New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[pnyltwk]

So even at 11 months booking by departure you almost always were shut out? Or did that occur mostly when swapping at 7 months?

btw, thank you for joining the discussion!

Mostly at 7 months out. We have reservations at our home resort (SSR) for this Christmas. I had to waitlist for the 1 bedroom that we got. I originally booked a studio and then my wife changed my mind about a month later. We have never been at Christmas and probably will not make it a routine. We prefer to go to WDW during off peak (October early November or late January or February) and when the weather is more bearable. I live in NW Florida and know how the weather is during the summer. We also do not have a problem taking our youngest kids out of school for a field trip to Orlando.

 

[Robo-Daddy 3000]

And I certainly don't expect we will hear Jim Lewis directly respond other than in the regular corporate fashion. That just isn't his role. I think he is already quite a bit more accessible (at member cruises and events etc) than is the norm for someone at his level.

I guess it is because of this accessibility that I would have expected more from him in communicating with members. Jim Lewis is the face of DVC. Before we bought at AKV, I had never heard of him. But since becoming a member I have, of course, found out who he is. He takes a very out front public role, appears in promotional materials, and seems to enjoy being in the spotlight. I would not say this is characteristic of managers at Disney in general and I don't know if the person who preceded Jim Lewis in running DVC was the same way or if this is how other timeshares operate.

 

[pilferk]

I don't see you needing to cancel the whole ressie. We don't have to now, I can call now and just drop days off. You would just need that one simple rule to prevent walking the reservation using the 11+7

Because right now there's no systematic rule check that needs to occur. I believe there's a technical (not conceptual) limitation as the system exists now.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this is a show stopper...just that it would need some system reprogramming to implement. It's certainly surmountable by throwing some time, resources, and programmers at it......

RIGHT now, when you add a day, you're actually making a new reservation, and then linking that reservation to the same confirmation number, right? That's the way I understand the system works.

The problem with basing any sort of "rule" off that (ie: every time you "extend" your reservation by a day, moving the date the "rule" triggers to allow cancellations), from a technical, programatic standpoint is the initial reservation maintains it's "check out" date. It doesn't change, in fact...you simply add another one to the confirmation. The fact Disney links your new reservation to that old one would create a technical hurdle, IF "extending" reservations past 7 days maintains the same functionality it does now.

Actually you couldn't, because you could not cancel until the day after your check out, so you would have to cancel first thing in the morning on the 9th, after the reservation has been completed (maybe I didn't explain that very well the first time around).

Ah, so it's actually not "You can cancel at precisely the 11 month window of your checkout date" or, in the preceeding example, 11 months from the 8th, it's "You can cancel at precisely 11 months + 1 day window of your checkout date." as in 11 months from the 9th in the preceeding example.

 

[LisaS]

RIGHT now, when you add a day, you're actually making a new reservation, and then linking that reservation to the same confirmation number, right? That's the way I understand the system works.

No I do not believe that is the case. You can modify a reservation and keep the same confirmation number. They just change the check-in or check-out date, but the confirmation number stays the same. I've moved the entire reservation back by one week (changing both the check-in and check-out date) and still kept the same confirmation number. I've also booked DBD by modifying my reservation each day and again, kept the same confirmation number.

Linking is used to relate two separate reservations with two different confirmation numbers. For example, if I have two master contracts and want to use points from both to book a stay I would book some nights from one contract, the rest from the other contract and link those two separate reservations together so that I don't have to move rooms part way through my stay.

 

[pilferk]

No I do not believe that is the case. You can modify a reservation and keep the same confirmation number. They just change the check-in or check-out date, but the confirmation number stays the same. I've moved the entire reservation back by one week (changing both the check-in and check-out date) and still kept the same confirmation number.

Right, thus...why I talked about keeping the same confirmation number.

Again, this is just my impression of how the system works. It was my impression of how DBD worked...that you were making a single day reservation, and DVC was linking them all under the SAME confirmation number (for ease of use, and to ensure that you weren't made to check in and out each day). But that, programatically, they were stored as single day reservations. That's borne out by the way the WL worked too..you could waitlist for single days, even if they were contiguous, mid stay.

I know you can modify the reservation and keep the same confirmation number, but we're not talking functionality, but how the system handles that process from a technical standpoint.

Again, even if it works the way I suspect, it's not a showstopper....

 

[dvcdisney]

No I do not believe that is the case. You can modify a reservation and keep the same confirmation number. They just change the check-in or check-out date, but the confirmation number stays the same. I've moved the entire reservation back by one week (changing both the check-in and check-out date) and still kept the same confirmation number. I've also booked DBD by modifying my reservation each day and again, kept the same confirmation number.

Linking is used to relate two separate reservations with two different confirmation numbers. For example, if I have two master contracts and want to use points from both to book a stay I would book some nights from one contract, the rest from the other contract and link those two separate reservations together so that I don't have to move rooms part way through my stay.

I'm not sure if the new system has changed this method, but whenever I added a day(s) to the end of my reservation, they would modify the existing reservation and retain the original confirmation number. But the 3 or 4 times I had added a day or two in the beginning, they said that they would need to provide a new confirmation number for me. They said it's because my arrival date is no longer the same. It has always been like this for me.

 

[LisaS]

Right, thus...why I talked about keeping the same confirmation number.

Again, this is just my impression of how the system works. It was my impression of how DBD worked...that you were making a single day reservation, and DVC was linking them all under the SAME confirmation number (for ease of use, and to ensure that you weren't made to check in and out each day). But that, programatically, they were stored as single day reservations. That's borne out by the way the WL worked too..you could waitlist for single days, even if they were contiguous.

No, that is not correct. Linking is used to link together two separate reservations with separate confirmation numbers. There is no such thing as "linking them under the same confirmation number".

Just to illustrate: you could book 7 nights as a series of seven 1-night reservations with 7 confirmation numbers and link them together so that they get assigned to the same room. In this case you have seven entries in the database with a unique confirmation number for each one. Or you can book a 1-night reservation and modify it six times, extending the check-out date by one night each time. In this case you have one reservation with one confirmation number and one entry in the database.

I know you can modify the reservation and keep the same confirmation number, but we're not talking functionality, but how the system handles that process from a technical standpoint.

The points activity page on the member's website will show you whether you have one reservation with one confirmation number or several reservations each with a unique confirmation number. I've always had one reservation that gets modified each day -- the Points Activity page is like a log file of activity and it's listed as a modify transaction, not a new reservation.

 

[LisaS]

I'm not sure if the new system has changed this method, but whenever I added a day(s) to the end of my reservation, they would modify the existing reservation and retain the original confirmation number. But the 3 or 4 times I had added a day or two in the beginning, they said that they would need to provide a new confirmation number for me. They said it's because my arrival date is no longer the same. It has always been like this for me.

That is very interesting. As I said, I have rescheduled two trips, changing both the arrival and departure dates, and both times my confirmation number did not change! The only time I have ended up with two confirmation numbers was the time I had to WL for the first night of my stay. When it came through, they created a new one-night reservation and linked it to the reservation for the last 5 nights.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Regarding the apparent inactivity of DVC to respond to the complaints....

Is it possible that, while receiving many negative opinions, they have received an overwhelming number of positive opinions ?

Maybe there is a large number of members who like the change....maybe, as members are calling in and booking their week under the new rules, DVC is noting that the member is happy they were able to book and thus loves the new system?

(As a former DBD booker and one who kept multiple reservations when we could have multiple bookings, I'm not sure that I'm going to like these changes but I am unwilling to stress myself out over this !!)

That may very well be true... BUT, I do believe that as soon as most these Members become aware of the negative issues surrounding the new policy, they will no longer be in favor of it.

MG

 

[pilferk]

No, that is not correct. Linking is used to link together two separate reservations with separate confirmation numbers. There is no such thing as "linking them under the same confirmation number".

Just to illustrate: you could book 7 nights as a series of seven 1-night reservations with 7 confirmation numbers and link them together so that they get assigned to the same room. In this case you have seven entries in the database with a unique confirmation number for each one. Or you can book a 1-night reservation and modify it six times, extending the check-out date by one night each time. In this case you have one reservation with one confirmation number and one entry in the database.


The points activity page on the member's website will show you whether you have one reservation with one confirmation number or several reservations each with a unique confirmation number. I've always had one reservation that gets modified each day -- the Points Activity page is like a log file of activity and it's listed as a modify transaction, not a new reservation.

Are you 100% positive?

I was told (and was pretty sure it was correct..but maybe not) that the confirmation number could "roll up" with multiple reservations. When you modify ANYTHING connected to that confirmation number, it looks like a modify transaction to the confirmation...that includes any add or change to the child reservation records....because the CONFIRMATION record is being modified, by adding a number into the roll up/child table. The header record is only being modified, just the roll up detail is being added to. It's hard for me to verbalize.....sorry.

I'll certainly allow that my iimpression is wrong. but the system you're detailing would seem to disallow single day, mid stay waitlisting.

 

[LisaS]

That's borne out by the way the WL worked too..you could waitlist for single days, even if they were contiguous, mid stay.

Yes if your reservation is broken up into several pieces due to having to WL for dates in the middle, you will have several reservations with several confirmation numbers.

For example, let's say you manage to book Sun and Mon, are WL DBD (back when you could do that) for Tue and Wed and booked for Thu. You would have one reservation and conf # for Sun and Mon and another reservation and conf # for Thu.

Sun, Mon, Conf # 1
Thu, Conf # 2
WL, DBD: Tue, Wed

If Tue comes through, that becomes another reservation and conf #. When Wed comes through, that is yet another reservation and conf #. In the end you would have the following reservations:

Sun, Mon, Conf # 1
Tue, Conf # 3
Wed, Conf # 4
Thu, Conf # 2

They would link those four reservations together so that you get assigned to one room for the entire stay. But if you looked at your Points Activity statement online, you would see that each of those is a separate reservation with its own confirmation number.

 

[jdg345]

Mostly at 7 months out. We have reservations at our home resort (SSR) for this Christmas. I had to waitlist for the 1 bedroom that we got. I originally booked a studio and then my wife changed my mind about a month later. We have never been at Christmas and probably will not make it a routine. We prefer to go to WDW during off peak (October early November or late January or February) and when the weather is more bearable. I live in NW Florida and know how the weather is during the summer. We also do not have a problem taking our youngest kids out of school for a field trip to Orlando.

Ahh! Okay, that makes more sense! Thanks!

Since you go mostly during off peak times, either policy will likely have worked just fine for you. It sounds like you were able to book that studio for Christmas at 11 months from departure, though you had to WL a day at 10 months.

The Reason DBD was likely never mentioned to you by a CM is because you either booked well within your window, or you got what you wanted at 11 months. IME, they only suggested DBD if you asked how you can go about getting a busy time (future reservation) or if you tried to book exactly at 11 months and were shut out.

IMO, this new policy will make the 7 month booking window tougher to get at peak times for special categories ... but in general, I think it's been getting tougher to book over the years.

 

[dvcdisney]

That is very interesting. As I said, I have rescheduled two trips, changing both the arrival and departure dates, and both times my confirmation number did not change! The only time I have ended up with two confirmation numbers was the time I had to WL for the first night of my stay. When it came through, they created a new one-night reservation and linked it to the reservation for the last 5 nights.

Don't get me wrong...I think the way you describe it makes perfect sense. Any modification should retain the original confirmation numbers. And the only reason for additional confirmation numbers should be due to two different accomodation/resort types (which is obvious) and using two different memberships or contracts. I don't even understand why a waitlist coming through would generate a separate confirmation number. It would make sense that when a wl comes through, the reservation is modified and added onto the existing confirmation number. This would create less confusion, imo.

When they had given me a different confirmation for the dates I added in the beginning of my reservation, they had linked it but the hotel system (and mousekeeping) assumed we were checking out that day and had phone messages from the front desk asking if they can assist us in checking out that day, as well as getting a message from mousekeeping saying that they tried to clean that day but there was a do not disturb sign . So even after I checked in originally and they knew that this was the case, they still made the error and even after I called a few times to make sure they understood what happened, they still blamed it on MS for not reserving them correctly. So, not really sure what the problem was. It was supposed to be linked and they even told me that the reason for it was that I had two confirmation numbers , what?!

(I just thought I'd share my experience, since it seems they are not all following the same method )

 

[jdg345]

Don't get me wrong...I think the way you describe it makes perfect sense. Any modification should retain the original confirmation numbers. And the only reason for additional confirmation numbers should be due to two different accomodation/resort types (which is obvious) and using two different memberships or contracts. I don't even understand why a waitlist coming through would generate a separate confirmation number. It would make sense that when a wl comes through, the reservation is modified and added onto the existing confirmation number. This would create less work, imo.

(I just thought I'd share my experience, since it seems they are not all following the same method)

The way the auto-WL batch works, it has to create a new confirmation/reservation. MS *can* cancel that all out and just modify the original one, but it requires intervention. Typically, it's just easier for MS to link.

 

[pilferk]

Don't get me wrong...I think the way you describe it makes perfect sense. Any modification should retain the original confirmation numbers. And the only reason for additional confirmation numbers should be due to two different accomodation/resort types (which is obvious) and using two different memberships or contracts. I don't even understand why a waitlist coming through would generate a separate confirmation number. It would make sense that when a wl comes through, the reservation is modified and added onto the existing confirmation number. This would create less work, imo.

(I just thought I'd share my experience, since it seems they are not all following the same method)

And I'll be honest here and say that's the way I thought it worked. I've worked on a pretty substantial number of transaction based systems, and that's the way I've done it, the way I've seen it done, and what I think most outfits consider the SOP when it comes to this kind of parent/child transaction processing.

Hearing that they DON'T do it that way is pretty surprising. I actually "talked shop" with one of Disney's IT guys, going back almost 6 years ago (October of 2002 at a KRONOS conference) and that's the way it was explained to me, too. Guess not....

 

[LisaS]

Don't get me wrong...I think the way you describe it makes perfect sense. Any modification should retain the original confirmation numbers. And the only reason for additional confirmation numbers should be due to two different accomodation/resort types (which is obvious) and using two different memberships or contracts. I don't even understand why a waitlist coming through would generate a separate confirmation number. It would make sense that when a wl comes through, the reservation is modified and added onto the existing confirmation number. This would create less work, imo.

(I just thought I'd share my experience, since it seems they are not all following the same method)

I thought it was odd when my WL'ed night came through and ended up as a separate reservation. I called MS to ask about it just to be sure it wasn't a mistake and I might end up having to change rooms. I was told that that is how all WL'ed nights are handled -- they end up as a new reservation that is then linked to the existing reservation. Now maybe they do this because this approach works for every case. For example if you WL for 3 nights of your stay and the middle of those 3 nights comes through it cannot be added to your existing reservation since it's not contiguous with the nights already booked. The only option would be to set it up as a separate reservation.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get our hands on the design document for their reservation system? It would be so much easier than trying to reverse engineer the thing based on our collective experience!

 

[dvcdisney]

The way the auto-WL batch works, it has to create a new confirmation/reservation. MS *can* cancel that all out and just modify the original one, but it requires intervention. Typically, it's just easier for MS to link.

I know and (as I added to my previous post), having anything that doesn't need to be linked created more problems. I know the hotel should be able to recognize that I was keeping my room and that the first night was linked to the rest of my reservation, but for some reason, it didn't and if the system in the hotel is not equipped to "understand" the situation, then why do it this way. They should always modify and keep the continuous stay with the same type room in one confirmation number as to not generate two different reservation for one continuous one. I can't see how this is difficult to do. But apparently it is.

 

[dvcdisney]

I
Wouldn't it be great if we could get our hands on the design document for their reservation system? It would be so much easier than trying to reverse engineer the thing based on our collective experience!

 

[jdg345]

I thought it was odd when my WL'ed night came through and ended up as a separate reservation. I called MS to ask about it just to be sure it wasn't a mistake and I might end up having to change rooms. I was told that that is how all WL'ed nights are handled -- they end up as a new reservation that is then linked to the existing reservation. Now maybe they do this because this approach works for every case. For example if you WL for 3 nights of your stay and the middle of those 3 nights comes through it cannot be added to your existing reservation since it's not contiguous with the nights already booked. The only option would be to set it up as a separate reservation.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get our hands on the design document for their reservation system? It would be so much easier than trying to reverse engineer the thing based on our collective experience!

We have a better chance of getting ahold of the survey and results that created the new booking policy. I hear it's being transported to the main office by Unicorn.

 

[LisaS]

Are you 100% positive?

I was told (and was pretty sure it was correct..but maybe not) that the confirmation number could "roll up" with multiple reservations. When you modify ANYTHING connected to that confirmation number, it looks like a modify transaction to the confirmation...that includes any add or change to the child reservation records....because the CONFIRMATION record is being modified, by adding a number into the roll up/child table. The header record is only being modified, just the roll up detail is being added to. It's hard for me to verbalize.....sorry.

I'll certainly allow that my iimpression is wrong. but the system you're detailing would seem to disallow single day, mid stay waitlisting.

I have no idea how things work at the lower levels of the system but we do know this: at some level, there is one confirmation number and a check-in date and a check-out date. As nights are added DBD, a entry is added to the Points Activity for that contract. Each entry looks something like this:

06.06.2008 Modify reservation #12345 at Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas on 05/03/09 - 05/06/09 for Studio Concierge Jambo <11> 39

06.07.2008 Modify reservation #12345 at Disney's Animal Kingdom Villas on 05/03/09 - 05/07/09 for Studio Concierge Jambo <15> 24


The confirmation number never changes but the check-out date does (and of course the points remaining in that contract decrease). Now if they can log that data in my Points Activity, then they can use that same data to determine your true check-out date for the purposes of TisBit's rule.