New policy for reservations based on check IN date

[pilferk]

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.

Sort of...depends, again, on how they do it.

I could, with a fancy (actually...not so fancy...actually, pretty routine..but I like to make myself feel good about my perl ability) bit of perl scripting, display the check in date of the first reservation, and the check out date of the final reservation, the points total for the whole shooting match, etc attached to a confirmation. And then sum it all up based on your contract info. I'm just not sure the above is an ACTUAL log of system activity, or something they cobble together for us to view.

That's a WHOLE different ball of wax than trying to base an automatic "rule" trigger off the same information. Possible, for sure, but not quite as easy as just glomming together a display on the Members web page. Again, my initial point was that it might not be so simple to execute the "simple rule". Conceptually simple....systematically and programatically, MAYBE not (or maybe so).

Now, again...I don't know how the lower level of the system works, either. Given your description, I suspect the anecdotal info (which made sense, so I figured it was right) may have been mistaken. If that's the case, it's a lot easier to institute the rule, because it SHOULD be a quick and easy change for the programmers.

I think the rule makes some sense, actually. especially now that we've fleshed it out a bit more (the +1 from checkout date is a big clarification). I think "putting it through the ringer", or vetting it..whatever you want to call it...here on the Disboards is a good thing because...if we can't EASILY "break it", it might pass muster with the rest of the membership at large.

 

[jdg345]

Sort of...depends, again, on how they do it.

I could, with a fancy (actually...not so fancy...actually, pretty routine..but I like to make myself feel good about my perl ability) bit of perl scripting, display the check in date of the first reservation, and the check out date of the final reservation, the points total for the whole shooting match, etc attached to a confirmation. And then sum it all up based on your contract info. I'm just not sure the above is an ACTUAL log of system activity, or something they cobble together for us to view.

That's a WHOLE different ball of wax than trying to base an automatic "rule" trigger off the same information. Possible, for sure, but not quite as easy as just glomming together a display on the Members web page. Again, my initial point was that it might not be so simple to execute the "simple rule". Conceptually simple....systematically and programatically, MAYBE not (or maybe so).

Now, again...I don't know how the lower level of the system works, either. Given your description, I suspect the anecdotal info (which made sense, so I figured it was right) may have been mistaken. If that's the case, it's a lot easier to institute the rule, because it SHOULD be a quick and easy change for the programmers.

I think the rule makes some sense, actually. especially now that we've fleshed it out a bit more (the +1 from checkout date is a big clarification). I think "putting it through the ringer", or vetting it..whatever you want to call it...here on the Disboards is a good thing because...if we can't EASILY "break it", it might pass muster with the rest of the membership at large.

As mentioned, it would have to be a system level change. If CM's are allowed to keep a room from going into inventory (like when they reallocate points) and are just told not to in this circumstance, then it becomes a grey area were some people will be able to do it and other won't. If they take away this ability altogether, then there would be no ability to reallocate points (borrowed to current use year, in this example).

Certainly, I'd prefer they take all their programming efforts and funnel them into an online booking system 'enhancement' rather than continuously trying to fix something they broke that didn't need to be broken.

 

[pilferk]

As mentioned, it would have to be a system level change. If CM's are allowed to keep a room from going into inventory (like when they reallocate points) and are just told not to in this circumstance, then it becomes a grey area were some people will be able to do it and other won't. If they take away this ability altogether, then there would be no ability to reallocate points (borrowed to current use year, in this example).

Certainly, I'd prefer they take all their programming efforts and funnel them into an online booking system 'enhancement' rather than continuously trying to fix something they broke that didn't need to be broken.

On that, we agree 100%.

I'd MUCH rather see them spend money, resources, and IT programmers on on-line booking than just about anything else, really.

 

[LisaS]

Sort of...depends, again, on how they do it.

I could, with a fancy (actually...not so fancy...actually, pretty routine..but I like to make myself feel good about my perl ability) bit of perl scripting, display the check in date of the first reservation, and the check out date of the final reservation, the points total for the whole shooting match, etc attached to a confirmation. And then sum it all up based on your contract info. I'm just not sure the above is an ACTUAL log of system activity, or something they cobble together for us to view.

Take a look at your Points Activity statement some time. It's very detailed. (You should see mine for the time period where MS pulled points from the wrong contracts for one of my reservations, then put them back and took them from another contract. Yikes!) It looks like a transaction log to me. It's very helpful too because it gives us the level of detail needed to get to the bottom of point management problems.

As for the display of reservation information, they have to display that to MS as well. So no matter how it's stored in the database, they had to write the queries and the code to display the basic reservation information for the MS CMs. So the code already exists that can determine the check-out date for any reservation confirmation number.

That's a WHOLE different ball of wax than trying to base an automatic "rule" trigger off the same information. Possible, for sure, but not quite as easy as just glomming together a display on the Members web page. Again, my initial point was that it might not be so simple to execute the "simple rule". Conceptually simple....systematically and programatically, MAYBE not (or maybe so).

I agree. When it comes to implementation, things are never as simple as they sound to management. Without knowing the details of their system (whether it's well engineered or a total hack) it's hard to even guesstimate what's involved. The basic idea would be that if the current date is less than the check out date minus 11 months, then don't allow the check-in date to be moved forward. Whether the implementation is that straightforward, only the IT folks would know.

Now, again...I don't know how the lower level of the system works, either. Given your description, I suspect the anecdotal info (which made sense, so I figured it was right) may have been mistaken. If that's the case, it's a lot easier to institute the rule, because it SHOULD be a quick and easy change for the programmers.

Maybe the IT person you spoke to was describing lower-level implementation details, for example, how they track every transaction. Again, looking at the Points Activity statement, it's clear they track every add, delete and cancellation to a reservation. They also track every time you bank or borrow points. But even if things are messy below the surface, they manage to present basic reservation information to both members and MS CMs so the code to determine your check out date exists already. What would be required to implement TisBit's rule only the IT folks would know.

I think the rule makes some sense, actually. especially now that we've fleshed it out a bit more (the +1 from checkout date is a big clarification). I think "putting it through the ringer", or vetting it..whatever you want to call it...here on the Disboards is a good thing because...if we can't EASILY "break it", it might pass muster with the rest of the membership at large.

I agree. We have an opportunity to work together here to see if we can come up with something better than "cancel and rebook" which is what I fear we'll get if DVC decides they need to do something about walking.

 

[jdg345]

I agree. We have an opportunity to work together here to see if we can come up with something better than "cancel and rebook" which is what I fear we'll get if DVC decides they need to do something about walking.

If they decide to do something about walking, and take our suggestions into consideration. Something to think about is they could have just removed DBD in a similar fashion, but it would have required system changes. They want something easy and relatively 'free'.

Considering they took the stance they did with the new policy and did not make a system change to prevent DBD, they will likely do the same thing to stop walking (if they do anything at all). IOW: If they decide to put a stop to it, they're likely going to take the path of least resistance, which imo, is what none of us wants. I don't think they'll put the effort into the system changes.

I'm sure we'll hear about how members overwhelmingly want that change too, when/if it gets here.

 

[Laurabearz]

I agree. We have an opportunity to work together here to see if we can come up with something better than "cancel and rebook" which is what I fear we'll get if DVC decides they need to do something about walking.

My fear is with the online booking... Canceling and Rebooking will be our only option.

 

[jdg345]

My fear is with the online booking... Canceling and Rebooking will be our only option.

Then it would only make sense to go back to DBD booking. You just book a bunch of 1 day stays and have them linked. That way, if you need to make a change off the beginning/end, you just cancel that one ressie.

It's another way around TisBit's rule actually, just go back to booking DBD, you just lose the +6 ... but since you already got that first day, it means someone else can't take it. You're just competing for [likely] reduced inventory on the subsequent days.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

. . . IOW: If they decide to put a stop to it, they're likely going to take the path of least resistance, which imo, is what none of us wants. I don't think they'll put the effort into the system changes.

I'm sure we'll hear about how members overwhelmingly want that change too, when/if it gets here.

I agree that with all the posts expressing concern about "walking," we will see exactly that: DVC stating that members no longer want to be required to walk a reservation and that they would happily sacrifice any right to cancel a day from a booked reservation in order to avoid it!

As to the proposed fix, a massive change to the cancellation policy really will be the only thing that signficantly reduces what I expect will be the most common kind of reservation walking: booking a few days or a week in advance of your desired arrival date. A short cancellation moratorium will have little or no impact on those who have enough points (including banked, current and borrowed) to book at least 7 nights. Those members could still book a stay starting on Fri for 7 nights, then wait a week and cancel the first 2 nights, leaving the desired 5 night stay.

As you have laid out, marathon walking (starting in July for your Dec reservation) can still be accomplished even with a cancellation moratorium with side by side reservations if the member has enough interest in pursuing such a strategy.

The posters on the DisBoards should be careful what they complain about. -- Suzanne

 

[Robo-Daddy 3000]

Take a look at your Points Activity statement some time. It's very detailed. (You should see mine for the time period where MS pulled points from the wrong contracts for one of my reservations, then put them back and took them from another contract. Yikes!) It looks like a transaction log to me. It's very helpful too because it gives us the level of detail needed to get to the bottom of point management problems.

Lisa, I've looked at my activity statement and I see each and every change to my reservation, line by line. I've asssumed, perhaps mistakeny, that all of these transactions for each memeber is what is bogging down MS. I figured that the goal, or at least one of the goals, of the new policy was to significantly reduce the amount of individual transactions necessary to complete one vacation reservation. Though I'm not really sure how reducing transactions reduced the overall costs to MS and, in turn, our dues.

 

[Dean]

IOW: If they decide to put a stop to it, they're likely going to take the path of least resistance, which imo, is what none of us wants. I don't think they'll put the effort into the system changes.

If you mean a change is a cancellation and rebooking so you drop the the bottom of the WL or even institute a small change fee, then saying NONE of us would be incorrect as I'd be in favor of the former and not opposed to the latter. IMO, it depends on how pervasive this issue becomes. IMO, a lot of people who would do DBD will not walk a reservation, myself included. But it won't take many doing so to force DVC to make a change.

 

[jdg345]

If you mean a change is a cancellation and rebooking so you drop the the bottom of the WL or even institute a small change fee, then saying NONE of us would be incorrect as I'd be in favor of the former and not opposed to the latter. IMO, it depends on how pervasive this issue becomes. IMO, a lot of people who would do DBD will not walk a reservation, myself included. But it won't take many doing so to force DVC to make a change.

Why would you want to see any change be a cancelling and rebook? What benefit does that have to the membership at all? It would basically mean that anyone who travels by air risks giving up booking at 11 months because they don't know what their itinerary is going to be since they can't book airfare that far in advance.

Why would walkers force DVC to make a change? There is an awful lot of speculation here. If DVC doesn't care as long as someone is in a room, then what does it matter to them? Are you suggesting they want a 7 day minimum stay and they're trying to slowly push the membership in that direction?

I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a cancel/rebook policy in place for changes ... ?

 

[simzac]

I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a cancel/rebook policy in place for changes ... ?

To prevent others members from trying to "cheat" the reservation system?

 

[jdg345]

To prevent others members from trying to "cheat" the reservation system?

If it's within the rules, it's not cheating. Everyone had the same options available to them. All this does is create an issue for anyone who wants to make a legitimate change (extend a day, drop a day). If they don't want to risk losing the reservation, they need to either stay somewhere else or eat the points for a night.

And, again, is the solution to just keep making rules upon rules to fix something that was only broken when they tried to fix it?

Is the solution to continue to reduce flexibility, which imo, is one of the things that got many to purchase DVC?

Curious, have you ever had to change a reservation you've booked?

 

[Dean]

Why would you want to see any change be a cancelling and rebook? What benefit does that have to the membership at all? It would basically mean that anyone who travels by air risks giving up booking at 11 months because they don't know what their itinerary is going to be since they can't book airfare that far in advance.

Why would walkers force DVC to make a change? There is an awful lot of speculation here. If DVC doesn't care as long as someone is in a room, then what does it matter to them? Are you suggesting they want a 7 day minimum stay and they're trying to slowly push the membership in that direction?

I just don't understand why anyone would want to see a cancel/rebook policy in place for changes ... ?

I do believe that encouraging 7 day stays is in the best interest of the system and the membership overall and have said so, whether DVC is actively doing so, you'd have to ask them. I also feel that in general any change to a given reservation should be a cancelation and rebooking and thus that the WL should take precedence. Specific to this question it would keep people from tying up days they don't need or intend to use and essentially stop walking in it's tracks, a very good thing in my book. And I do believe DVC cares about walking, they've essentially said so already it seems from the posts here about conversations. I don't believe one should be able to tie up rooms then decide later about air fare without some risk if they do have to change their reservations. Besides you can always get air at 11 months out, the only question is then the price and itinerary.

If it's within the rules, it's not cheating. Everyone had the same options available to them. All this does is create an issue for anyone who wants to make a legitimate change (extend a day, drop a day). If they don't want to risk losing the reservation, they need to either stay somewhere else or eat the points for a night.

And, again, is the solution to just keep making rules upon rules to fix something that was only broken when they tried to fix it?

Is the solution to continue to reduce flexibility, which imo, is one of the things that got many to purchase DVC?

Curious, have you ever had to change a reservation you've booked?

But if the rules change then it is cheating. Everyone would have the same options under any new system as well. And yes, those that have a better reason to change would fall under the same rules as they should. One can add as a separate reservation and link. One could always use any days reserved even if you arrived late, that would be a choice one could make.

 

[jdg345]

I do believe that encouraging 7 day stays is in the best interest of the system and the membership overall and have said so, whether DVC is actively doing so, you'd have to ask them. I also feel that in general any change to a given reservation should be a cancelation and rebooking and thus that the WL should take precedence. Specific to this question it would keep people from tying up days they don't need or intend to use and essentially stop walking in it's tracks, a very good thing in my book. And I do believe DVC cares about walking, they've essentially said so already it seems from the posts here about conversations. I don't believe one should be able to tie up rooms then decide later about air fare without some risk if they do have to change their reservations. Besides you can always get air at 11 months out, the only question is then the price and itinerary.

I understand you feel it is in the best interest of the system because it reduces costs (housekeeping, etc). But why exactly do you feel it is in the best interest of the membership? One of the nice things about DVC is that you can book a weekend (2 days), if you want to.

But if the rules change then it is cheating. Everyone would have the same options under any new system as well. And yes, those that have a better reason to change would fall under the same rules as they should. One can add as a separate reservation and link. One could always use any days reserved even if you arrived late, that would be a choice one could make.

ahh ... If the rules change; and not only 'If', but 'How'. Regardless, as they stand, Walking is not cheating. Nor is DBD after 7 days. With the old system, DBD was not cheating either. All of these things were/are within the rules.

Would you agree then that any system put in place will likely advantage some part of the membership? I think there is a distinction here (as made by other posters) that there is a SYSTEM and there is SITUATION. Is the solution to make that advantaged group as small as possible, so rules and restrictions are continuously added until most flexibility is gone?

Put another way, it's been suggested that only a small number of people knew about DBD, so how is it that there were an overwhelming number of complaints about it?

Again: DVC made these changes to improve their bottom line. If they see it makes things worse, they will continue to make changes until they reach that goal, and they will likely continue to do so under the guise of overwhelming member requests.

As Suzzanne mentioned, they could very easily effect a cancel/rebook policy and say it was due to overwhelming member complaints about walking. But ... I thought most members were excited about the new policy? If most members are thrilled and excited about the new policy, as per DVC, then there is no reason for any further changes.

 

[Dean]

I understand you feel it is in the best interest of the system because it reduces costs (housekeeping, etc). But why exactly do you feel it is in the best interest of the membership? One of the nice things about DVC is that you can book a weekend (2 days), if you want to.

It's far more than just cost in $$$. That flexibility has a negative as well. It orphans days, leads to lower occupancy rates (actually saturation rates). A more predictable system also makes it easier to book if you fit in to that predictability and leads to more uniform points usage and thus predictability for both the members and the system.

Would you agree then that any system put in place will likely advantage some part of the membership? I think there is a distinction here (as made by other posters) that there is a SYSTEM and there is SITUATION. Is the solution to make that advantaged group as small as possible, so rules and restrictions are continuously added until most flexibility is gone?

Certainly there is no perfect system, on that we can agree and I've specifically said so at least once or twice in this thread. I've also said each system is a balance between the needs of the system and the membership overall and that a given change may leave some out that were previously in. I've also said that it is not necessary to add rule after rule to minimize any unintended effects of the new system. And actually making each change a cancelation and rebooking isn't an additional rule, merely a clarification. It's either yes or no, right now it's no (not a cancelation) by default but not by intent from what I can gather. And there is already precedence with DVC reservations for changes to be a cancelation and rebooking when subbing points in a reservation, not that they always adhere to it. In general I'm a small to medium rule type of person. You need enough rules to prevent chaos, I believe walking is chaos.

 

[pnyltwk]

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.

I would still like to see something put in place to prevent manipulation of the system that will keep availability of the resorts fair to all. This DBD and walking sounds illogical to me. And quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than calling MS daily to get a room. Oh yeah I also have to make a living and am not sitting by a phone for days in a row to place that daily 9 am call. I am sure that the majority are in that situation.

 

[keishashadow]

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.

 

[DisneyKidds]

It's far more than just cost in $$$. That flexibility has a negative as well. It orphans days, leads to lower occupancy rates (actually saturation rates). A more predictable system also makes it easier to book if you fit in to that predictability and leads to more uniform points usage and thus predictability for both the members and the system.

But DVC was specifically selling that they weren't every other predictable timeshare, with uniform points usage, with a predictable week every year. DVC was not only an on-site timeshare option, it was a different, better, more flexible option. Yes, having such a system may have created some challenges (i.e. - orphan days, etc.) but such challenges were just part of the unique system that was being sold, the unique system that resulted in above average success rates for members getting the vacations they wanted. The old system may not have been perfect in every way, but it worked. DVC hasn't changed anything because of overwhelming member complaints, or to make the system more user friendly. They changed things to try and cut costs.......and in the process they are turning DVC into something other than what was sold to members. I sure as heck don't want a traditional timeshare that encourages and rewards week long vacations. That isn't what DVC was sold as in the past.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It's far more than just cost in $$$. That flexibility has a negative as well. It orphans days, leads to lower occupancy rates (actually saturation rates). A more predictable system also makes it easier to book if you fit in to that predictability and leads to more uniform points usage and thus predictability for both the members and the system.

But orphans days are more critical in a hotel not a timeshare. If members were having a hard time getting bookings then this would be a problem. I haven't heard that this is the case and that people have been unable to get anything, and we agree that nobody was ever guaranteed a particular reservation. Rooms are already "prepaid" thru dues, so it's not completely relevant to DVC if they are occupied or not. To Disney, yes, but DVC, not completely. Of course there is the ability to rent out cash rooms, but 100% occupancy is not very likely to happen during all times of the year. If it were that way, then Disney ought to be building more hotels quickly! I would expect that DVC expects a certain breakage on points and budgets for it. There are also people that will travel to Disney for less than one week, sometimes even one night, so orphan days may actually be beneficial to getting more people to visit which I believe has it's own set of benefits in comparison to having the same people in a room for one or two weeks straight. It can also lead to greater member satisfaction - being able to get that last minute reservation of a night or two.

I know that you express a belief that the one week timeshare is "da bomb", but I do think there are advantages to the membership with having flexibility (as it was sold to be). After reading your posts I keep feeling like I am missing something-or at least that one of us is. You keep repeating that DVC would be better off with the changes. Is DVC going under? Has the value of it tanked? Are they unable to sell points? Are members complaining because the dues are skyrocketing to the maximum? From my point of view it seems to be relatively well run (although this change is not a shining example), members in general love it, dues have been held in check, people who bought years ago can sell for more than they bought it for, and members are able to vacation when in ways that work for them on an individual basis. There are many other timeshare that cannot say the same thing. I'm not against keeping an eye on things to improve, but I do have a problem with changing something so fundamental as flexibile time/length of stay/accomodation size to follow a model that really has a terrible reputation - the traditional timeshare of one set week. I think vacation styles today allow for different types of timeshares and we don't need to stuff them all into one mold.
__________________

You need enough rules to prevent chaos, I believe walking is chaos.

Now who's jumping the gun. Aren't we supposed to believe that DVC really thought this out and wait and see how it works b/c it's going to be good for the membership?