walking a reservation for Dec. 2017

[Dean]

I agree that there should be some kind of restriction on this but not being able to revise dates goes too far. What if something happens and I need to arrive a day later or leave a day earlier. I shouldn't lose my reservation. I think a waiting period makes sense.

I am concerned about my 12/2 BWV reservation (boardwalk view), I plan to reserve on 1/2.

Personally I disagree. IMO one should hold what they reserve and if they need to change either keep the existing reservation or go to the end of the line. It has to have some pain associated to actually control the issue, trying to nibble around the edges won't work. The more time goes on the more I favor a pay to play approach with a limited number of changes allowed, maybe one per UY for every 100 points OR a max of 2-3 per master and a charge after that in the $25-50 per change range or even just a straight charge for each change.

 

[DebbieB]

Personally I disagree. IMO one should hold what they reserve and if they need to change either keep the existing reservation or go to the end of the line. It has to have some pain associated to actually control the issue, trying to nibble around the edges won't work. The more time goes on the more I favor a pay to play approach with a limited number of changes allowed, maybe one per UY for every 100 points OR a max of 2-3 per master and a charge after that in the $25-50 per change range or even just a straight charge for each change.

That's fair. I just wouldn't want to completely lose my reservation if I need to change. Especially deleting a night, when someone else is likely to benefit.

 

[Dean]

That's fair. I just wouldn't want to completely lose my reservation if I need to change. Especially deleting a night, when someone else is likely to benefit.

It's not unfair at all, it's just different than it is now. I am only aware of one other system that allows one to drop nights and they do not allow one to add nights to the same reservation. IMO it's more unfair to hold nights that someone else would have wanted up front. That it might get used by someone is irrelevant, that likely won't be the person who would have been next in line reserving it up front. You wouldn't have to lose your reservation, just not be able to change it.

 

[mustinjourney]

If they made an 8 day waiting period to make changes for reservations between 7-11 months, it would fix the problem of walking, right?

 

[Dean]

If they made an 8 day waiting period to make changes for reservations between 7-11 months it would fix the problem of walking, right?

Likely not, waiting until the 7 month window would fix it. 2 weeks would make it better. But as I alluded to above, anytime you try to finagle an issue to micromanage such a problem so it only affects true outliers, you normally make it worse and cause more hassle and more for the system. For me it comes down the the philosophical issues that include that holding reservations one doesn't intend to use or significantly increases cost (phone calls, extra personnel) are wrong. And if a simple fix means that someone who has a legitimate change in plans has to go to the back of the line, I think that's appropriate and as it should be.

 

[DougEMG]

Personally I disagree. IMO one should hold what they reserve and if they need to change either keep the existing reservation or go to the end of the line. It has to have some pain associated to actually control the issue, trying to nibble around the edges won't work. The more time goes on the more I favor a pay to play approach with a limited number of changes allowed, maybe one per UY for every 100 points OR a max of 2-3 per master and a charge after that in the $25-50 per change range or even just a straight charge for each change.

With a pay to play approach it should be based on number of points otherwise large point holders are going to be unfairly paying more.

 

[Dean]

With a pay to play approach it should be based on number of points otherwise large point holders are going to be unfairly paying more.

There are reasonable ways to approach it, I do think a number of options per X number of points would be best but not absolutely necessary. It needs to be restrictive to be effective. Any change that's for the overall good will have winners and losers. I think 2 or 3 per UY for most any owners would be more than fair. I guess it depends on how we define large point holders as well. IMO the bottom line is you want people to not be able to change existing reservations easily or without serious consideration, limits holding days one likely won't use and you want a system that does not encourage multiple phone calls when otherwise unnecessary. As DVC has proven a number of times, when you try to nibble and cut out just the extreme's, it doesn't work well and tends to cause other issues. A single solution that's easily workable within a computer system that does all of these things would be best. Any time you try to define extreme as "more than what I do" and protect the options one uses, it's going to be a poor system almost 100% of the time but even the best option won't be perfect. I'll say again, it needs to be painful and make people really think about it and only change if absolutely necessary. I'm sure there are a few of ways to approach it. Another would be that you can subtract but you can't add to a given reservation and you can't combine reservations. Personally for me, walking should not be allowed related to the reasons I've just stated and it needs a cold and simple fix, not a complicated computer algorithm with essentially little or no if/then type of options. Such a change will be negative to some, no way around it. This could be handled as part of a VIP program as well which would almost certainly be related to qualified points only and should address your thoughts on having sufficient options to handle life without encouraging walking or holding reservations.

The reality is that walking also has a real cost in terms of $$$. In that sense it's a little lot the valet parking issue where a subset are increasing the costs of the group. In that sense, pay to play may be the most fair. An no, it's not like the issue of a pool or exercise room at a resort that a given member might not use it is much more like the valet parking change.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

There are reasonable ways to approach it, I do think a number of options per X number of points would be best but not absolutely necessary. It needs to be restrictive to be effective. Any change that's for the overall good will have winners and losers. I think 2 or 3 per UY for most any owners would be more than fair. I guess it depends on how we define large point holders as well. IMO the bottom line is you want people to not be able to change existing reservations easily or without serious consideration, limits holding days one likely won't use and you want a system that does not encourage multiple phone calls when otherwise unnecessary. As DVC has proven a number of times, when you try to nibble and cut out just the extreme's, it doesn't work well and tends to cause other issues. A single solution that's easily workable within a computer system that does all of these things would be best. Any time you try to define extreme as "more than what I do" and protect the options one uses, it's going to be a poor system almost 100% of the time but even the best option won't be perfect. I'll say again, it needs to be painful and make people really think about it and only change if absolutely necessary. I'm sure there are a few of ways to approach it. Another would be that you can subtract but you can't add to a given reservation and you can't combine reservations. Personally for me, walking should not be allowed related to the reasons I've just stated and it needs a cold and simple fix, not a complicated computer algorithm with essentially little or no if/then type of options. Such a change will be negative to some, no way around it. This could be handled as part of a VIP program as well which would almost certainly be related to qualified points only and should address your thoughts on having sufficient options to handle life without encouraging walking or holding reservations.

The reality is that walking also has a real cost in terms of $$$. In that sense it's a little lot the valet parking issue where a subset are increasing the costs of the group. In that sense, pay to play may be the most fair. An no, it's not like the issue of a pool or exercise room at a resort that a given member might not use it is much more like the valet parking change.

Unless our dues pay MS per call, I see no cost associated with walking. And I would bet they are not paid per call.

 

[Dean]

Unless our dues pay MS per call, I see no cost associated with walking. And I would bet they are not paid per call.

Ultimately we pay for the costs, it's just a delayed process. If the costs go up, so will our dues. If they go down, so should the dues and I personally think they would (or at least not go up as much). Regardless, every time you see someone who called and had to wait, think of walking.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Ultimately we pay for the costs, it's just a delayed process. If the costs go up, so will our dues. If they go down, so should the dues and I personally think they would (or at least not go up as much). Regardless, every time you see someone who called and had to wait, think of walking.

I've been on the other end. Now it's my turn. Everyone has the opportunity to do so. Blanket statements about increasing dues are just fear tactics. I need to see some data how there is a direct correlation.

 

[AnnaKat]

Ultimately we pay for the costs, it's just a delayed process. If the costs go up, so will our dues. If they go down, so should the dues and I personally think they would (or at least not go up as much). Regardless, every time you see someone who called and had to wait, think of walking.

Members tie -up MS when they call & have MS book their Dining Reservations! This takes wayyyyyyy more time than a 1 -minute walking call!
Also, MS gave instructions on walking to me once( I had not heard of it before, & the CM did not refer to it as walking!

 

[AnnaKat]

I've been on the other end. Now it's my turn. Everyone has the opportunity to do so. Blanket statements about increasing dues are just fear tactics. I need to see some data how there is a direct correlation.

Many things cost MS! I do not think that walking should be blamed! Also,
for certain types of rooms, walking is becoming common!

Some of us are " poorer" Owners with only 100 points.

We may need to walk,
so why should us poorer Owners be
penalized & treated like criminals, eh?!

 

[Dean]

Unless our dues pay MS per call, I see no cost associated with walking. And I would bet they are not paid per call.

But the manpower is determined by the level of calls, more calls, more employee costs. This is additive and wasteful.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

But the manpower is determined by the level of calls, more calls, more employee costs. This is additive and wasteful.

With the advent of member online booking, one could argue staffing has been decreased. Not enough data to surmise any real cost associated with walking.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I was a fan of walking, but always liked the old way... Just go back to the old day by day.
It's walking in reverse, but it will yield fewer calls, as you can't start four months in advance. It is limited.

MG

 

[Andyman33]

How can you think that more calls to member services means we pay more in dues? Even if we all called to them tomorrow the staffing and therefore the costs are not increased. You will just wait longer

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I was a fan of walking, but always liked the old way... Just go back to the old day by day.
It's walking in reverse, but it will yield fewer calls, as you can't start four months in advance. It is limited.

MG

I'd wager day by day added many more calls. Those who walk for months - well, they like to hold and talk to MS. Even then, you could walk a reservation for 5-6 weeks and just start equallying day by day booking for a week. Day by day was awful for members - too many holes left in reservations.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I'd wager day by day added many more calls. Those who walk for months - well, they like to hold and talk to MS. Even then, you could walk a reservation for 5-6 weeks and just start equallying day by day booking for a week. Day by day was awful for members - too many holes left in reservations.

How do you figure?? Day by day for a week would be seven calls. If you walked for a month it would be... 30??

MG

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

How do you figure?? Day by day for a week would be seven calls. If you walked for a month it would be... 30??

MG

Just assuming a 7 night booking - you only need to call every 6 nights to walk.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Just assuming a 7 night booking - you only need to call every 6 nights to walk.

Indeed... but you can start walking months in advance. The old method was limited to the number of days booked.

MG