Points change after chart release?

[wrighter]

Was chatting with a fellow DVCer the other day, who is a newbie. He mentioned that they were making reservations at their home resort (AKV) for next March. Staying one week - Saturday to Saturday. He said the ressie was going to take 7 more points than was listed in the 2010 chart. I told him I didn't think they could do that.

Wait! I think I just realized the problem. He's making a ressie for a stay in 2011 - so he should be referencing the 2011 charts! I'm a ding dong.

He wasn't happy that the points could change at all from year to year - a feeling shared my many. Especially newbies who may not have read the details thoroughly.

Just answered my own question. Anyone out there care to weigh in on whether or not I'm on the right track here?

 

[ML_LovesDisney]

From what I have gathered from these boards DVC can reallocate points, but not change how many total points are needed. For example, they made weekday sun-thur more points and weekend less points in 2011. It's still the same amount of points, but if you were planning to save points by going Sun-Thurs, and not Fri, Sat. it may be more points than it was before. Also, I dont think they change point charts every year, although they can if they wanted to.

 

[CarolMN]

Unfortunately, many members did not correctly understand the reallocation provision of the POS and from other reports, it appears that some of the guides didn't explain it properly. Until the 2010 change, DVC only used that provision once - for OKW in the mid 90's, so most members did not go through the process and probably gave the possibility little or no thought.

Without getting into the specific technicalities (there are quite a few - read the POS if you are interested to that degree), the previous poster has the right idea. Simply stated, DVC cannot change the total number of points it would take to reserve every room for every night of the year for a specific DVC resort. It's DVC job to use the point charts to keep the supply and demand for DVC rooms at a sold out resort in relative balance.

Thus, DVC can reallocate the points for a resort to accommodate changing demand patterns. It's DVC job to use the point charts to keep the supply and demand for DVC rooms at a sold out resort in relative balance.

For example, they can increase the number of points it takes to reserve a two bedroom villa at VWL as long as they decrease something else at the VWL such that the net change is zero.

By POS, DVC cannot change the nightly points by more than 15% in any one year. Since they let the skewed demand pattern go on so long, the 15% restriction did not allow them to get things back in balance with just the 2010 change and so made further changes to the 2011 charts. Some think another change will be needed in 2012 to finish the job.

HTH.

 

[needtogomore]

It's DVC job to use the point charts to keep the supply and demand for DVC rooms at a sold out resort in relative balance.
HTH.

If it's DVC'S job would you expect SSR points to fall in line with OKW, as it would appear SSR will never sell out looking at all the resales, or will SSR owners be faced with seeing the massive discounts given to non owners continue, also seeing SSR given away as free upgrades to value resort bookings?.

 

[Dean]

Was chatting with a fellow DVCer the other day, who is a newbie. He mentioned that they were making reservations at their home resort (AKV) for next March. Staying one week - Saturday to Saturday. He said the ressie was going to take 7 more points than was listed in the 2010 chart. I told him I didn't think they could do that.

Wait! I think I just realized the problem. He's making a ressie for a stay in 2011 - so he should be referencing the 2011 charts! I'm a ding dong.

He wasn't happy that the points could change at all from year to year - a feeling shared my many. Especially newbies who may not have read the details thoroughly.

Just answered my own question. Anyone out there care to weigh in on whether or not I'm on the right track here?

A very fair post IMO sumarizing the difference between rules and personal feelings, not to mention, understanding the difference better than many.

If it's DVC'S job would you expect SSR points to fall in line with OKW, as it would appear SSR will never sell out looking at all the resales, or will SSR owners be faced with seeing the massive discounts given to non owners continue, also seeing SSR given away as free upgrades to value resort bookings?.

Not for that reason. The job being referred to is the relative demand at a given resort during the year and this is somewhat contractual. I do personally think they have a responsibility to try to even demand somewhat between resorts but I realize it's not contractual and that the 7 month window and Wait list will do that to some degree as well. I do agree that the SSR points were slightly optimistic and should have been a little lower than they were but then I think the same thing about VWL and BLT as well.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I wonder if one of the issues at SSR might be an increase in dues if it remains not sold out?

 

[dvc_john]

If it's DVC'S job would you expect SSR points to fall in line with OKW, as it would appear SSR will never sell out looking at all the resales

Just to set the record straight:

SSR was technically sold out until they added THV's.

Timehare store shows approx 3 times as many SSR resales as BCV, but since SSR is more than 4 times the size of BCV, by comparison, the number of resales is not out of line. Just an example.

 

[DebbieB]

I wonder if one of the issues at SSR might be an increase in dues if it remains not sold out?

I don't think they could legally increase dues to support the unsold points that DVD owns.

 

[Dean]

I wonder if one of the issues at SSR might be an increase in dues if it remains not sold out?

SSR had a lot of points for sale even without THV. The owner of those points has to pay the dues even if owned by teh developer, in the absence of a developer subsidy, no way to shift the costs in this situation. Now had they not declared all the "units", there could have been an incremental shift (see VB).