NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[Dean]

No....I'm in corporate contract negotiations now and a few audits and I can't keep my own STAFF informed of what is happening or why things are being done. And even once the contract is done and signed or the audit completed, there are a lot of things I can't share with my staff. And these are internal things. Nor is every reason for every business decision made above me shared with me.

I agree up to a point and I find myself in a similar situations all the time. However I think there are some differences and additional informational obligations when you own a timeshare. Legally DVC (only DVC) contracts are accessible by the members under certain guidelines and they do have a responsibility to share enough info to satisfy rational people that an appropriate decision was made on larger issues and also have a responsibility to give an explanation when things are done poorly on a corporate level.

OTOH, they do not have to convince every concerned member that this was the correct decision nor should they spend much time with the whiners trying to convince them it was the wrong one. To see such a large group of people jump from being zoned out on the Kool-aid to being irrationally upset over small ticket and/or contractually appropriate decisions has been a real eye opener for me (this, re-allocation, reservation change, BWV reno and reassignment). Also, to see so many poorly done ? quick decision items (this implementation, AKV no savannah view and AKV concierge reassignment) is difficult for me to fathom with a normally well run company. You'd think they'd have learned the first time and do better next time. However, they did seem to do a much better job with the BWV reassignment though I still think they need to be more consistent with any compensation the give and not let those that yell earliest and/or loudest get a lot and others get nothing. It does make you wonder what next.

 

[TDC Nala]

Sorry, I am still not interested in paying dues for other people to have valet parking because I "might" want to use it "someday." There's self parking for those who want access to parking. Of course it means if the membership wants to insert valet parking costs into dues and is able to bring that about, it would be better for me to own at OKW or SSR where they don't have the option of valet parking. A previous poster referred to "I might be willing to contribute" but the word "contribute" connotes that there is an option to NOT contribute and if such a thing was passed it would be mandatory.

I'd be ok with a lot of things people want to add and pay for but I think valet parking is not something a majority would choose to use. We were lucky to have it provided to us for that long.

 

[jade1]

Sorry, I am still not interested in paying dues for other people to have valet parking because I "might" want to use it "someday." There's self parking for those who want access to parking. Of course it means if the membership wants to insert valet parking costs into dues and is able to bring that about, it would be better for me to own at OKW or SSR where they don't have the option of valet parking. A previous poster referred to "I might be willing to contribute" but the word "contribute" connotes that there is an option to NOT contribute and if such a thing was passed it would be mandatory.

I'd be ok with a lot of things people want to add and pay for but I think valet parking is not something a majority would choose to use. We were lucky to have it provided to us for that long.

Like I said, I have no problem with your stance. That does not mean we all are that way. I assumed all along we were paying it and not using it (and nobody has really proven otherwise actually) and did not care then, so I would not care now. I guess you knew this and were not happy about it all these years. I feel the same about the free work out facilities, ME, AP discount, lifeguards and internet-it all makes a more upscale membership IMO, but who is really paying it, how much is it, and when will it go away?

 

[DebbieB]

I agree that dues should not subsidize free valet even though I've used it in the past. My only concern is that adequate self-parking is provided. I shouldn't have to park a couple blocks away.

 

[crisi]

I agree that dues should not subsidize free valet even though I've used it in the past. My only concern is that adequate self-parking is provided. I shouldn't have to park a couple blocks away.

I completely agree with this.

 

[photobob]

I agree up to a point and I find myself in a similar situations all the time. However I think there are some differences and additional informational obligations when you own a timeshare. Legally DVC (only DVC) contracts are accessible by the members under certain guidelines and they do have a responsibility to share enough info to satisfy rational people that an appropriate decision was made on larger issues and also have a responsibility to give an explanation when things are done poorly on a corporate level.

OTOH, they do not have to convince every concerned member that this was the correct decision nor should they spend much time with the whiners trying to convince them it was the wrong one. To see such a large group of people jump from being zoned out on the Kool-aid to being irrationally upset over small ticket and/or contractually appropriate decisions has been a real eye opener for me (this, re-allocation, reservation change, BWV reno and reassignment). Also, to see so many poorly done ? quick decision items (this implementation, AKV no savannah view and AKV concierge reassignment) is difficult for me to fathom with a normally well run company. You'd think they'd have learned the first time and do better next time. However, they did seem to do a much better job with the BWV reassignment though I still think they need to be more consistent with any compensation the give and not let those that yell earliest and/or loudest get a lot and others get nothing. It does make you wonder what next.

Very well put.

 

[BEASLYBOO]

I agree that dues should not subsidize free valet even though I've used it in the past. My only concern is that adequate self-parking is provided. I shouldn't have to park a couple blocks away.

Totally agree!

The process of communicating these types of changes should be overhauled, and I think reasonable notice should be given to the owners. That alone would help make some of these cuts a little more palatable.

Personally, I don't use ME nor the free valet, but that's not the issue and though it's been nice for those who do, now that the "free" part of it is over, those that benefited from it should be happy that it lasted as long as it did. If any of ME is subsidized by dues, I think it's wrong!

Dues should go to pay for what everyone uses like maintenance, refurbishments and housekeeping and all expenses related to those endeavors. No one wants to lose the perks used as an added bonus to purchasing DVC, but if they all went away, in the end, the reason I bought into DVC is for the resorts and their amenities. Keeping maintenance fees down and maintaining the resorts are my biggest concern.

 

[tjkraz]

Dues should go to pay for what everyone uses like maintenance, refurbishments and housekeeping and all expenses related to those endeavors. No one wants to lose the perks used as an added bonus to purchasing DVC, but if they all went away, in the end, the reason I bought into DVC is for the resorts and their amenities. Keeping maintenance fees down and maintaining the resorts are my biggest concern.

The problem is that the list of what "everyone uses" is extremely small compared to the services offered at a resort.

Not everyone uses the resort pools. Should those who use them have to pay a pool fee?
Should there be a fee for using Disney park buses?
How about a parking lot fee for self parking?
Go back to paying for Internet?
Fees for tennis court usage, Community Hall activities, or even for the use of Bell Services since not everyone needs luggage assistance.

If this thread has shown us anything it's that there are a lot of varying opinions on what should and should not be covered by dues. Some favor the minimalist approach while others would prefer an all-encompassing experience. Either way, there is no "one size fits all" solution. As our elected management company, DVC has to make tough decisions at times and we know how they decided to go in this case.

Obviously their communications leave something to be desired. But it's difficult to cast any blame directly at DVC when they are subject to the whims of other Disney divisions. If you look at things like guests being relocated due to resort rehabs, those jobs aren't scheduled 11 months out. DVC has to deal with the fallout from whatever decisions the facilities people make.

In the case of the point reallocation, I personally believe that was a calculated move to release info at the last possible moment. Not exactly a member-friendly approach there...and quite a hardship for owners at resorts which had not even opened yet.

As for the valet parking change, I'm sure there were negotiations occurring at high levels long before October 10th. But I'm not necessarily convinced that DVC was given the opportunity necessary to forewarn members weeks or months before the change was made.

 

[Sammie]

I think the things TJ listed that are part of the resort, pools, buses, parking lots, community hall, that are part of what was there when you buy is acceptable to the pay for it, even if you don't already use it.

As to internet, personally for me if I had to choose between paying for it or valet, I would hands down pick valet. But I also can go along with my dues paying for some things that I don't personally use.

Do we know for sure our dues pay for internet use, as our dues were not paying for valet. I don't know. Does anyone?

As for the valet parking change, I'm sure there were negotiations occurring at high levels long before October 10th. But I'm not necessarily convinced that DVC was given the opportunity necessary to forewarn members weeks or months before the change was made.

If you mean was MS given the opportunity to forewarn members in advance, no they were not. If you mean did upper management have the opportunity to make a decision to forewarn, yes they did but they chose not to.

 

[LIFERBABE]

If you mean was MS given the opportunity to forewarn members in advance, no they were not. If you mean did upper management have the opportunity to make a decision to forewarn, yes they did but they chose not to.

I would have settled for notification of current guests being impacted by the change on the day the change took effect. Heck, a sign at the Valet desk, saying "effective today......." would have been notice enough for me! The simple fact that they did NOTHING for the membership staying at the time of the change, is totally unsat and unexcusable.

They can announce the Member Cruise 1 year in advance, and require payment in full on the day of booking, but when it comes to common courtesy, we are not worthy

Note to DVC: Kool-Aid tastes better when there is sugar in it!

I did write member satisfaction to let them know how I felt. And I dont mind paying for amenities in my dues. I thought I was purchasing a premium product. Whether I use everything or not, I want to be surrounded by it. If not I would stay at the Holiday Inn Express!

 

[mopee3]

Not everyone uses the resort pools. Should those who use them have to pay a pool fee?
Should there be a fee for using Disney park buses?
How about a parking lot fee for self parking?
Go back to paying for Internet?
Fees for tennis court usage, Community Hall activities, or even for the use of Bell Services since not everyone needs luggage assistance.

Some favor the minimalist approach while others would prefer an all-encompassing experience. Either way, there is no "one size fits all" solution. .

Maybe this is how "tiered” timeshares start, some people are willing to pay for more?

Free valet, pools, pool hopping, free internet, etc. Would we be happy if all the “perks” and other stuff, we take as our “right to have”, now become only available to those willing to pay for them?

Be careful what you wish for or whine about….. you may get it!

I am amazed this thread has gone on so long over something that I didn't think was that big a deal. Almost like someone licked the cherry off my lollypop.

Moe

 

[Deb & Bill]

...Note to DVC: Kool-Aid tastes better when there is sugar in it!...

My favorite new DVC saying.

 

[tgropp]

Seems to me that if some people do not want to help pay extra dues for valet parking or whatever perk DVC offers, lets eliminate all perks to keep the costs down....which means trash and towel service, free internet, valet parking, discounted annual passes, magical express, discounted golf and any other perk. The only one that I have ever used is valet parking and to hear people say that they do not want to subsidize it with their dues, I understand that.....but maybe I am not happy with subsidizing all the perks that other people use and I dont. Actually I dont mind paying a few extra dollars to help with the perks that I dont use. I just dont like it when people say " get rid of valet parking because I don't use it but would scream murder if they took something away they They used"

 

[tjkraz]

If you mean did upper management have the opportunity to make a decision to forewarn, yes they did but they chose not to.

When did they know about it and who are the managers involved?

 

[Chuck S]

Seems to me that if some people do not want to help pay extra dues for valet parking or whatever perk DVC offers, lets eliminate all perks to keep the costs down....which means trash and towel service, free internet, valet parking, discounted annual passes, magical express, discounted golf and any other perk. The only one that I have ever used is valet parking and to hear people say that they do not want to subsidize it with their dues, I understand that.....but maybe I am not happy with subsidizing all the perks that other people use and I dont. Actually I dont mind paying a few extra dollars to help with the perks that I dont use. I just dont like it when people say " get rid of valet parking because I don't use it but would scream murder if they took something away they They used"

I am willing to bet that dues do not subsidize the AP discount, dining perks, golf discounts or most other perks. As a true perk, they should be offered by the vendor as an unsubsidized courtesy to encourage DVC members to use their services and thus up their gross income. No doubt it has led to an increase in DDE/TiW sales. Trash and Towel were part of the original represented agreements, and is detailed in our POS. So the only things you talk about that truly may receive contributions from dues that can easily be cut are the free internet and Magical Express services. The internet should be a very inexpensive addition per member as compared to the labor costs involved for free valet. That leaves the ME service, and we really don't know how much of that may be funded by dues.

 

[Dean]

Dues should go to pay for what everyone uses like maintenance, refurbishments and housekeeping and all expenses related to those endeavors. No one wants to lose the perks used as an added bonus to purchasing DVC, but if they all went away, in the end, the reason I bought into DVC is for the resorts and their amenities. Keeping maintenance fees down and maintaining the resorts are my biggest concern.

As I've noted previously, every timeshare has to make conscious decisions about what costs are shared with everyone and which ones are pay to play. Cost, ease of enforcement, volume savings, % members using a given option and industry standards are among the considerations. NO timeshare can provide everything and none can do everything pay to play; there must be an in between. Different systems make different choices but remember that those choices are often for the benefit of the developer and not necessarily the members, esp while active sales are ongoing.

Some systems that function similarly to DVC have other charges including cancelation charges, banking/borrowing fees, and so on. Often such fees are intended to drive behavior as much as cost. Therefore those that want to be absurd in their list of things to make pay to play to try to make a point are really only defining themselves as childish, irrational and ill informed, IMO. Personally I'd be very happy to see more pay to play if the savings and benefits were sufficient for the change and IMO, it is irrelevant whether those changes affect me (or anyone else) personally or not. The only question, IMO, is what are the facts of the decision. In this case the facts are that costs would have gone up and the only choices were pay to play or increased fees. It also appears to be factual, but not well defined, that the increase was far more than the simple $2 per day increase to non DVC members as possibly would have gone from zero to $12, quite a chunk of change to roll into the dues.

And one last point which I don't recall seeing made previously in this context, every item that increases dues is also factored in to increase the maint contract cost even further.

I am willing to bet that dues do not subsidize the AP discount, dining perks, golf discounts or most other perks. As a true perk, they should be offered by the vendor as an unsubsidized courtesy to encourage DVC members to use their services and thus up their gross income. No doubt it has led to an increase in DDE/TiW sales. Trash and Towel were part of the original represented agreements, and is detailed in our POS. So the only things you talk about that truly may receive contributions from dues that can easily be cut are the free internet and Magical Express services. The internet should be a very inexpensive addition per member as compared to the labor costs involved for free valet. That leaves the ME service, and we really don't know how much of that may be funded by dues.

I agree, other than possibly a small amount to ME, I can't think of anything that I'd consider a perk that is subsidized by DVC. Certainly not any of the discounts.

 

[Dean]

Seems to me that if some people do not want to help pay extra dues for valet parking or whatever perk DVC offers, lets eliminate all perks to keep the costs down....which means trash and towel service, free internet, valet parking, discounted annual passes, magical express, discounted golf and any other perk. The only one that I have ever used is valet parking and to hear people say that they do not want to subsidize it with their dues, I understand that.....but maybe I am not happy with subsidizing all the perks that other people use and I dont. Actually I dont mind paying a few extra dollars to help with the perks that I dont use. I just dont like it when people say " get rid of valet parking because I don't use it but would scream murder if they took something away they They used"

See my post above. IMO, whether one uses the perk or not should not affect the reasonableness of the decision, one should look at the facts involved. Many timeshares do not do trash and towel and I suspect it will go away at some point. ASAMOF, many, if not most, timeshares that allow reservations less than a week have additional charges for housekeeping and most do not have a trash and towel service for free though some do. Anyone who exchanges through RCI for less than a week will be guaranteed to experience these charges first hand to the tune of $20-80 without choice depending on the resort and unit size.

 

[Tony P. IL.]

Here is something I've thought about.
How did Cars wind up with the contract anyway. Was it just handed exclusively to them and if so why. If someone is looking out for your best interest there should have been a bid package put out to valet service companies. Maybe another one (valet co.) could/would have did the valet (free for DVC) this time around if the contract was up with Cars. Here is a link to an article from late 2006 when it was about to happen. http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2006_4th/Nov06_DisneyJobs.html

With the legal dept. and contracting people (probably many) they have to figure these things out should'nt it raise a red flag (for Disney) to have given Cars a no bid contract and if this is what occured are they really looking out for members to get the most for the least amount of dues.


Was there multiple bidders for this service?
Does anyone thats involved with this (awarding the contract) at Disney have a vested interest in Cars or anyone at Cars?

 

[Chuck S]

DVC has a resort management contract with Disney, and as the hotel portion of the combined resorts are also Disney, I would think that Disney can make whatever calls it wished as for as awarding contracts. BTW, I thought it was Mears that had the valet parking contract at WDW, and CARS in Anaheim.

 

[CarolMN]

I've always wondered why free valet parking was made available to all DVC members no matter where you happened to be staying. In fact, you didn't even have to be staying on site to take advantage of the perk.

Did the valet wages come out of everybody's dues? I think not. The owners at VWL, BWV & BCV paid them (a prorated share with the non-DVC side).

So that means prior to the outsourcing, the dues of the owners at VWL, BCV & BWV (and the associated Disney resorts) subsidized that perk for the entire DVC membership. (I'm not including AKV or BLT because they are so new and I think the valet contract was out sourced before the perk was extended to those two resorts).

If the perk only applied to those actually staying at the resort that offered it, it would have made much more sense.

Count me among those who would not be happy to pay higher dues to continue the subsidy.

I agree they could have done a better job implementing the change.