"Sleep-Around Points" (SAP) - The Thread

[Epcot Forever Forever]

Personally, I think it would be a good move to increase home resort booking to 6 months from 4 given how booking has changed over time.

Same.

So, they instituted a "3rd party guest fee" to be applied when changing the guest's name on the reservation. A handful of owners on TUG fought that and managed to get them to back off that idea at least for home resort reservations (they did keep the fee for exchanges, defined in that system as all reservations at 8 months out or less, including at home resort).

Frankly I wouldn’t be opposed to this either, or some other measure to crack down as renting-as-a-business.

 

[crisi]

What they did was use some contract language to what they felt was vague enough to support their moves but adjusted things when owners brought up a different interpretation and that maybe what they did was not the right move..and yes, they did make some adjustments to fix it.

But, I could see how they came to their reasoning but also believe that they made the decision they did to fix it so it couldn’t happen again.

There was also the Aulani dues debacle. Disney has not run DVC ethically or even legally from time to time but for the most part, their moves are justified by both the contract and law.

But members should also be aware that despite the success of the two above mentioned cases, Disney doesn't make business decisions based off of petitions, members get very little say in what happens, and a decision to sell a resort isn't likely to be overturned by popular demand.

Disney has made a lot of really significant changes in the 20 years I've owned - some of which have really impacted booking patterns and membership. From resale restrictions - first just a few benefits not being permitted for resale owners - and now resale owners being kept from booking certain resorts, to changing the emphasis from "you need points for a one bedroom" to "buy 50 points at every resort and get studios!" (which has really created a drastic change in booking patterns) to point reallocations to moving and creating events (remember when there was a single Run Disney weekend? Or when F&W was three weeks?). And those who have owned longer than I have got free park passes for the first few years of the program! Adding more resorts - particularly the big resorts that aren't close to the parks - significantly changed the ability for early owners to be able to "sleep around" at the smaller near park resorts - more competition for the same rooms at BWV/BCV. When buying, evaluate the program based off the information available today - the great availability charts people have pulled together, Disney's rules for today, the valuable experiences of people here. But do take a minute to think about how it might change and if you are willing to accept that risk. I still thing "buy where you won't mind ending up" is fine advice - you don't ever need to stay there if you can get something else - but if circumstances change to make it difficult to stay anywhere but home, you'll have a home resort you like. And that might mean Aulani makes a great home resort.

 

[gisele2]

I've never had an issue but we were going for standard. Were you doing Lake view that has less rooms perhaps?

No, standard but on a long weekend.

 

[DVCanadian]

We bought in to DVC because of the variety of resorts.
We wanted to upgrade our accommodations without paying a fortune.
Our goal is to stay at every DVC resort.
Our first contract was 270 SSR resale in 2011 ($50pp) with the goal of being able to book a 1 bedroom at most resorts most of the time.
Before buying we had only stayed 7 nights at Port Orleans.

Added a 250 OKW resale in 2013 for a big Aulani trip in 2016 (10 night ocean view 2 bedroom which was around 1000+ point reservation). Bought a fully loaded contract and rented two years to reduce the buy in (net $50pp).

When we bought we just wanted points to use in the DVC system and tried to find the best balance of buy in and dues. Our points are unrestricted, which is quite different than today’s resale purchases.

We haven’t stayed at SSR yet but have stayed at OKW twice, otherwise stayed at GCV (2 bedroom on the way to Aulani, the most magical split stay), GFV, Poly, beach club, HH, BLT, Aulani, Vero beach, AKV twice. Headed back to Aulani for 11 night 2 bd ocean view in mid-August.

We’ve never had a problem booking what we want at 7 months but we don’t stay studios and usually book 2 bedrooms. No way we’d ever pay rack rate for these resorts, so our strategy has provided so great family memories at so many great resorts.

Our goal isn’t to avoid our home resorts, we want to maximize the points we have at the lowest reasonable cost. For us that’s the definition of SAP, more points for less, for use at as many deluxe Disney resorts as possible.

 

[emchen]

We bought in to DVC because of the variety of resorts.
We wanted to upgrade our accommodations without paying a fortune.
Our goal is to stay at every DVC resort.
Our first contract was 270 SSR resale in 2011 ($50pp) with the goal of being able to book a 1 bedroom at most resorts most of the time.
Before buying we had only stayed 7 nights at Port Orleans.

Added a 250 OKW resale in 2013 for a big Aulani trip in 2016 (10 night ocean view 2 bedroom which was around 1000+ point reservation). Bought a fully loaded contract and rented two years to reduce the buy in (net $50pp).

When we bought we just wanted points to use in the DVC system and tried to find the best balance of buy in and dues. Our points are unrestricted, which is quite different than today’s resale purchases.

We haven’t stayed at SSR yet but have stayed at OKW twice, otherwise stayed at GCV (2 bedroom on the way to Aulani, the most magical split stay), GFV, Poly, beach club, HH, BLT, Aulani, Vero beach, AKV twice. Headed back to Aulani for 11 night 2 bd ocean view in mid-August.

We’ve never had a problem booking what we want at 7 months but we don’t stay studios and usually book 2 bedrooms. No way we’d ever pay rack rate for these resorts, so our strategy has provided so great family memories at so many great resorts.

Our goal isn’t to avoid our home resorts, we want to maximize the points we have at the lowest reasonable cost. For us that’s the definition of SAP, more points for less, for use at as many deluxe Disney resorts as possible.

So well said, as did many other earlier commentators.

And may I point out what I haven’t seen mentioned yet: for all the changes to who qualifies for the blue card, AUL annual dues debacle, and resale restrictions…Disney always grandfathered owners who bought their contracts before the new normal was instituted.

This alone assures me that what I am used to today, will continue as long as I own this set of contracts. I see no evidence that Disney will hang current owners of Aulani, SSR, or any other resort out to dry.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

So well said, as did many other earlier commentators.

And may I point out what I haven’t seen mentioned yet: for all the changes to who qualifies for the blue card, AUL annual dues debacle, and resale restrictions…Disney always grandfathered owners who bought their contracts before the new normal was instituted.

This alone assures me that what I am used to today, will continue as long as I own this set of contracts. I see no evidence that Disney will hang current owners of Aulani, SSR, or any other resort out to dry.

Yes…when I closed on my resale contract one of my first thoughts was that I was happy to be grandfathered out of whatever horror Disney unleashes on future resale owners next

Epcot Forever Forever: future grandfathered resale contract owner.

 

[zavandor]

I think most of us can agree that Disney has really smart lawyers that protects Disney from doing things in in their best interest, whatever that may be. CAN Disney do it and WOULD they do it is probably two separate conversations. One of the main reasons why I could see it happening is the impending loss of the 2042 resorts, as you already mentioned.

The biggest problem I see is the monster they already created in Aulani and Saratoga. These two resorts alone account for almost 26 million points, which is like 40% of the entire DVC system. If people strictly buy into AUL and SSR so they can use as SAP for other "more desirable" resorts, I'm not sure if that's tenable and hence, I can see Disney maybe trying to limit the ability to trade-in from these two mega resorts. But we're all speculating at this point. I acknowledge what you are saying, that Disney ultimately has the legal power to do what they want.

I do not think SSR is detrimental to the system. BWV and others are difficult to get as exchanges, not because SSR is a big resort, but because owners book there before the 7 months window opens.
Also, SSR allows owners who have to cancel a reservation or have points in holding to have something to book on shorter notice. SSR sells out almost every night. Owners book there, just more slowly than at other resorts and the fact a WDW resort like this exists, is a good thing.
Enter Riviera and VDH resale owners, who don't have access to SSR and if they don't use their points during the home resort priority they'll have to pray for a waitlist or lose the points. Sure they buy to stay at their resort, probably they don't want to book SSR, but life happens, and having a plan B is always better than not having it.

 

[intamin]

I do not think SSR is detrimental to the system. BWV and others are difficult to get as exchanges, not because SSR is a big resort, but because owners book there before the 7 months window opens.
Also, SSR allows owners who have to cancel a reservation or have points in holding to have something to book on shorter notice. SSR sells out almost every night. Owners book there, just more slowly than at other resorts and the fact a WDW resort like this exists, is a good thing.
Enter Riviera and VDH resale owners, who don't have access to SSR and if they don't use their points during the home resort priority they'll have to pray for a waitlist or lose the points. Sure they buy to stay at their resort, probably they don't want to book SSR, but life happens, and having a plan B is always better than not having it.

Agreed, it's good to have something like SSR/OKW for last minute availability. On the other hand though would <7 month availability be that much easier without a bunch of SSR owners looking to switch? I personally like SSR so it doesn't bother me that it's in the system. Easy access to Disney Springs and the rooms are great after the remodel. But it probably would be a lot better for availability at more "desirable" resorts under 7 months if it wasn't a part of the system.

 

[zavandor]

Agreed, it's good to have something like SSR/OKW for last minute availability. On the other hand though would <7 month availability be that much easier without a bunch of SSR owners looking to switch? I personally like SSR so it doesn't bother me that it's in the system. Easy access to Disney Springs and the rooms are great after the remodel. But it probably would be a lot better for availability at more "desirable" resorts under 7 months if it wasn't a part of the system.

Which desirable resort has plenty of availability when 7 months opens?
With more and more people buying where they want to stay (which has been the mantra on this board for years), only scraps arrive at 7 months and they're scooped within seconds. SSR or not SSR.
If SSR is destroyed by a meteorite, it's not like AKV value or BLT standard will magically remain unbooked for 7 months bookings.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

I do not think SSR is detrimental to the system. BWV and others are difficult to get as exchanges, not because SSR is a big resort, but because owners book there before the 7 months window opens.
Also, SSR allows owners who have to cancel a reservation or have points in holding to have something to book on shorter notice. SSR sells out almost every night. Owners book there, just more slowly than at other resorts and the fact a WDW resort like this exists, is a good thing.
Enter Riviera and VDH resale owners, who don't have access to SSR and if they don't use their points during the home resort priority they'll have to pray for a waitlist or lose the points. Sure they buy to stay at their resort, probably they don't want to book SSR, but life happens, and having a plan B is always better than not having it.

I have no beef against SSR or OKW. Both have their own appeal. What I have problems with is the terrible imbalance in the resort points. Beach Club, arguably WDW’s most popular resort has 3 million while SSR has 14 million? Why not make Beach club and SSR each have 8-9 million points each? I don’t know. This type of imbalance makes 7 mont switch that much more difficult. That’s why I tend to buy where I want to stay

 

[intamin]

Which desirable resort has plenty of availability when 7 months opens?
With more and more people buying where they want to stay (which has been the mantra on this board for years), only scraps arrive at 7 months and they're scooped within seconds. SSR or not SSR.
If SSR is destroyed by a meteorite, it's not like AKV value or BLT standard will magically remain unbooked for 7 months bookings.

Of course BLT standard and AKV value/club were always going to be gone anyways. The fact of the matter is SSR exists and hasn’t been hit by a meteorite . And each time an SSR owner books into somewhere else it’s forcing another owner to book SSR somewhere down the line. Like I said, I don’t have the general disdain that most people have for SSR but don’t act like it doesn’t generate more competition for rooms in general at <7 months.

The thing is do I think in general SSR is a good thing for DVC? Yes, I do. It has some of the cheapest point charts of DVC and frankly I don’t always want to be spending the points for a BLT TPV. But it definitely makes rooms that might have been still available at the 5-6 month mark get taken earlier at some of these other resorts.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

"Sleep-Around Points" (SAP) - The Thread​

I know this is totally but I couldn't help but think of this when I read the title of this thread...

 

[zavandor]

Of course BLT standard and AKV value/club were always going to be gone anyways. The fact of the matter is SSR exists and hasn’t been hit by a meteorite . And each time an SSR owner books into somewhere else it’s forcing another owner to book SSR somewhere down the line. Like I said, I don’t have the general disdain that most people have for SSR but don’t act like it doesn’t generate more competition for rooms in general at >7 months.

The thing is do I think in general SSR is a good thing for DVC? Yes, I do. It has some of the cheapest point charts of DVC and frankly I don’t always want to be spending the points for a BLT TPV. But it definitely makes rooms that might have been still available at the 5-6 month mark get taken earlier at some of these other r

I have asked before: which are the rooms from desirable resorts that are plentiful at 7 months so much so they would remain available for months if SSR didn't exist?
I joined DVC when SSR was already sold out. My first vacation was 2 weeks in AKV value studios. My second was 2 weeks in BWV standard. My third 5 days at VGC. All booked at 7 months.
DVC has changed, prices have skyrocketed so people buy certain resorts because they want to stay there.
If SSR had 1/5 of the points, DVC would have build 4 more resorts who knows where and competition at 7 months would be the same.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

I have asked before: which are the rooms from desirable resorts that are plentiful at 7 months so much so they would remain available for months if SSR didn't exist?

That’s a different counterfactual than the one you pose in the last paragraph. If DVC was the same just without SSR all of the resorts would most certainly have more availability all the time, but especially OKW, AKV, and, once it’s sold out, Riviera, because they’re the next largest resorts (besides Aulani, but Aulani will have more declared rooms than owners for the rest of its existence, making booking patterns there advantageous overall).

But if they built 3 more smaller resorts, it’s impossible to predict what would have happened without knowing more about what those resorts would be like.

 

[Sandisw]

I have no beef against SSR or OKW. Both have their own appeal. What I have problems with is the terrible imbalance in the resort points. Beach Club, arguably WDW’s most popular resort has 3 million while SSR has 14 million? Why not make Beach club and SSR each have 8-9 million points each? I don’t know. This type of imbalance makes 7 mont switch that much more difficult. That’s why I tend to buy where I want to stay

I think it’s all relative to what the resort is meant to be. SSR was built to be a big and sprawled out resort, with BCV being more compact.

It is also way people should always buy at a place that works for them because you never know what will happen with the trading and as things change, I do think its a possibility we see the home resort period window increased..personally, would love to see it.

But, as long as BVTC decides to use the same point charts for trades as home resort for all resorts, then trading will be what it is for all points out there.

 

[Epcot Forever Forever]

I have no beef against SSR or OKW. Both have their own appeal. What I have problems with is the terrible imbalance in the resort points. Beach Club, arguably WDW’s most popular resort has 3 million while SSR has 14 million? Why not make Beach club and SSR each have 8-9 million points each? I don’t know. This type of imbalance makes 7 mont switch that much more difficult. That’s why I tend to buy where I want to stay

Beach Club is popular because its point constrained. Look at cash rates - when there’s enough rooms, Disney feels they can charge more for all of the monorail resorts and even Boardwalk than Beach Club. But that wasn’t a choice - by the time DVC decided to build at BCV they had very little space to work with and it’s amazing they got as many rooms in as they did.

 

[intamin]

That’s a different counterfactual than the one you pose in the last paragraph. If DVC was the same just without SSR all of the resorts would most certainly have more availability all the time, but especially OKW, AKV, and, once it’s sold out, Riviera, because they’re the next largest resorts (besides Aulani, but Aulani will have more declared rooms than owners for the rest of its existence, making booking patterns there advantageous overall).

But if they built 3 more smaller resorts, it’s impossible to predict what would have happened without knowing more about what those resorts would be like.

This. I'm not saying it stops people from booking necessarily at 7 months, but with all of the people who seem to brag about never staying at SSR despite owning there for the last however many years, who's to say that some of the 2BRs standards like at VGF wouldn't have lasted past 6.5 months and into the 5 month mark. Lake view studios at Poly are also lasting until about the 6.5 month mark and then availability is pretty much gone after that as well.

It is also way people should always buy at a place that works for them because you never know what will happen with the trading and as things change, I do think its a possibility we see the home resort period window increased..personally, would love to see it.

I actually would love this as well. Since I'll likely have 5 WDW home resorts this would be really beneficial and give owners more opportunity to stay at the resorts they actually purchased at.

 

[Sandisw]

This. I'm not saying it stops people from booking necessarily at 7 months, but with all of the people who seem to brag about never staying at SSR despite owning there for the last however many years, who's to say that some of the 2BRs standards like at VGF wouldn't have lasted past 6.5 months and into the 5 month mark. Lake view studios at Poly are also lasting until about the 6.5 month mark and then availability is pretty much gone after that as well.



I actually would love this as well. Since I'll likely have 5 WDW home resorts this would be really beneficial and give owners more opportunity to stay at the resorts they actually purchased at.

Another thing to think about is that with more resorts coming online as restricted with resale, I could see this as something they do to allow all owners at the resort a chance to book.

Instead of those resale only owners having only 4 months to get booked, they now have 6 months.

 

[HIRyeDVC]

I think it’s all relative to what the resort is meant to be. SSR was built to be a big and sprawled out resort, with BCV being more compact.

It is also way people should always buy at a place that works for them because you never know what will happen with the trading and as things change, I do think its a possibility we see the home resort period window increased..personally, would love to see it.

But, as long as BVTC decides to use the same point charts for trades as home resort for all resorts, then trading will be what it is for all points out there.

Beach Club is popular because its point constrained. Look at cash rates - when there’s enough rooms, Disney feels they can charge more for all of the monorail resorts and even Boardwalk than Beach Club. But that wasn’t a choice - by the time DVC decided to build at BCV they had very little space to work with and it’s amazing they got as many rooms in as they did.

Still doesn’t address the issue of the point imbalance. Resorts like BCV, BWV, VGC, and monorail resorts are popular because of its close proximity to the parks while SSR and OKW are not. The latter also have the worst transportation option to the parks. But they also at the same time are home to great majority of DVC membership who want to stay close to the parks. I’m not even sure what we’re debating here. The fact is, SSR provides the cheapest point of membership entry. And many if not most SSR owners are looking to trade into “more desirable” resorts at 7 months, creating availability issues for home resort owners at the popular resorts. But those are the rules. If an owner at popular resorts don’t book by the 7 months, then they’re SOL and I’m ok with that.

 

[emchen]

Still doesn’t address the issue of the point imbalance. Resorts like BCV, BWV, VGC, and monorail resorts are popular because of its close proximity to the parks while SSR and OKW are not. The latter also have the worst transportation option to the parks. But they also at the same time are home to great majority of DVC membership who want to stay close to the parks. I’m not even sure what we’re debating here. The fact is, SSR provides the cheapest point of membership entry. And many if not most SSR owners are looking to trade into “more desirable” resorts at 7 months, creating availability issues for home resort owners at the popular resorts. But those are the rules. If an owner at popular resorts don’t book by the 7 months, then they’re SOL and I’m ok with that.

I agree with in bold.

I always rent a car when I stay at SSR so the bad transpo options are not an issue. I’d be interested in finding out what other SSR SAP owners do to mitigate the distance and transpo problems.