be the case.

I wanted to clarify. This was in response to the suggestion that one could have called under the old system by waiting and calling from the end of your stay and get the entire reservation. With no other changes except for this system change, the chances of getting 7 days or less under this system must be better than under the old system because with the evolution of DBD, those times you could have called from the end of your stay were ONLY lower demand options. Now as a separate note, it is my opinion that it will be just as easy or easier to get a full week under the new system as it was DBD under the old system but that is where the debate should lie given the forces involved but that is partly related to my belief that we haven't seen the last iteration of the policy and that walking will not be a mainstream option.

 

[Chuck S]

DVC does not have a history of going off half cocked and making spur of the moment decisions. They actually have a history of dragging their feet when they should make changes.

This is one of those rare instances where I disagree with Dean. I think there have been a few DVC spur of the moment knee-jerk reactions from them over the years.

Glassware in studios comes to mind. An apparently "empty" announcement about cracking down on commercial renters is another. Obvious commercial renter sites are still up and running. Though admittedly it is probably difficult to stop when they are based outside the US. The improper training of the reservation CMs on this new reservation policy seems to indicate that, at best, it was not properly communicated to the CMs when they could have shut down MS for a few hours for training, they've done it previously.

What is unknown at this time is the actual vs. perceived impact of this change. I think for [most members it will make little difference in the long run. The exceptions are likely to be the smaller resorts during peak reservation periods. And that could be a pretty large impact for those members.

 

[Dean]

finally we see the real reason you are in favour of this change, so much easier for you to book peek weeks and rent them out. why you could'nt have stated this earlier then we would have all known where you were going with this.

Nope, else I would have planned to keep them all along, it is still my plan to divest myself of them. But the FACT that I've rented over the years has never been a secret, I've said it many times and I've participate in many threads related to renting. Renting DVC is not a financially feasible option, simply not enough return to justify the risk and aggravation if that's your main goal. And given my wife doesn't work outside the home, DBD was always an easy option for me if I chose. No, this change would work against me in personal usage and potentially if I chose to rent any more as well. So if I keep them it won't be specifically to rent them out, only that I will not use all points every year and will rent some out.

I have to agree with what you wrote above, Dean.

IMO, DVC doesn't care about all the emails to them and the follow-up phone calls are only a courtesy call from the Member Dissatisfaction Team that count for zero or perhaps even a little less than that. For all we know, eveyone who has written about being dissatisfied has already been put on an undesirable member or troublemaker list.

They tell you that we hear your concerns but we are not willing to act on any of those concerns because....we don't care. Now, we can debate if they "care" or don't "care" but in the end the decision was made for the good of the company and no amount of emails or phone calls will change things for members.

I am excitedly looking forward to my next Disney Files where Jim Lewis will write a big smiley happy column about how happy members and how thrilled memebers are with the new changes and how great this new ressie system is for everyone. Guaranteed that he won't even mention any dissatisfaction from members regarding this new system. Hey, I know... can we have an exercise where we can write Jim's column for him? Maybe we can see just how close we write comes to what Jim tells us in the fall. Any takers?

I would disagree that DVC doesn't care, only that they aren't going to make the decisions in haste based on limited responses either way. I don't believe they did that with the new policy and I don't believe they were idiots not realizing the issues overall going in like some seem to think. Now that's not to say they thought of every possibility and variation, you never do. And I'd venture that most average members ARE going to be happy with this change. It's only the micro-managers that might be unhappy.