I completely agree, and I think I'll join you
, as this thread is definitely panning out to be the social experiment I thought it would.
(
NOTE: all quoted posts are included to represent a battery of ideas and are not directed specifically at the poster unless specifically stated)
For instance, the segregation of the DVC membership by DVD has elicited a discussion of the boundaries of entitlement. Some in the "included population" agree with the limitations and have suggested firming up the boundaries...
we met dvc owners after our member cruise.
original owners, that were blocked out after last year. if you
were a owner that brought dvc , wouldn't you feel cheated that
resales were able to booked over you? exactly who should be more
entitled? even if i had purchased resales...i would vote those
buying direct deserved it more.
I like your wish list. I agree. If I bought direct (which I did), I should get more perks than those who paid less for their points.
For those in the excluded population (at the moment, resale purchasers after the March cutoff date), the conversation changes from the desire of inclusion to the need to make another segment of the population "lesser" than themselves...
If it's for immediate family, then like APs, that's fine. But, if I get a room for me and DH and then get a room for my neighbor across the street, it's not. If you are a Member paying Member's dues, then you should get to pay cash to cruise with the other members. If you're my neighbor who's been to WDW twice and you're just along for a trip with friends, you should be waaay back in the line behind the person paying dues.
I actually met someone on the Member's Cruise in 2011 who wasn't a member and wasn't even WITH a Member. Their friend ( the member ) had booked a couple rooms and had to cancel his. But this guy still got to cruise on the Member's cruise.
To any dues paying person, that's a slap in the face at this point.
I do not care so much that you are able to bring friends except for the fact that I pay MF every year and they are restricting an actual member from going.
If you step back and watch the theater, it is interesting to watch human behavior in action. The need for inclusion is so strong that regardless of previous warnings, the reason/purpose of exclusionary act, or the definition of what it means to be part of the desired group, people latch onto the semantics of a word even if the proclamation is taken out of context of its purpose.
The question is, whether this act by Disney will serve as a "wake-up call" for resale purchasers or if they will simply argue an injustice until the next one comes along? What is a DVC member's breaking point, where they will decide to leave a WDW/DLR vacation behind due to the segregation of the club?
Will it get more entrenched; quite possibly. If it does, will those members with some direct purchase and some resale points, who are ok with the current policy, remain ok should the policy shift to only 100% direct purchase members being included? I guess we may see...
On a direct note, Tammy, I think you are too focused on the name of the event ("Member Cruise") to allow yourself to understand the true target demographic and
reason for the event...
I'm saying if the person is not entitled to purchasing an AP with your DVC discount, should stay in your cabin with you or stay home.
Do you really think that your friend is more deserving of being onboard a Member's Cruise than someone who is paying dues? Really??
Just for clarification, I do not believe this is a
Member only cruise. As stated by the good Professor to me, this a
sales cruise. By many accounts, it seems the
purpose for the event is to
sell points to those who have purchased direct from Disney
and for those whom the direct purchase members are attempting to recommend the program.
In its core, it seems to have nothing to do with general membership or monthly dues, rather the target audience are those who purchased from Disney in the past.
If a member purchased direct, they are likely to steer their friends, families, and acquaintances in that direction as well. If a member purchased on the resale market, they are likely to steer prospective buyers in that direction. Who would DVD rather have on these sales cruises?
It seems to me the problem is that the general
perception is that a Member Cruise should be for the general DVC membership, which is an error. It is not for the general membership, rather it is for those open to purchasing more points directly through DVD. Regardless of how it is/was spun, spoken of, or viewed, this is the reality.
A similar example of exclusion would be the use the TotWL by only members staying on points at BLT (I anticipate this analogy will be refuted with length of notice, which is irrelevant, as the example is directed toward the exclusionary policy instead of the length of time to get our hopes up). Another policy is pool hopping; DVC members may use the GF pool, while cash guests staying at the GF concierge suites may not use any other resort pool.
The part that concerns me the most is that Chuck, and others, have attempted to explain this, and he even provided a specific example to gain clarification (see below). Instead of absorbing the scenario and looking at it for what it was presented, we have isolated and attacked the specifics.
Again, the bottom line is this. DVD has/is using the tactic of excluding a certain portion of the DVC population to set apart the value of its product (like pool hopping is used in the sales pitch) from the resale market, and it is very VERY possible they will do it again.
Consider this event regarding the Member's Cruise a warning; it will likely happen again, but possibly to a larger segment of the DVC membership.
Consider how far you, personally, are willing to accept these sort of changes and establish a strategy (letter writing, sales of your points, etc) should policies shift to reach those thresholds, or don't. However, if we don't think ahead and gain an understanding of what is happening, we really have no basis for complaint.
I think who I would chose to travel with is every bit as "deserving" to travel with me as booking any other family member into a separate cabin. I mean, if a member travels with their elderly parents in a separate cabin, I guess those parents also are not as deserving as someone who is paying dues? Such blanket rules rarely work well.
As far as "deserving", no one "deserves" to be on a members cruise over any other person. It is, in reality, simply a charter booked by DVC Marketing. It is not booked by the DVC Association Management as any sort of exclusive "Members Only" event using DVC funds. Under law, it is doubtful DVC funds/dues could be committed to such. Dues are legally tied to resort operations and maintenance, not chartering cruise ships.
So, should the same be applied to WDW DVC resorts? No DVC booked rooms at DVC resorts for friends/family? After all, booking a room for them could prevent a dues paying member from getting that reservation. What about renters? By the same logic, those "dues paying members" would be more deserving of the room than any non-Member, no?
P.S. As a side note, I am enjoying the thread for the reasons mentioned initially. Much like before the recession in 2008, the warning flags are flying, and although I was a bit taken aback by the abruptness of this Member Cruise decision, I am not surprised. I feel these is likely more to come, and I am happy to sit back and watch the events unfold.
Thanks to our more knowledgeable members (Dean, Tim, Jim, Sammie, Dianne, Deb, Chuck, Bill, MaistreGracey, and others), I have drunk the cool-aid and fully embrace the reality that perks come and go, and what we bought was a prepaid room in good condition (nothing more and nothing less). Even though I still believe in the Magic of DVC (owning property at WDW), I take it with the same view as in Tomorrowland. I let myself get immersed in the fantasy, but keep reality close at hand.
Bill 
