TouringPlans sunsetting room requests

[walt34]

Wouldn't this be more or less like the ability to pay for daily housekeeping? You want housekeeping each day, it's available for an extra charge.
I'm hoping that Disney doesn't offer an upcharge for selecting your room, but it wouldn't be the first time that they offer extra features for an extra fee.

Extra housekeeping causes extra cost. That's what you are paying for. Getting first dibs at selecting your room (or having your preference ranked higher) for a fee would be taking money for something the association is already paying for (the room assignment).

 

[zavandor]

About a paid service to choose a room before checkin: I don't think DVC can charge for that.
For 2 (+ 1 bonus) reasons:
1) it's like when they charged parking for cash guests. I think it's written somewhere in the Pos that DVCMC cannot charge owners for services specified in the POS as part of the ownership. The booking system is integral in the system
2) the DVCMC must make decisions in the interest of the membership. Adding a paid service (whose revenues would go to Disney) that would prioritise some paying members over others wouldn't be in the interest of the membership.
If Disney adds the service for cash guests at the hotels and offers it for DVC stays, they would have to give it to owners for free.

The bonus reason is that optics would be bad. Disney rents only 20% of the (declared) DVC resorts for cash, why mess with DVC sales for little return?

 

[Sandisw]

About a paid service to choose a room before checkin: I don't think DVC can charge for that.
For 2 (+ 1 bonus) reasons:
1) it's like when they charged parking for cash guests. I think it's written somewhere in the Pos that DVCMC cannot charge owners for services specified in the POS as part of the ownership. The booking system is integral in the system
2) the DVCMC must make decisions in the interest of the membership. Adding a paid service (whose revenues would go to Disney) that would prioritise some paying members over others wouldn't be in the interest of the membership.
If Disney adds the service for cash guests at the hotels and offers it for DVC stays, they would have to give it to owners for free.

The bonus reason is that optics would be bad. Disney rents only 20% of the (declared) DVC resorts for cash, why mess with DVC sales for little return?

Except how DVC can prevent Disney from creating that as an onsite benefit for cash guests, staying in any of the rooms they are booking though Disney, which includes DVC rooms?

The contract even says if that we, as owners, are entitled to all onsite benefits.

Of course, the simplest answer is that Disney just rolls it in as an additonal cost to DVC and then everyone pays for it via the dues. So, it appears "free".

Similar to how DME worked…we were billed for that as part of dues, even though it was "free".

IIRC, though, the property management agreement DVC has with Disney gives Disney a lot of leeway when it comes to what they charge DVC for the services they provide.

However, when it comes to the topic of this thread, requests which are not guaranteed, I don’t think they can or would charge anyone foe that.

They just didn't want a third party making money off that which Touring Plans has been, just like they stopped the other third party vendors from providing services on property.

 

[Tatebeck]

About a paid service to choose a room before checkin: I don't think DVC can charge for that.
For 2 (+ 1 bonus) reasons:
1) it's like when they charged parking for cash guests. I think it's written somewhere in the Pos that DVCMC cannot charge owners for services specified in the POS as part of the ownership. The booking system is integral in the system
2) the DVCMC must make decisions in the interest of the membership. Adding a paid service (whose revenues would go to Disney) that would prioritise some paying members over others wouldn't be in the interest of the membership.
If Disney adds the service for cash guests at the hotels and offers it for DVC stays, they would have to give it to owners for free.

The bonus reason is that optics would be bad. Disney rents only 20% of the (declared) DVC resorts for cash, why mess with DVC sales for little return?

It would only run afoul of the documents if they forced members to pay for it. It would IMO 100% be allowed if it was optional. All you are guaranteed with your points is one or any of the rooms in the category you booked, and Disney gets to decide which one you get.

I would not compare it to regular parking at all, but valet parking. You can use the parking for free with your membership, just like you can get a room in your booking category with no extra charge. But then you could pay extra if you wanted to get valet/preferred parking. So they could in theory add a valet room assignment option where they look through and assign the valet purchasers' rooms or room requests first.

 

[J-Dog]

It would only run afoul of the documents if they forced members to pay for it. It would IMO 100% be allowed if it was optional. All you are guaranteed with your points is one or any of the rooms in the category you booked, and Disney gets to decide which one you get.

I would not compare it to regular parking at all, but valet parking. You can use the parking for free with your membership, just like you can get a room in your booking category with no extra charge. But then you could pay extra if you wanted to get valet/preferred parking. So they could in theory add a valet room assignment option where they look through and assign the valet purchasers' rooms or room requests first.

Agreed. But I personally think paying extra to get perks at the expense of other owners is in bad taste, but DVC has shown that they don't care about that via the MMB lounge access perk.

 

[Tatebeck]

Agreed. But I personally think paying extra to get perks at the expense of other owners is in bad taste, but DVC has shown that they don't care about that via the MMB lounge access perk.

Oh yeah, it would look very Nickel and Dime-y of them, but that didn't stop them from changing Fastpass, MMB as you say, etc.

 

[Tatebeck]

If I were them I would make it as part of a tiered direct-point reward system like has been suggested before. The more direct points you have the more benefits you get. And they could add the Valet Room Requests as part of a 300, or 500 point, etc. direct point tier.

They wouldn't have to charge anyone directly for it, but it would incentivize members to buy more direct points to avoid that notorious FOMO, and make them money in that way without as much of the bad optics IMO

 

[walt34]

Agreed. But I personally think paying extra to get perks at the expense of other owners is in bad taste, but DVC has shown that they don't care about that via the MMB lounge access perk.

The lounges are incidental benefits, Disney can do with them as they please. When assigning rooms, Disney is acting as an agent for the association.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

If I were them I would make it as part of a tiered direct-point reward system like has been suggested before. The more direct points you have the more benefits you get. And they could add the Valet Room Requests as part of a 300, or 500 point, etc. direct point tier.

They wouldn't have to charge anyone directly for it, but it would incentivize members to buy more direct points to avoid that notorious FOMO, and make them money in that way without as much of the bad optics IMO

You are giving access to group of owners a preferential opportunity to access certain rooms. All owners are guaranteed equal access per the contract.

 

[J-Dog]

You are giving access to group of owners a preferential opportunity to access certain rooms. All owners are guaranteed equal access per the contract.

That seems open to interpretation. If they did implement something like that, all owners would still have equal access to all rooms in all view categories, just the owner with the more open wallet would get preferential treatment for the room they specifically request.

 

[Tatebeck]

You are giving access to group of owners a preferential opportunity to access certain rooms. All owners are guaranteed equal access per the contract.

Disagree. You are still guaranteed a room in the category you booked, as assigned by DVC. Which is what the contracts actually say.

"The DVC Resort front desk will assign a specific Vacation Home on or near the day of check in. Special Vacation Home requests, such as ground level Vacation Homes, cannot be guaranteed, but may be noted as a preference in the reservation record."

The closest thing you could say is maybe that owners wouldn't be able to pick the exact room they want (since exact requests cannot be guaranteed) but not that DVC couldn't take some owners requests into consideration before others. They actually do that already most likely, it's just randomly assigned or just whose request the CM happens to look at first

That seems open to interpretation. If they did implement something like that, all owners would still have equal access to all rooms in all view categories, just the owner with the more open wallet would get preferential treatment for the room they specifically request.

Exactly. Nothing is forced, and you still have the ability to stay in any of the same rooms you did before, if DVC assigns you that room.

An owner who decides to only buy a single tiny resale contract (25 points or less if they find one of the little unicorns) will never actually have access to a Grand Villa or Bungalow for example. Owners who pay more obviously get more

 

[Sandisw]

It would only run afoul of the documents if they forced members to pay for it. It would IMO 100% be allowed if it was optional. All you are guaranteed with your points is one or any of the rooms in the category you booked, and Disney gets to decide which one you get.

I would not compare it to regular parking at all, but valet parking. You can use the parking for free with your membership, just like you can get a room in your booking category with no extra charge. But then you could pay extra if you wanted to get valet/preferred parking. So they could in theory add a valet room assignment option where they look through and assign the valet purchasers' rooms or room requests first.

I think the valet parking might be good example. The car is still being parked on the same parking lot we pay for in dues but what you are paying for is to park in specific spots by having someone else drive your car to it.

I just don’t see anything that prohibits them from creating an optional fee to choose your room.

As you said; we are only guaranteed the right to a room in that category but room assignments themselves carry no expectation of the order they are assigned.

 

[walt34]

The closest thing you could say is maybe that owners wouldn't be able to pick the exact room they want (since exact requests cannot be guaranteed) but not that DVC couldn't take some owners requests into consideration before others. They actually do that already most likely, it's just randomly assigned or just whose request the CM happens to look at first

Disney can accept requests for DVC rooms or not. That's up to them. But they cannot take money for prioritising some requests over others (if that money goes to Disney and doesn't offset dues) without breaking their fiduciary duty.

 

[Sandisw]

Disney can accept requests for DVC rooms or not. That's up to them. But they cannot take money for prioritising some requests over others (if that money goes to Disney and doesn't offset dues) without breaking their fiduciary duty.

People have not been talking about paying for a request.

It’s a paid program that lets you choose your specific room vs the random assignment that happens now.

Again DVc can’t stop Disney from creating a program they want to offer onsite guests.

All DVC could do is remove Disney as the property manager if they don’t think they are meeting their obligations.

But, I’d bet there are owners who feel being able to choose the specific room for a fee would be seen as an enhancement to the program.

 

[walt34]

People have not been talking about paying for a request.

It’s a paid program that lets you choose your specific room vs the random assignment that happens now.

What would be the difference? They give access to rooms for people who pay extra. Regular owners who don't pay extra only get what's left. Do you think Disney could implement a top-floor fee? Only owners who pay Disney extra, get access to the top floor of DVC buildings (the rest only get it if everything else is fully booked? I hope not.

Again DVc can’t stop Disney from creating a program they want to offer onsite guests.

As long as Disney is assigning their own hotel rooms to guests, no problem. Their property, their rules. They cannot give preferred access to DVC rooms just because they are paying cash. This assignment has to be done by the same rules as all other DVC room assignments. Everything else would be self-dealing.

All DVC could do is remove Disney as the property manager if they don’t think they are meeting their obligations.

Self-dealing is prohibited by law, so there would be other remedies as well.

But, I’d bet there are owners who feel being able to choose the specific room for a fee would be seen as an enhancement to the program.

Some people are happy with everything Disney does. Others aren't.

 

[Tatebeck]

Disney can accept requests for DVC rooms or not. That's up to them. But they cannot take money for prioritising some requests over others (if that money goes to Disney and doesn't offset dues) without breaking their fiduciary duty.

Disagree again. In my reading, they could if they wanted to and felt that the membership wanted that option. With how many people are requesting specific rooms, that very well could be what the membership wants. It is at the very least arguable.

And the way in which I said I would prefer it be implemented if it ever was would be as a reward for those who have bought more direct points, and would actually not be members paying for a room assignment at all.

Also:

"Neither DVD, DVCM, DVCHMC, nor BVTC assumes any fiduciary obligation to you except as required under applicable law, and the other TWDC Companies expressly do not assume any fiduciary obligations to you at all"

 

[walt34]

Disagree again. In my reading, they could if they wanted to and felt that the membership wanted that option. With how many people are requesting specific rooms, that very well could be what the membership wants. It is at the very least arguable. And the way in which I said I would prefer it be implemented if it ever was would be as a reward for those who have bought more direct points, and would actually not be members paying for a room assignment at all.

If the money people pay for selecting their rooms offsets the dues, there might be an argument. If it goes to Disney, no.

"Neither DVD, DVCM, DVCHMC, nor BVTC assumes any fiduciary obligation to you except as required under applicable law, and the other TWDC Companies expressly do not assume any fiduciary obligations to you at all"

"Except as required under applicable law".

 

[Tatebeck]

If the money people pay for selecting their rooms offsets the dues, there might be an argument. If it goes to Disney, no.


"Except as required under applicable law".

And if they felt it was what the membership wanted (ie a way to increase their chance to get their room request in response to a crazy amount of room requests and angry members not getting their requests), it would still be within any of the required duties IMO.

And then my quote was to show that they say they won't do anything beyond that which is required. So unless there is some law I haven't seen that says they cannot do something like this, then I think they can according to their own documents.

 

[foodiddiedoo]

I think the biggest downfall of the “pay to select your room” is that the room you might want is already selected by someone else for your check in day and isn’t available. You already paid to pick your room, but get a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice. Then say the room that you picked needs maintenance and you have to get assigned something different. People will want the option to back out or get a refund if they don’t actually get the room they want.

 

[walt34]

And if they felt it was what the membership wanted (ie a way to increase their chance to get their room request in response to a crazy amount of room requests and angry members not getting their requests), it would still be within any of the required duties IMO.

And then my quote was to show that they say they won't do anything beyond that which is required. So unless there is some law I haven't seen that says they cannot do something like this, then I think they can according to their own documents.

What's your specific scenario?