Should DVC eliminate walking?

[Maistre Gracey]

The biggest issue you seem to ignore is that you find the system unfair as it currently is (though don’t own DVC anymore, did you even under the current system?). However the prior system was inherently unfair.

So let’s draw a hypothetical in that there are 10 rooms exactly available for 12/10-12/15 and 11 hypothetical owners interested in this rooms. 10 of the owners want the room 12/10-12/14 and the last wants 12/10-12/15.

Under the current system walking wouldn’t really be needed for that ratio of demand vs supply. Sure one could walk but it marginally improves your odds, though remember all owners can walk if they chose so fair on that front but let’s pretend walking is magically made to go away. This on 1/10 all 11 owners are eligible to book their stay and have equal and fair chance at booking.

Under the old system 10 of the owners can book their stays 1/14 thus all the rooms are now gone 12/10-12/14 so the last owner can’t book ever their intended stay. Again assuming day by day isn’t needed because you assume the need for day by day goes hand and hand with the need for walking. So this system is inherently detrimental to longer DVC stays.

Edit: day by day was never the intended way to book a room and was still “cheating” because it was to be 11 months from your check out day. You really are just choosing which “cheating” you are comfortable with to justify switching back. I think @zavandor showed well why the current walking is a preferred method of “cheating” over the day by day method.

Will respond later when I have more time..

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Wrong. Everyone hate the old system much more than walking. Disney included.

Not everyone.

 

[zavandor]

Not everyone.

I haven't read any member liking the old system. "Everyone" is a good approximation.

 

[10CJ]

Booking day by day and then having to call member services to combine seems way more complicated and time consuming than walking. I would not consider that a wash.

 

[Sandisw]

The biggest issue you seem to ignore is that you find the system unfair as it currently is (though don’t own DVC anymore, did you even under the current system?). However the prior system was inherently unfair.

So let’s draw a hypothetical in that there are 10 rooms exactly available for 12/10-12/15 and 11 hypothetical owners interested in this rooms. 10 of the owners want the room 12/10-12/14 and the last wants 12/10-12/15.

Under the current system walking wouldn’t really be needed for that ratio of demand vs supply. Sure one could walk but it marginally improves your odds, though remember all owners can walk if they chose so fair on that front but let’s pretend walking is magically made to go away. This on 1/10 all 11 owners are eligible to book their stay and have equal and fair chance at booking.

Under the old system 10 of the owners can book their stays 1/14 thus all the rooms are now gone 12/10-12/14 so the last owner can’t book ever their intended stay. Again assuming day by day isn’t needed because you assume the need for day by day goes hand and hand with the need for walking. So this system is inherently detrimental to longer DVC stays.

Edit: day by day was never the intended way to book a room and was still “cheating” because it was to be 11 months from your check out day. You really are just choosing which “cheating” you are comfortable with to justify switching back. I think @zavandor showed well why the current walking is a preferred method of “cheating” over the day by day method.

Like the way this is put. No system will be perfect, and people will find a way around it to enhance their chances,

 

[Maistre Gracey]

The biggest issue you seem to ignore is that you find the system unfair as it currently is (though don’t own DVC anymore, did you even under the current system?). However the prior system was inherently unfair.

So let’s draw a hypothetical in that there are 10 rooms exactly available for 12/10-12/15 and 11 hypothetical owners interested in this rooms. 10 of the owners want the room 12/10-12/14 and the last wants 12/10-12/15.

Under the current system walking wouldn’t really be needed for that ratio of demand vs supply. Sure one could walk but it marginally improves your odds, though remember all owners can walk if they chose so fair on that front but let’s pretend walking is magically made to go away. This on 1/10 all 11 owners are eligible to book their stay and have equal and fair chance at booking.

Under the old system 10 of the owners can book their stays 1/14 thus all the rooms are now gone 12/10-12/14 so the last owner can’t book ever their intended stay. Again assuming day by day isn’t needed because you assume the need for day by day goes hand and hand with the need for walking. So this system is inherently detrimental to longer DVC stays.

Edit: day by day was never the intended way to book a room and was still “cheating” because it was to be 11 months from your check out day. You really are just choosing which “cheating” you are comfortable with to justify switching back. I think @zavandor showed well why the current walking is a preferred method of “cheating” over the day by day method.

That’s incorrect. The owner that wants 12/10-12/15 can book at the exact same time as the folks who want 12/10-12/14, then just add a day.
They can all book at anytime from 1/11-1/15 (11 months from checkout), and the Member that wants the 15th can call on the 16th and add a day.

 

[Sandisw]

That’s incorrect. The owner that wants 12/10-12/15 can book at the exact same time as the folks who want 12/10-12/14, then just add a day.
They can all book at anytime from 1/11-1/15 (11 months from checkout), and the Member that wants the 15th can call on the 16th and add a day.

Okay. But then isn’t the person who wants to check out on the 15th forced to book with a check out date of the 14th to complete with those others or risk being shut out, They then still have to call back a second time to get what they want,

It is just a different way of having to adjust what you really want To complete. You already mentioned the intent was not day by day booking, but people did it and it was fair because everyone could,

Well, everyone can book 11 months plus 7 days so those getting those dates got them fairly.

The only difference I see is that your method may eliminate walking, but it puts people still in the position to have to book a trip with a check out date that is not the one they want to compete with others.

At least with booking from check in, whether you want 4 days or 7, the date to try and book opens the same day and less people need to be adjusting.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Okay. But then isn’t the person who wants to check out on the 15th forced to book with a check out date of the 14th to complete with those others or risk being shut out, They then still have to call back a second time to get what they want,

It is just a different way of having to adjust what you really want To complete. You already mentioned the intent was not day by day booking, but people did it and it was fair because everyone could,

Well, everyone can book 11 months plus 7 days so those getting those dates got them fairly.

The only difference I see is that your method may eliminate walking, but it puts people still in the position to have to book a trip with a check out date that is not the one they want to compete with others.

At least with booking from check in, whether you want 4 days or 7, the date to try and book opens the same day and less people need to be adjusting.

Yes, they would have to call (or book online) a second time.
The system can be a bit more cumbersome, but it is 100% fair and eliminates walking.

The best argument I’ve heard for the old system being unfair, is west coast Members would have to wake up a few hours earlier to be on an even playing field with East coasters.... but doesn’t that hold true now?? Granted, they would have to get up early as often as they wanted to book (day by day).

 

[crvetter]

That’s incorrect. The owner that wants 12/10-12/15 can book at the exact same time as the folks who want 12/10-12/14, then just add a day.
They can all book at anytime from 1/11-1/15 (11 months from checkout), and the Member that wants the 15th can call on the 16th and add a day.

You ignored an important part of my argument and your own arguments previously in the thread. They would be violating the “spirit” of the old booking method which was 11 months from checkout day. So as I stated if we assume no one was violating the spirit of the booking rules one was inherently unfair, old method, and the other fair, new method.

As I stated you are simply choosing an “evil” you are comfortable with. So far most of the owners (which I’m certain you stated you aren’t) prefer the current “evil” which at least guanratees continuous stays versus the old way which didn’t. As you stated the only way to guarantee continuous stays wasn’t to do day by day but you admit to make it fair the owner I made up would have to in order to have a shot at the room.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

You ignored again an important part of my argument and your own arguments previously in the thread. They would be violating the “spirit” of the old booking method which was 11 months from checkout day. So as I stated if we assume no one was violating the spirit of the booking rules one was inherently unfair, old method, and the other fair, new method.

I don’t think so. They are booking that day and intend to keep that reservation.
Spirit or not, everyone has the same chance. On 1/11, 100% of the rooms will be available for a stay on 12/10.
Obviously if 11 members are competing for 10 rooms, someone will get the short stick. The old method is truly first come, first served.

 

[crvetter]

I don’t think so. They are booking that day and intend to keep that reservation.
Spirit or not, everyone has the same chance. On 1/11 100% of the rooms will be available for a stay on 12/10.
Obviously if 11 members are competing for 10 rooms, someone will get the short stick. The old method is truly first come, first served.

Well the rule was 11 months from check out day the only way it would be keeping with the spirit is if they actually kept them as two separate reservations and don’t combine them and were forced to change rooms. Otherwise they gamed the system and were forced to in order to even get a room. The current system doesn’t require gaming the system for a vast vast majority of the rooms but the old method inherently requires it for all long stays (and my guess is the old system probably had higher breakage).

 

[Maistre Gracey]

You ignored an important part of my argument and your own arguments previously in the thread. They would be violating the “spirit” of the old booking method which was 11 months from checkout day. So as I stated if we assume no one was violating the spirit of the booking rules one was inherently unfair, old method, and the other fair, new method.

As I stated you are simply choosing an “evil” you are comfortable with. So far most of the owners (which I’m certain you stated you aren’t) prefer the current “evil” which at least guanratees continuous stays versus the old way which didn’t. As you stated the only way to guarantee continuous stays wasn’t to do day by day but you admit to make it fair the owner I made up would have to in order to have a shot at the room.

I agree many owners prefer the new system. Probably because most are not familiar with, or don’t understand the old system.

Was it more cumbersome? It could be if you wanted to book multiple times, but it seems most here are on the Member site everyday anyway.

Does it eliminate walking without adding fees or imposing penalties? Yes

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Well the rule was 11 months from check out day the only way it would be keeping with the spirit is if they actually kept them as two separate reservations and don’t combine them and were forced to change rooms. Otherwise they gamed the system and were forced to in order to even get a room. The current system doesn’t require gaming the system for a vast vast majority of the rooms but the old method inherently requires it for all long stays (and my guess is the old system probably had higher breakage).

Okay, but that’s not on the same level as walking, where the Member has zero intention of staying those days and ties up the room for another Member.

 

[Sandisw]

Okay, but that’s not on the same level as walking, where the Member has zero intention of staying those days and ties up the room for another Member.

True, but they release the room fairly quickly so anyone who goes on, doesn’t see it, can go on a waitlist or go on in a day or two and pick up the rooms,

So, it goes back to that no matter what the way things are done, there will always be ways around the system to enhance ones chances .

I still say that because we have a 7 day booking ability from 11 months, those rooms are booked fair and square, regardless of whether they are changed later,

Every owner has a fair shot at the 11 plus 7 date at 8 am EST. I think we forget and only focus on 11 month check in date, and not. 11 month plus 7th date, because people argue it’s that date that is unfair, and it’s not.

Exampls, today is a the booking first day for Jan 22nd to January 29th, 2021. At 8 am, every owner had the right to Book all those nights, That is the part that I see just as fair as the day by day booking you describe that people chose to do,

 

[zavandor]

The discussion about the old system is pointless. It has been eliminated for a lot of good reasons and it'll never come back.

I think a lot of people miss the point of what a point time share is. Unless you have bought a guaranteed week, you have points you can use to book a stay Pending availability. No one is guaranteed a specific room in a specific date.
If you have bought just enough points for a BWV standard view during the Food and Wine half, then you've set up yourself for disappointment.
We are all very friendly and helpful here, but the reality is that we are all each other worst enemy. If you want a reservation you have to compete with all other members who want it.
If there are 10 rooms and 100 people want one, 90 are going to be disappointed, whatever the booking system.
Maybe DVC might find a way to remove walking and for some miracle they won't screw all members who never walked. But the harsh reality is that there are still only 10 rooms. What are you blaming next? Slow internet providers? Your boss who wants you at work at 8:30? Your spouse who wants to sleep at 4am in the morning? If you want to book an AKV value during an high demand period, then better realise you're often not going to get it because the demand is so higher than availability. Especially if you are not ready to put the effort required, whatever the booking system.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Well the rule was 11 months from check out day the only way it would be keeping with the spirit is if they actually kept them as two separate reservations and don’t combine them and were forced to change rooms. Otherwise they gamed the system and were forced to in order to even get a room. The current system doesn’t require gaming the system for a vast vast majority of the rooms but the old method inherently requires it for all long stays (and my guess is the old system probably had higher breakage).

There is no need to “game the system” under the old system anymore than there is the need to (truly) game the system under the new method.

 

[DougEMG]

So under the old booking system, if I wanted a 3 week reservation I have 2 options.

1) wait for 3 weeks till my checkout day and then book it all, hoping that the room is still available.

2) book one day at a time, getting up at 5am each day hoping I get the room.

Both of these options suck and are much worse than a tiny walking problem. I would not buy into a system setup like that. What we have now may not be perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than the old system.

So while there may be ways to eliminate walking, I feel confident that any such system would cause more problems than it fixed.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

So under the old booking system, if I wanted a 3 week reservation I have 2 options.

1) wait for 3 weeks till my checkout day and then book it all, hoping that the room is still available.

2) book one day at a time, getting up at 5am each day hoping I get the room.

Both of these options suck and are much worse than a tiny walking problem. I would not buy into a system setup like that. What we have now may not be perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than the old system.

So while there may be ways to eliminate walking, I feel confident that any such system would cause more problems than it fixed.

No. You can book every day, at the end, or every three days, every week.... however often you want.

That’s what I mean. People just don’t understand the system.
You can do it exactly like the old system if you choose, just in reverse.

 

[Sandisw]

No. You can book every day, at the end, or every three days, every week.... however often you want.

That’s what I mean. People just don’t understand the system.

And with that system, you could get the first three days of your trip, but then get locked out at 8 am on day 4 of your 7 day trip, since day by day is nothing more than pretending every day is check out day.

Glad it’s gone.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

And with that system, you could get the first three days of your trip, but then get locked out at 8 am on day 4 of your 7 day trip, since day by day is nothing more than pretending every day is check out day.

Glad it’s gone.

Possible as it’s first come, first served. Someone could beat you to the phone. But never happened in my years of booking. Plus, as I’ve said before, if that were to happen that room would likely be gone anyway with walking under the new system.