diznyfanatic
Officially a Moosehead
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 951
In one sense I agree with you -- it makes no sense to charge an exchange fee for me to use my points at a Disney-owned, non-DVC property.
OTOH...how many times have we all counseled prospective buyers NOT to buy DVC for the frills, bells, whistles, and perks -- because they can change at any time? Remember all those threads?
Disney has just found a way to tap some pocketbooks for an extra $95...and some happy genius probably just made VP for coming up with the bright idea!
Jim - I agree with you, as I find myself doing most of the time.
It is indeed good advice that no one should buy into DVC based upon the perks.I don't have any clue what percentage of members actually use their points at the WDW non-DVC resorts, but it must have been enough that they felt they needed to start charging this fee.
Yes, they might be able to pocket the $95 for a percentage of the DVC population that might fork over that amount (in addition to the insanely high point requirements to use points at a non-DVC WDW property), but I think there might be people that they've just pushed offsite as well.
I suspect many people will now not even consider paying this fee to use their points at a WDW non-DVC resort and will pay cash. As such, they are probably more likely to explore ALL of their cash options now, which includes the offsite resorts.
I truly hope that $95 fee was worth upsetting a segment of the DVC membership (even those who probably would never exchange their points this way, but who at least liked having this as a viable option should the need ever arise) who might now be taking way more than $95 of their resort and dining dollars with them.

I have only used the points for a WDW resort once and I guess after the 1st of January I won't be doing it again.... 
Makes me wonder why so many of us educated folks still sign on the dotted line.
Must be that darned pixie dust. 
My thought is that they saw that there are now enough DVC resorts on-site to give members plenty of choice, and so decided it was time to stop subsidizing members' usage of the non-DVC resorts (probably as a sales expense, since it undoubtedly helped them sell DVC in the early years).
) but when there's nothing available we shouldn't be penalized for wanting to stay at non-DVC resorts rather than miss a family vacation (the rest of the family is staying in a 2 bedroom).