?'s about buying at resort you don't want to stay at...

[lisaviolet]

It's already been said but I'll second it:

Know what kind of planner you are and go from there. I will hardly ever use the 8/9/10/11 months out to book a trip. It's just not me. I haven't done it yet and can't see being that organized.

So if you are like me....really unless Disney changes something...the "buy where you want to stay" has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. And if they do change something I'm okay staying at my home resort.

But if you are a planner and organized and your job/life allows you to be able to book 8-11 months out (remember often without changes to absolutely ensure you keep that coveted resort during these prime times) and had a specific resort that you adored more than the rest than "buy where you want to stay" is excelllent advice.

For example, I think about this when I think about the possibility of VofCR. I would love to own there if it ever comes to pass. Love to. But sometimes despite me wanting and wanting reality comes in and I think "Lisa are you going to use the 8/11 month window that often?" cause at 7 months (at this point in DVC history) we are all equal. We just wouldn't take advantage of the advanced window. And like I said if you need to make changes after using the 8-11 you might lose your first choice anyway. And sometimes life makes these changes necessary.

So figure out how you will use your DVC and go from there. Sometimes "buy where you want to stay" is not a factor.


Best of luck on your decision.

 

[crisi]

. There is room for us all.
DAVE

The math however, doesn't agree.

It is an imbalance in size problem, and people who get on the phone day by day at seven months, may never have a problem, even at prime time. But those wanting to stay at smaller resorts and don't want to do the dialing derby, will.

Here is the math. For the sake of the math, we assume that everyone, no matter what their home is, wants to switch resorts at a 20% rate - i.e. 80% of members stay at home, 20% desire a switch, regardless of their ownership. This is really in the interest of keeping the arguement away from "BCV is more popular" and "SSR is really very nice." We can't quantify that, and frankly, when I run the numbers, it doesn't make that much difference unless someone wants to claim SSR is 4 or 5 times as popular as VWL.

At SSR, the largest resort, there are 828 rooms available 365 nights a year for 302,220 room nights. If 20% of members don't book SSR, there are 60444 rooms available. If the remaining member want to switch in at the same rate equally among all resorts (i.e. 20% of BW members, 20% of BCV members etc all want to switch and divide their stay equally among the non home resorts (HHI and VB weren't included when I did this over a year ago) they will want to book 22,959 rooms at SSR.

Same math, other direction with the smallest resort - VWL at 136 rooms (numbers vary depending on how you count the lockoffs) - 49640 room nights, 20% available to non home owners for 9928 room nights, and 35588 members wanting those rooms.

Lets add resorts. Lets add the VCR with - oh say 250 rooms....adding that makes the surplus at SSR go up to 32923, and the deficit at VWL down to 30222 rooms - but non VCR owners are fighting over a deficit of 19819 room nights. Eagle Pines - suspected to be another large resort - could be 500 units. - surplus at SSR of 28360 rooms, deficit at VWL of 34784, surplus at EP of 1569.

Upshot, if I really want VWL, I'm going to do the dialing derby, since my home is BWV. But if I really want VWL regularly and I don't want to be bothered playing the dialing derby, I'd buy my points there. But if I really like SSR, it doesn't matter where I own, they will have surplus inventory until late in the booking cycle.


Now, it may take years for most members who don't hang on these boards (and aren't geeky enough to create Excel spreadsheets to see what the surplus/deficit balance is) to figure out that they need to call early or risk getting frozen out. And I suspect some getting lucky that has been reported has more to do with a process flaw in how the waitlist works than there actually being availability (I think the waitlist batch processes once a day - probably at night - but rooms are returned to inventory immediately, and if I cancel my reservation in the morning, and you call in the afternoon, anyone on the waitlist doesn't have a shot at it - its booked before the waitlist is checked and I suspect a system upgrade will - in the next 35 years - close that hole.)

 

[Beca]

Now, it may take years for most members who don't hang on these boards (and aren't geeky enough to create Excel spreadsheets to see what the surplus/deficit balance is) to figure out that they need to call early or risk getting frozen out. And I suspect some getting lucky that has been reported has more to do with a process flaw in how the waitlist works than there actually being availability (I think the waitlist batch processes once a day - probably at night - but rooms are returned to inventory immediately, and if I cancel my reservation in the morning, and you call in the afternoon, anyone on the waitlist doesn't have a shot at it - its booked before the waitlist is checked and I suspect a system upgrade will - in the next 35 years - close that hole.)

Wow...I did not know that about waitlists!! If I ever need to get on a waitlist again, I am going to keep the phone lines "hot". I just assumed before a room is returned to inventory, that it was automatically checked against the waitlist. Surely DVC can get on the ball with this one!!

Also, I think a lot of the "luck" that people have been experiencing is due to the large amount of points that owners "waste" each year. This is making it easier for people to get rooms at the smaller resorts. But, as the membership grows, these "wasted points" will more and more be shuffled to the larger resorts as there will be more member trying to get into the smaller resorts. I'm not sure that makes sense...let me try again. If 10% of points are just wasted each year, then that should free up 10% of the points at each resort (assuming an equal amount of "wasting" is done by all of the ownership. That frees up 10% of the rooms at every resort. When there are 90,000 members trying for the spaces those points free up, the chances are higher that someone might get an empty room at a smaller resort. But since the number of rooms available is NOT increasing at the smallest resorts,when there is 200,000 members, that 10% becomes a much smaller piece of the pie (i.e. that 10% is a set number, but the number of people who might be trying to trade into that 10% gets bigger and bigger every year). That inevitably means that people will have less and less success trading into the smaller resorts, because the 10% of wasted points at VWL and BCV will never get bigger.

As DVC grows, you have the potential of getting into more resorts, but your actual chances of getting into one specific resort go down....that's just a matter of statistics. What you are dealing with is a finite number of rooms available to non-owners, and an unknown demand for these rooms. If DVC's next two properties are Contemporary and the Poly....well, I would say that the demand for the current smaller resorts (VWL and BCV) may well be eased, as owners have stated the appeal of these resorts is enormous. However, if DVC's next two properties are a 500+ room resort at Eagle Pines, and a similar resort which does not have direct (i.e. walking or monorail) access to a park...I would say demand for the smaller properties is going to become even more of an issue.

So, once again we are dealing with a question of finite rooms and unknown demand. If DVC were not expanding, and had written into our contracts that NO more properties after SSR would be built, I would say the "buy where you want to stay" theory is basically bull (except for SV and BW view rooms at BWV), if you are comfortable calling day-by-day at the 7 month window. However, the future is completely unknown. That's why I cannot comfortably recommend to anyone that trading resorts is something they should plan on doing for the next 37 years...I leave that line to DVC guides.

Bottom line...people should do with their money what makes them happy. I have owned at BWV, OKW, VWL and BCV. I sold all but BCV and purchased more points there. Why? Because I believe in my heart that getting into BCV on a regular basis when I do not own there is already more trouble than I am willing to deal with, and may become near to impossible in the future. I want to invest my money on something that I "know" will make me happy, not on something which would have conditions in order for me to be happy. I do not espouse the "buy where you want to stay" theory because I do not want people trading into my resort, but because I believed it so strongly that I sold my other resorts to ensure my future happiness. Therefore, how could I, in good faith recommend anything different to anyone else? I would feel like a hypocrite.



Beca

 

[MrShiny]

I'm sure this has been covered but I couldn't find what I was looking for. What is the general opinion of buying resale at a "cheaper" resort, with the goal to get a more "expensive" resort at the 7 month window? We usually travel in September, so I think the 7 mo. timeframe would still work. Is this considered cheating the system or is it done??

Just for example, buy at OKW or VB, but make ressies at WLV or BCV.

Thanks!

It is allowed, and works well in off season (unless you want a grand villa). Be careful what you consider "cheaper" though. VB or instance I believe has relatively high fees.

 

[fishermouse]

Couple things to consider, not everyone books 8 to 11 months out, in which case home resort does not matter. Lots of folks like myself no longer have small children so peak season is never an option. I've been there in July and August "never again" If the peak seasons change so will my travel times. On the ocasion you do want to book 11 months out just book your home resort then at 7 months try to change if you want to. Personally I always book my home resort if it's more than 7 months and love staying there, If I book with less time sometimes as little as a weeks notice I ask whats available and take it. All the resorts are Great after all they are DISNEY....

 

[Daitcher]

The math however, doesn't agree.

It is an imbalance in size problem, and people who get on the phone day by day at seven months, may never have a problem, even at prime time. But those wanting to stay at smaller resorts and don't want to do the dialing derby, will.

Here is the math. For the sake of the math, we assume that everyone, no matter what their home is, wants to switch resorts at a 20% rate - i.e. 80% of members stay at home, 20% desire a switch, regardless of their ownership. This is really in the interest of keeping the arguement away from "BCV is more popular" and "SSR is really very nice." We can't quantify that, and frankly, when I run the numbers, it doesn't make that much difference unless someone wants to claim SSR is 4 or 5 times as popular as VWL.

At SSR, the largest resort, there are 828 rooms available 365 nights a year for 302,220 room nights. If 20% of members don't book SSR, there are 60444 rooms available. If the remaining member want to switch in at the same rate equally among all resorts (i.e. 20% of BW members, 20% of BCV members etc all want to switch and divide their stay equally among the non home resorts (HHI and VB weren't included when I did this over a year ago) they will want to book 22,959 rooms at SSR.

Same math, other direction with the smallest resort - VWL at 136 rooms (numbers vary depending on how you count the lockoffs) - 49640 room nights, 20% available to non home owners for 9928 room nights, and 35588 members wanting those rooms.

Lets add resorts. Lets add the VCR with - oh say 250 rooms....adding that makes the surplus at SSR go up to 32923, and the deficit at VWL down to 30222 rooms - but non VCR owners are fighting over a deficit of 19819 room nights. Eagle Pines - suspected to be another large resort - could be 500 units. - surplus at SSR of 28360 rooms, deficit at VWL of 34784, surplus at EP of 1569.

Upshot, if I really want VWL, I'm going to do the dialing derby, since my home is BWV. But if I really want VWL regularly and I don't want to be bothered playing the dialing derby, I'd buy my points there. But if I really like SSR, it doesn't matter where I own, they will have surplus inventory until late in the booking cycle.


Now, it may take years for most members who don't hang on these boards (and aren't geeky enough to create Excel spreadsheets to see what the surplus/deficit balance is) to figure out that they need to call early or risk getting frozen out. And I suspect some getting lucky that has been reported has more to do with a process flaw in how the waitlist works than there actually being availability (I think the waitlist batch processes once a day - probably at night - but rooms are returned to inventory immediately, and if I cancel my reservation in the morning, and you call in the afternoon, anyone on the waitlist doesn't have a shot at it - its booked before the waitlist is checked and I suspect a system upgrade will - in the next 35 years - close that hole.)

Crisi,

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I do not travel peak periods and never will. I have not had any problem booking at 7 months or less. I also do not call day by day. All I'm trying to do here is let the OP know that 7 month booking has not been a problem for us. Others have provided specific reasons for buying where you want to stay. If those reasons apply to someone, go for it. I'm not trying to sway anyone against the buy where you want to stay tactic. By all means do that if you want. It just is meanlingless to a whole group of us and may be meaningless to the OP depending on his or her circumstances. Again your numbers were neat to read but I just haven't seen it play out the way you suggest as of yet.


DAVE

 

[crisi]

Crisi,

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I do not travel peak periods and never will. I have not had any problem booking at 7 months or less. I also do not call day by day. All I'm trying to do here is let the OP know that 7 month booking has not been a problem for us. Others have provided specific reasons for buying where you want to stay. If those reasons apply to someone, go for it. I'm not trying to sway anyone against the buy where you want to stay tactic. By all means do that if you want. It just is meanlingless to a whole group of us and may be meaningless to the OP depending on his or her circumstances. Again your numbers were neat to read but I just haven't seen it play out the way you suggest as of yet.


DAVE

You have a sample size of a few trips under your belt and a crystal ball as good as any of ours as to what the future will bring for off season or future DVC resorts and booking patterns (we bought only five years ago, and travel in October. I never expected I'd need to call day by day for October reservations to be assured a standard view BWV room when we bought - but with F&W being pushed back, and October being much more popular than it was five years ago, I anticipate I'll need to do just that for our next trip). I don't think its good advice to say that what you experienced can be expected for the next 35 years and that others will have "no problem" - the math doesn't hold up. Particularly as more people buy resorts they'd rather not stay at and expect "no problem" while others buy BCV resales at a premium for the home resort advantage - it has all the signs of disappointment for those who don't own where they want to stay. While I really hope everyone can book where they want to stay without need to book more than 7 months out, the only dependable advice I can give people is that they are contractually guarenteed a home resort advantage for a booking window. If its important to stay most of the time at any of the smaller resorts - particularly BCV and VWL (and any special view requests at BWV), buy there. If it isn't and you'd be happy to stay anywhere - or you can't plan more than 7 months out - it doesn't matter where you buy. If it is, but the lower dues/longer contract at SSR is appealing - then you have to balance your wants.

 

[crisi]

Beca, I don't know about the waitlists, I just suspect about the waitlist. Too many stories of "I got {insert in demand room} for {few nights during high demand period} at four months out" coupled with the waitlist threads and something isn't adding up. Also, too many people finding out they got their waitlisted room when they called - and not enough calls coming. Either we bug MS a lot, or something is broken in that process. But its a hunch, not an analysis of threads or inside knowledge of DVC process.

 

[TCPluto]

We bought at VB in '99 with every intent of staying on property for the most part. We have never had a problem getting on property at any of the resorts, including BCV.

The only thing we haven't tried at the 7 month window with our offiste points is BCV or BWV during a major holiday; every other time period has been completely successful.

Our experience bears out "buy where you can get the best deal".