Points for Disney Collection 2002

[prplcrzy]

Vernon, you have to be kidding right? I mean do you really think that the DC is the only flexible part of this whole thing? Listen, I really feel bad for the people who rely on this program, but if you argument is that if due to work commitments or family health issues there is no other flexibility I have to completely disagree.

I mean they haven't taken away banking or borrowing points have they? They haven't taken away being able to trade your points with interval international have they? They haven't taken away the DC have they? You aren't locked into one week to vacation unless you can trade it off with someone else, are you?

The answer to all of these questions is no, the only thing they have done is raise the point value (price) on something they must not have been showing enough of a profit on.

Do you think that your local restaurant is duty bound to keep their prices the same? If they did don't you think they would go out of bsiness if they didn't make enough of a profit? Don't you think that the Disney management is duty bound and Honour bound to a certain rate of return to their shareholders. If something isn't working for them they just increased the price to decrease the demand or get a better return.

I again have to point to my earlier post and remind those reading this that the DC while offered as an option because it was negotiated at the time, was never intended to be part of the program. If it was sold to you this way then you have issues with your guide, not Disney. I'm sure if a particular guide sold this tooo you as a perminent part of the program then he or she is in some pretty big trouble.

As for "rose tinted specs" If you believed something that was not in writing when you plunked down $10,000, I am trying to figure out who was wearing them at the time that happened.

I have to say that I am not happy about any increase in points or price, I just don't understand how anyone can be upset about them doing this since it is stated that they can do this. Just because I will probably never use this option doesn't mean that I have to like this increase. I can understand why it was done and since they thought this might happen and even thought enough to cover themselves by stating they could eliminate it, shows that they are trying to make it work so that people can still have this option, and not saying "screw them, they can't do this anymore, were not making money on it."

I agree it is terrible that they did it this way, they should have given more notice. But they didn't and that is probably because someone made a mistake. I have never felt that they are putting the screws to me, but sometimes people do make mistakes.

I will hold them to the contract and I know they will hold me to it as well. I have no problem with that. If I didn't do my homework then I will be unhappy with things that appear unfair.

 

[normr]

Some people will let Disney walk all over them, by raising points for DCollection stays and getting away with it, then what do you think they'll do next, raise the points for CC stays and then raise the points for DCruise, then what options are left, banking points, and the nightmare that can bring, like when all the people borrowed 2000 points in 99 so they could could the last vacation in with passes the place was booked solid.

 

[SwampFox]

Some people will let Disney walk all over them, by raising points for DCollection stays and getting away with it....

Are you also upset with the fact that some other dates were decreased in the DC for 2002?

.......or is that not worth mentioning?

like when all the people borrowed 2000 points in 99 so they could could the last vacation in with passes the place was booked solid.

Yeah, those free passes were really a bad deal. It was really surprising anyone would actually use those passes during the last year of that program.

 

[prplcrzy]

normr, you are kidding right? You are really mad that everyone borrowed points to use the free passes that they were given for buying DVC? You are mad at Disney for that? Really?

Do you get upset when you can't book a reservation at a restaurant for a popular holiday because everyone else already did? Do what most people do, book at another restaurant. If that restaurant is more expensive, well that is the price you pay for wanting to go out to eat at that time. The same applies at DVC. This is the real world and these things happen in the real world.

All I have been reading is how Disney is walking all over people and I have yet to see concrete proof of this from anyone. These point charts are not even out yet and everyone already has made up their mind that Disney is the evil, manipulative devil and that we were all sucked in by their lying and cheating us.

How about some concrete examples to prove your point and not just bad mouthing something with out valid examples to back it up?

You are speculating about the future with no proof from the past. Do you invest in the stock market that way?

 

[coolshells]

Lets not all panic, Points for Disney's Paradise Pier in Ca went down. Just booked for 19 pts down from 22 last year!! So pack your bags CA here we come.
Don't give up on Disney so fast, we have one of the best timeshares on the planet.

Smile it improves your face value.
Daleinkbounc

 

[normr]

The point I was trying to make was that in 99 the DVC resorts were totally booked because of added reservations with people getting in that last pass vacation and if they take take away another booking option (DCollection) by making the points to book unreasonable then it may make it even harder to get reservations when you need them, (more people using just DVC resorts) whereas before people used the DCollection option, in the future people aren't going to freely use up most of their points to do so.

 

[baileybrad]

I don't understand why the DVC is doing something wrong if, in some folk's opinions, they offer options that are not a good deal. I mentioned on a different thread that when we toured back in "93 that we were told by our guide specifically that the DC was another option to making reservations but that it was and is not a good/value-wise use of points and is not inflation protected in a similar manner to the DVC resort--there was only one at the time.

For those that are being led to unhappiness and concern by mostly non-members I say shame on you. For those members that planned on using the DC as primarily a way to use your points...enjoy, but it has always been a lousy way to utilize your points. And for those members that really believe that the DVC is being completely dishonest and you are now extremely unhappy....I would consider selling and then rethink the position once this, imho, uncalled for "uproar" calms down. For those considering buying into the DVC or any timeshare program, weigh your options but consider the quaility of the management company and their track record and for god's sake do not necessarily consider a timeshare purchase a wise financial investment. You get a bit of protection from inflation but many have quite convincingly argued whether you actually save any money over the long haul. It is a personal decision because you are the one coming up with the money.

 

[Richyams]

I really don't care. I have never used DC and probaly never will. Even if the points went down so that an OKW studio was the same as a GF or other room, I bought to stay in the large units, I would still never use DC.

 

[vernon]

prplcrazy, I must be confusing you so I'll have one last go at explaining how I see the situation.

No the WDW hotels aren't the only flexible part of the program, but they are the only other offering at WDW.

I CAN NOT SEE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE I WOULD CHOSE TO USE WDW HOTELS INSTEAD OF A DVC HOTEL, but I can see where I would be forced to if the cover all statement "subject to availability" meant I couldn't get a booking on a DVC property.

BUT the offering of WDW hotels are the ONLY part of the whole scheme that offers an alternative to DVC hotels IF in the very unlikely event that the DVC hotels are all full. I don't want to have to spend 250 points for a 3 day stay IMHO they isn't a serious alternative. I DON'T WANT TO BANK MY POINTS AND GO NEXT YEAR, I want a vacation each year, at WDW, that's why I bought into the scheme.

There seem to be a couple of people understand my point. Basically DVC rooms and other WDW hotel rooms cash prices should increase or decrease at a similar level ANY surcharge increase on the swapping between is unreasonable. IF WDW hotels are effectively priced out of use then there is a risk that it will be impossible to use our points at WDW and IMHO that is what most of us bought into. If I'd wanted to swap into II I'd have bought a different product ( because it would have been cheaper).

People's attitude seems to be " well I'd never want to use that so I don't care" I feel the correct attitude is " I can see a circumstance that I could be forced ( against my wishes) to use that overflow system therefore I should at least take note of it's demise"

To use your own restaurant analogy if I'd paid $5,000 to a restaurant so I could have a steak dinner (or replacement of equal value) every night for the next 10 years I'd be PROPERLY MIFFED if I was told "we're out of steak, you can have a bowl of cereal because that's now the same price as the steak was 9 years ago" .

At the risk of labouring a point. An increase of 8% per year means a room that now costs 25 points would be 543 points FOR ONE NIGHT in 2042. IMHO there should be no "inflationary price increases" on point values.

If this turns out to be ONLY reshuffling i.e. the total costs per year remains roughly constant, I'm happy and I'll revert back to my quiet mild mannered Clark Kent persona. If not I'll make a hell of a lot more noise about it and so should all of you. JMHO

I pray that what I'm trying to say , I've managed to put into words that are understandable to the majority.

 

[prplcrzy]

To use your analogy about the steak dinner, you have it backwards. No one is saying they are out of steak. They are saying with your steak you have a choice of mashed potatoes, baked potato, rice or vegetables. All they are saying is that the rice cost ten cents more because rice went up in price this week. And the steak that you paid $5000 for was choices of several different kinds of steak and that sometimes to keep the product fresh we may not have availability on on or more of the several kinds of steaks that we usually offer. If you paid $5000 for this dinner and had this understanding from the beginning I don't understand what the problem is. While very few other posters may agree with you the vast majority do not, maybe because they had the proper understanding of the timeshare they purchased. It sounds like if you are inflexible as to what you want that the DVC was not for you and you should have purchased a week at another timeshare that you would never have to fight about getting your week at.

I really feel bad that you are upset about this whole thing, but The point charts haven't even come out yet and you are upset about something that may well be even cheaper point wise during a week that you may or may not use. Where you get these figures of 250 points for a three day stay is beyond me since the charts have not even been released yet. If this is the case at an isolated hotel for an isolated weekend, I may not be happy about it, but that's the way it is. If this causes a seriou problem for you then you should consider selling, because you will not be happy if they make other changes during the course of the next 41 years. If this timeshare becomes disappointing to me I will sell it, but the only way that will happen is if I get the feeling they are not living up to the spirit of the contract I signed, not what I think they should do because I think it is wrong.

I really feel bad if this is what you rely on but since it is not the timeshare that you bought, I do not understand how you can be so upset. I am not happy about any increases but as long as I don't feel that I was deceived, I will not get that upset about it. If you feel that you were deceived, you should take it up with your guide or their supervisor, they obviously did not do a good job explaining the DVC to you. If this is the case then I really feel bad for you and would love to help you recoup your investment.

We just have to agree to disagree and move on. We just will not understand each others point and I do have some comfort knowing that quite a few more people understand my point of view than yours. I have to disagree that your point is understood and accepted by the majority. Just read the posts, their are actually only a few people that believe as you do.

I really hope things work out for you and you may actually be surprised at the charts once they come out.

BTW, the DC is not an overflow system, it is an option that you can use until they decide it is no longer an option for you to use.

 

[SwampFox]

Basically DVC rooms and other WDW hotel rooms cash prices should increase or decrease at a similar level ANY surcharge increase on the swapping between is unreasonable.

Why???

I'm not among those who understand your point, but thanks for trying to force feed me again- it is a difficult concept to swallow.

I think that a surcharge is very reasonable, since DVC has to rent the points used in order to pay for the non-DVC room. If it becomes more difficult to rent those points at certain times of the year, I expect the cost to be higher. I don't have any problem with DVC "charging" a users fee to do this and would be upset if my dues were raised to cover the usage of non-DVC resorts by others.

I think of the point differential between DVC and DC resorts as nothing more than a users fee- those who choose to use this option are the one's who will pay for the extra expense. It is just like the extra charge for those who choose to have daily housekeeping. If you feel the cost is too high, then don't use the service. If the value is to your liking then that is your choice.

I have used the CC and found that the value was well worth the point cost. That was my decision. If the point cost was much higher I might not have tried it...or I might have looked for an option which used fewer points. Someone else may never use CC (or any of the programs) and can be perfectly happy with choosing a DVC resort.

 

[vernon]

Please don't feel sorry for me, I love DVC, I'm very happy with what I've done with it and I hope to make a lot more use of it. That doesn't mean I'll accept ANYTHING that comes along if I think it's wrong or if I think it does the membership a disservice. The people at the greatest risk are those tied to school holiday ( which fortunately I'm not).

Please forget the steak analogy that just muddying the already murky waters

Lets stick with some things we know and what we're trying to talk about.
At some hotels ( I believe the moderates) they used to be 25 points per night (weekdays), all year round. Now there will be a high season ( 28 points) and a low season (25 points) that is an increase in total no matter how you work it. IF that is also the way the rest of the collection works it is a rise OVERALL. An overall increase is unreasonable and damaging to all of us IF IT IS CONTINUED on a regular basis.

Where do I get the figure of 250 points for a three day stay ? You (and others) seem to say it is acceptable for the cost in points of a DC room to rise on an annual basis and many people have said 8% per year isn't a bad increase. Let's take an example of a three night stay in a moderate ( low season) so 25 points per night is 75 points in 2002. At 8% annual inflation that will be in 2003 81 points, in 2004 87 points, in 2005 94 points, in 2006 102 points, in 2007 110 points etc etc ( do I have to continue? anyone with an Excel spread sheet can work out that in 20 years it will be over 300 points for that stay and in 2040 it will cost more than 1500 points).

I hope that you are prepared to concede that to accept "inflation" in the points cost means that option will be completely unworkable in just a few years?

My other point is that for ANY FLEXIBLE system such as DVC to work THERE HAS TO BE AN OVERFLOW. IF just 25 % of the owners decide they want to visit in June and July of a certain year what happens? I understand that is unlikely, but it isn't impossible. I understand that legally Disney can't say it will be there "for ever" but it's obvious (to me at least) that they accept there has to be something in place to absorb such a possibility. Otherwise the system collapses. I have never used DC and I don't ever intend using it, but it is an important part of the DVC system. If it didn't exist at usable levels then DVC as a whole is undermined.

In the middle ages the majority of the world thought it was flat. They were wrong, but felt happy being in the majority.

Swampy , I don't have a problem with a surcharge ( it's already in there) I have a problem with the acceptance it is OK for that surcharge to go up in an inflationary manner. Does that explain it?

 

[SwampFox]

Swampy , I don't have a problem with a surcharge ( it's already in there) I have a problem with the acceptance it is OK for that surcharge to go up in an inflationary manner. Does that explain it?

Verny, please show me some evidence of this inflation you keep harping on. It would sure help your statements.

You are trying to base your whole bitter pill (I'm still having a real tough time choking down the concept you keep pushing...and pushing....and pushing) on the report that there was an upward change for 1 month at the GF - and totally disregard the report that other dates actually went down.

As for the "surcharge (it's already in there)" comment, do you not agree that there may be times when DVC points are more difficult to rent (in order to pay for the non-DVC use)? ...or do you think DVC (and thus the members) should have to foot the bill for any inability to rent the rooms during a difficult economy? Where do you think the funds come from to pay for the non-DVC rental?

To pick out one piece of data and apply it to the whole equation without also acknowledging the other data is pretty senseless. If you insist that your equation is appropriate (as you have repeatedly) then we should use your same scenario except use the % of downward change. That makes your entire point pretty valueless- not much reason to complain about an increase in a DVC benefit, is there??

"The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling"-- Chicken Little (and Verny)

 

[normr]

There are a few people who want to ridicule some who are expressing their views, if we feel that it is wrong for DVC to be constantly doing things that affect or change the program, then I beleive Pete has given us the right to express our views.

When DVC keeps making little changes in various programs which hurt us, then even if there a few of us that aren't happy with it, we have the right to post our complaints.

At what point are you going to finally get upset that DVC has changed the intent of the program, when they stop or curtail pool hopping, raise the points for exchanges, etc.

 

[SwampFox]

At what point are you going to finally get upset that DVC has changed the intent of the program, when they stop or curtail pool hopping, raise the points for exchanges, etc.

Every opposite viewpoint is not a personal attack. If Vernon, as a moderator, feels anyone has violated any guidelines, I suspect he knows what to do to correct the situation.

It appears that some disagree that the "intent" of the program has been changed (I certainly do). Programs like pool hopping and exchanges are already clearly identified as "subject to change" in all DVC documents. So until the contractual components of DVC are changed, many may not get upset at all, as they already understood that these other options could be changed.

My point above, is that there is no evidence yet that any change has taken place which "will hurt us" and that reported evidence (from the same source that reported the increase) about some dates requiring fewer points has been conveniently ignored in the explanation about the terrible things DVC has done.

A little balance is appropriate. If some are allowed to post negative comments and doom, then others may also post evidence to the contrary. It is then up to the reader to make the decision about how they are affected by the supposed changes.

It's sort of like an election- you can listen to BOTH sides and select which appeals more.

 

[prplcrzy]

No one is ridiculing anyone, just pointing out that the sky is not falling.

The point is that people are complaining about something that hasn't happend yet and as Swampy pointed out, no evidence to back it up.

Swampy summed it up with the point that using one piece of data to prove a point of systematic change and taking privilages away is not proving anything except that the sky is really not falling unless there is evidence to prove it.

Did I get it right Swampy? You don't mind me calling you Swampy do you?

No one is ridculing someone elses point of view, just pointing out that you should reserve judgement until the facts are in. The sky isn't falling until it really hits you in the head and you can see it was actually a piece of the sky and not an acorn from the tree above.

 

[prplcrzy]

Awesome last post Swampy (he says as he offers his hand high in the air for a high five!!!)

 

[vernon]

From my previous post

"IF that is also the way the rest of the collection works it is a rise OVERALL. An overall increase is unreasonable and damaging to all of us IF IT IS CONTINUED on a regular basis."

Two IFS in there and I hope that explains that I am open to the idea, indeed hoping, that this isn't the case but on initial viewing there seems to be more "ups" than "downs", even those that don't mind the increase accept it is in the region of 37 % which as someone mentioned that is the first move in 4 years I've gone with 8% per year.

There have been many people that think an "inflationary increase " is acceptable I don't.
Maybe if I put it in terms of the number of nights at OKW a moderate room "costs " it would explain why I think it is ridiculous to accept the idea that inflation is acceptable. I ( and many others) bought DVC as a hedge against future hotel costs, it's not much of a hedge if you allow "inflation PLUS X % increase".

For this point I'm using a studio. Disney in some shape or form has the chance to rent out the DVC unit for whatever they get. Personally I can't see ANY CIRCUMSTANCES they don't break even on 3 nights use of DVC for a moderate. Swampfox can you use a spread sheet? If not I'll email you the individual increases for each year. This is what it means for a "acceptable rate of 8% per year increase"

2002 one night in a moderate = 25 points = 3 nights at OKW
2005 one night in a moderate = 31points = 3.5 nights at OKW
2010 one night in a moderate = 46points = 6 nights at OKW
2020 one night in a moderate = 99 points = 12 nights at OKW
2030 one night in a moderate = 215 points = 26 nights at OKW
2040 one night in a moderate = 465 points = 58 nights at OKW

If you accept that "inflationary" rises are acceptable you are saying that Disney needs more and more DVC nights to break even, they don't !! Do you now understand why I don't think inflation should come into DVC/DC swaps ? Do you really think that swapping 12 nights at OKW for one at a moderate is acceptable? or is your limit 26 nights, or 58 nights? Does that format of explaination work for you?

I'm not saying the sky is falling, I might be saying there is a BLOODY GREAT BIG ROCK COMING YOUR WAY and if you don't open your eyes/ take your head out the sand it might squash you/a lot of us. If you look and are happy with the tragectory, fine.

 

[prplcrzy]

Vernon, I appreciate your point but you are making assumptions that have not happened and are not proven by past point charts. If you had a history, I could accept those numbers, but until then you have absolutely no basis for these numbers you are posting and I think I was just hit by an acorn.

Ouch!!!

 

[PamOKW]

The only thing we can basically see from historic point charts is that until now a workable trade system was set up between DVC and WDW resorts. The swap of "X" DVC nights for "X" resort nights was working. It was also allowing the resorts to provide the DVC guest most, if not all, of the time with the best non-Concierge/suite room available.

All we know so far is that some major adjustments have been made to this system for the first time since the start of the program. Three levels of accomodations have been instituted. The good news is that a person will know they are trading "X" DVC points for a garden view room and won't be disappointed. We also have the option for Concierge that many have requested.

However, it is prudent to not to just take the changes at face value as being in our interest but look over the charts and be sure that we continue to be treated fairly. I am hopeful that we will. However, if something raises a red flag, discussion here and with DVC should be enouraged not discouraged as some kind of "disloyalty" to the program.