RESTRICTED - Home resort use only.

[rinkwide]

OK, technically DVD has the right to restrict members to their home resort. A poster brought this up and, at first glance, I thought this was just another DVC doomsayer reveling in the possible elimination of another perk i.e. refillable mugs, pool hopping, valet parking, banking/borrowing, ect.

But as a practical matter, would they really do it? What scenario might make such a policy change necessary?

 

[Dean]

It's VERY unlikely to happen. What has some merrit to discuss is if a single resort drops out either due to damage or a vote of the members there. They could more likely change the home resort window but IMO, this has little long term affect overall.

 

[RobDoc]

One scenario (and the only one I think would cause the change) would be if the owners at any DVC resort voted to remove DVC as the management of the property. Owners do have that ability- and if they chose to take that route, they would then lose the ability to internally exchange with any of the other remianing DVC resorts and would be restricted to their home resort plus any exchange opportunities afforded by their new chosen management.

That resort would also likely lose all amenities currently provided by Disney and DVC (transportation, maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, MS, discounts, Disney collection, Concierge Collection, World Passport ) and would be "free" to negotiate those same things independently. (I'm sure those negotiations would be an easy task!)

I can't think of any other scenario where a member at a DVC resort would be likely lose the ability to reserve at other DVC resorts. The clause is there to protect Disney/DVC, but (IMHO) is not a likely thing to happen.

.02

 

[Rence]

There has also been some speculation that in the final years, as 2042 approaches they may limit or otherwise restrict reservations at non-home resorts, along with possibliy limitng or restriciting banking and borrowing.

 

[tjkraz]

As I said in the other post, what would be DVC's logic for doing this? They would lose the ability to tell prospective members "you can book at ANY DVC resort", and they would upset the thousands who are already members.

In order to make a decision like that, there needs to be some benefit to DVC. What is it?

Also, I'm curious. In your post you said "OK, technically DVD has the right to restrict members to their home resort." I'm not going to bother pulling out my paperwork to verify this statement. Would you care to quote the language the gives DVC the ability to make this change? I know that as an SSR owner, my paperwork specifically states that I cannot use OKW, BCV, etc. after 2042 when those resorts' contracts expire. But I'm curious as to exactly what language in the agreements has you thinking such a change is possible.

 

[crisi]

If it becomes more bother than its worth.

If customer satisfaction were to drop because the majority of people trying to book a non-home resort at seven months didn't manage to do so, they may drop the program.

If it get so expensive to administer a bunch of seven month reservation switches that the dues increase, and membership riots over the dues and DVC says "a significant percentage goes to this - we can cut this and lower dues by X%."

I think both are unlikely - but if booking non-home resorts becomes either a customer satisfaction quagmire or too expensive.

 

[tjkraz]

Originally posted by crisi
If it becomes more bother than its worth.

If customer satisfaction were to drop because the majority of people trying to book a non-home resort at seven months didn't manage to do so, they may drop the program.

So it's better to eliminate resort sharing altogether rather than to disappoint some people?

Do you really think that level of "customer satisfaction" would be anything compared to the revolt that would occur when people found out they could only book their stays at one resort?

If it get so expensive to administer a bunch of seven month reservation switches that the dues increase, and membership riots over the dues and DVC says "a significant percentage goes to this - we can cut this and lower dues by X%."

Not a chance, IMO. Besides, on-line bookings are an inevitibility--whether it's 6 months or 6 years down the road, it will be here eventually. Then people can make their own on-line switches ad nauseum.

With SSR I'm thinking there will be somewhere upward of 25,000,000 points in the system. That means that just one penny per point represents $250,000 annually toward the operating costs of DVC. You can hire an awful lot of telephone operators for just a couple pennies per point.

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... if ths were to happen. Regardless of what the contract fine print states, our Guides made it quite clear that we could buy at one,stay at all. It wasn't presented as a perk or a limited time offer as the park passes were. It was presented as an integral componant of our ownership.

 

[crisi]

Read again please....

If more people end up disappointed than happy, they may choose to drop the program, it being more bother than its worth. In which case it wouldn't be disappointing most to keep a few happy, it would be disappointing everyone for a brief period of time to keep on going complaints down. i.e. If 100 people a year currently scream to DVC about not being able to switch, that's fine. If its 40,000 out of 80,000 members, that's a problem. Change the terms (as per contract) and you'll have 60,000 people scream very loudly for a year, then have a couple thousand never let go - but it's better than the 40,000 every year.

These numbers are, of course, ridiculous, and only used for purposes of illustration. But someone asked why would they. This would be one reason they might.

They might choose to do something like this if a very popular resort were to open - say VCR - that everyone wanted to book and never left its honeymoon period - especially if they didn't balance points. 80,000 people yelling at you every year because they wanted to book the Contemporary but it wasn't available wouldn't be a pleasant customer service situation.

I'm not saying its better. Although, if your short term screaming outpaces your longterm screaming, it is (see OKW pool slide debate).

And, while I don't think online reservations are anywhere as close as six months down the road (although we should be able to see our point balance and maybe do banking transactions in that time period), I also don't think administering resort swapping would ever get so expensive as to make it sensible to drop in. Once again, an extreme "what if" scenario.

I have been informed that this is impossible but if DVC were to sell off some resorts but not others (for instance, VB and HH - or even OKW or sell BW and BC to the Swan/Dolphin folks, or something) those resorts would no longer participate in swapping. You would still have your ownership, but only in your home resort. During the Comcast discussions, the possibility that DVC would be divested was brought up. That's always a possibility, however remote, even if Disney continues to be Disney. A new owner may not choose to maintain the program.

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... I don't doubt that some members complain when they can't get into a non-home resort using the 7 month window but I believe they are in the minority.

Most of us understand that getting into a non-home resort is a crap shoot. You get in- great. You don't, oh well better luck next time, I'll just stay at the resort I own.

I have no problem not getting into a non-home resort because it's owners have it booked up, but I have a SERIOUS problem if I no longer had the oppotunity to try and I believe there are enough members out there who feel the same way. So many in fact that it could get very expensive for Disney.

 

[PamOKW]

I doubt that will happen. DVC had language about the sharing of resorts when anything beyond OKW (aka Disney Vacation Club) was just a glimmer in Michael Eisner's eye.

What is more likely to happen is the pushing back of the home resort advantage. This can be reduced to as little as a month. DVC did run this by in a survey many years ago and didn't take action. However, they could go this route if they choose. That would help address the problem of the 7-month "shift".

 

[tjkraz]

crisi:

I got your point, but it seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.

With the system as it stands now, there will always be people that want to trade out of their home resort. As long as DVC facilitates the ability to trade, they admittedly have zero control over availability. And it doesn't change the fact that allowing people to book non-Home resorts is still operating in the interests of the greater good.

Two options:

1. Eliminate resort sharing altogether.

2. Keep resort sharing, with the understanding that rooms at some resorts MAY Be harder and harder to book over time.

I have to think that the vast majority of current and future owners would choose option #2.

 

[PamOKW]

Keep in mind that if we become restricted to our own resorts, there will likely be even fiecer competition for certain times of the year and no demand for others. It is much more likely that people could end up not getting a room at all if they can't travel during the available time periods. Making this shift will surely create more headaches for Disney rather than lessen any problems.

 

[mel&me]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
..... if ths were to happen. Regardless of what the contract fine print states, our Guides made it quite clear that we could buy at one,stay at all. It wasn't presented as a perk or a limited time offer as the park passes were. It was presented as an integral componant of our ownership.

Class action suit would be useless.
Yes, it is a perk
It states that they can at any time take this away.
It is not hidden in fine print, and is clearly stated
in the agreement that everyone who buys, signs.
I knew this before I bought in, I read the agreement,
Failure to read does not mean it does not apply.

 

[Dean]

can picture a class action suit......

..... if ths were to happen. Regardless of what the contract fine print states, our Guides made it quite clear that we could buy at one,stay at all. It wasn't presented as a perk or a limited time offer as the park passes were. It was presented as an integral componant of our ownership.

Not a leg to stand on, it would be thrown out even before it got started. Verbal representations have gone to court many times from what I've been told with negative results. Verbal respresentations not in a written contract never happened.

If more people end up disappointed than happy, they may choose to drop the program, it being more bother than its worth. In which case it wouldn't be disappointing most to keep a few happy, it would be disappointing everyone for a brief period of time to keep on going complaints down. i.e. If 100 people a year currently scream to DVC about not being able to switch, that's fine. If its 40,000 out of 80,000 members, that's a problem. Change the terms (as per contract) and you'll have 60,000 people scream very loudly for a year, then have a couple thousand never let go - but it's better than the 40,000 every year.

It's not a question of bother, but the rules. This is not something that could directly happen. What could happen if there were so many extra calls with people complaining would be an increase in dues to have enough staff to answer the phone.

I have been informed that this is impossible but if DVC were to sell off some resorts but not others (for instance, VB and HH - or even OKW or sell BW and BC to the Swan/Dolphin folks, or something) those resorts would no longer participate in swapping. You would still have your ownership, but only in your home resort. During the Comcast discussions, the possibility that DVC would be divested was brought up. That's always a possibility, however remote, even if Disney continues to be Disney. A new owner may not choose to maintain the program.

DVC couldn't sell a resort, it's owned by the owners once sold out. What they could do is sell the management contract, which would eliminate the resort from the DVC club.

 

[crisi]

The lease is owned by the owners. Disney still owns the property. We own a lease on that property. But you are right, they are more likely to sell the management contract than the property.

 

[d-r]

I think I'd like to see them lower the seven month window to something like three months. Make non-home resort booking a last minute sort of thing, and give people a longer window to book at their home resorts.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

I don't see it happening.

1) Swapping resorts doesn't cost DVC anything.
2) Owners can still make 11-month ressies.
3) Swapping goes a long way to promote other DVC sales.
4) Point values might diminish without swapping ability.

 

[pumpkinboy]

Darn and I was hoping the DVC on Mars thread would be coming back, as that is nearly as likely as the suspension non-home-resort booking.

:space:
Can't wait to visit the Red Planet on my DVC points!

 

[KNWVIKING]

I wouldn't get too creative with the animated smileys if I were you. Why ? you ask...... Well, there used to be a poster here who was great with the smileys, now he's gone.