WHOA?! OKW "near HH" ONLY for CRO right now?!

[alldiz]

Going in april...I requested to be near HH.....

hopefully I'll get lucky.....I hope they fix their computers soon
Kerri

 

[littlestar]

Another leg up Marriott has over DVC. Their owners get preferences on units. Like it should be.

 

[Chuck S]

For whatever reason, the renters don't bother me as much. They're still utilizing the points of a "member."

Something about coughing up 16K to become a member of something makes me feel a little turned off of the idea of another person getting request priority over me for a DVC resort.

It wouldn't even bother me as much if CRO and DVC were on "level" playing field. But it does bother me that they get priority "OVER" members.

Does that make sense?

But remember that the vast majority of CRO rooms are made available by DVCers trading out, so basically a DVCer, that has paid $16,000 HAS reserved the room, only staying in another location...basically the same as a DVCer making a reservation, renting those points, and using the cash to pay for a cruise.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

Maybe that would make me feel better if the member that was trading out for that room specified "I'd like whatever wonderful cash paying guests get this week which I'm trading out, to have first shot at getting the location of their choice...while I bask in the sun on an island." But I doubt that happens

 

[Chuck S]

For the amount of points those CRO trades take (remember II trades are not turned over to CRO) it would be similar to using more points for preferred view at BWV.

 

[JudithM]

I've been communicating with a DVC CM about this issue. The response I received was that DVC is in the process of converting existing reservations, based on availability, that have HH notated as a request. If a reservation is converted, then the Member will be mailed a new confirmation letter. Member Services will be booking these rooms, but at a later date. The reply went on to say that Disney Reservation Center does not have the ability to book the HH category outright. They can add the request to a reservation, and the front desk will try to honor it upon arrival if they have those rooms available in inventory.

 

[BroganMc]

In NO WAY should a CRO guest get priority over a member for booking certain areas

That's the only statement I agree with in this thread.

We can dicker all day about the difference between renters, members and traders but the bottomline is the perception Disney gives its owners. At Marriott, the owner is always treated like a VIP. The resorts I own at I am even able to pick my room number in advance.

If the MS computer system isn't capable of doing such room assignments then NO ONE should be allowed to get them.

If I were an OKW owner I'd be complaining up a storm right now to MS, my Guide and Jim Lewis. It's giving the impression that owners aren't as important to Disney as those cash-paying guests. Really bad PR, IMHO.

 

[Chuck S]

That's the only statement I agree with in this thread.

We can dicker all day about the difference between renters, members and traders but the bottomline is the perception Disney gives its owners. At Marriott, the owner is always treated like a VIP. The resorts I own at I am even able to pick my room number in advance.

If the MS computer system isn't capable of doing such room assignments then NO ONE should be allowed to get them.

If I were an OKW owner I'd be complaining up a storm right now to MS, my Guide and Jim Lewis. It's giving the impression that owners aren't as important to Disney as those cash-paying guests. Really bad PR, IMHO.

I think those cash rooms are probably MORE important to OKW DVCers than to CRO It is revenue from them that pays for the trades. No revenue = higher dues or no trades.

 

[BroganMc]

I think those cash rooms are probably MORE important to OKW DVCers than to CRO It is revenue from them that pays for the trades. No revenue = higher dues or no trades.

And what about the OKW owners who do not trade?

Why do you keep trying to give Disney a pass on this? Don't you see how it looks to members? I would think Disney would want to court members so they'd continue owning and paying dues. Giving non-members preferential status in bookings just makes people question their ownership. Look at all the ruckus SSR owners had when the free upgrades to SSR for Free Dining value resort guests arose last September.

 

[Chuck S]

And what about the OKW owners who do not trade?

Why do you keep trying to give Disney a pass on this? Don't you see how it looks to members? I would think Disney would want to court members so they'd continue owning and paying dues. Giving non-members preferential status in bookings just makes people question their ownership. Look at all the ruckus SSR owners had when the free upgrades to SSR for Free Dining value resort guests arose last September.

And those SSR rooms weren't even from Member inventory Just because something causes a ruckus doesn't mean there is any basis for the ruckus.

If no member is absolutely positive that they are denied a room that they requested because of this (hopefully temporary) glitch in the system, what is there to complain about?

FYI, I am an OKW owner, and have never traded or rented, nor have I even stayed at a different DVC resort, and I just don't see how this has a major impact.

 

[disneyfan2kids]

FYI, I am an OKW owner, and have never traded or rented, nor have I even stayed at a different DVC resort, and I just don't see how this has a major impact.

So, assuming "near HH" isn't a priority for you... let's take something (arbitrary) that you find "important" to your happiness at OKW. Hypothetically, if having a jacuzzi was a huge priority for you and jacuzzi's were in limited quantities, AND went to cash guests requesting them first... with the possibility that you would be left with NO jacuzzi....would this annoy you?

 

[Chuck S]

So, assuming "near HH" isn't a priority for you... let's take something (arbitrary) that you find "important" to your happiness at OKW. Hypothetically, if having a jacuzzi was a huge priority for you and jacuzzi's were in limited quantities, AND went to cash guests requesting them first... with the possibility that you would be left with NO jacuzzi....would this annoy you?

No. Because again, given the odds and percentages, chances are excellent that there will be no actual impact, just as there was no actual impact from the SSR upgrades.

I've traveled to OKW after the HH class was announced (remember they said last year that they were upgrading to confirm those requests as soon as the booking class was announced, but wouldn't be a "guaranteed class" until 2008). I was offered two HH area rooms when I checked in, I never requested it, and it was a fairly busy time at Disney - Jersey Week. I opted for Turtle Pond instead.

 

[Quiksilvr]

I'm not an OKW member, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I agree with the posters who say that it looks bad. I think that's the point of the people who feel offended. When a company markets a product, they don't want potential purchasers to get the impression that after they purchase the product, they will be treated worse than if they had rented the product. Irrespective of whether it actually causes a problem for DVC members (i.e., irrespective of the fact that most members might actually get the rooms they want anyway), it still looks bad. It stings even more for every member that has shelled out thousands of dollars in buy-in fees and annual dues only to find out that non-members get a preference.

Maybe there are great arguments for why Disney does it this way (I don't know enough about how CRO works to know whether that's true or not). I don't think the jilted members really care about those good arguments. They've gotten a negative impression from a policy that has affected them.

A guide wouldn't tell his suspects/prospects that this happens (assuming that it was happening at a resort the guide was selling at the time). I think that's a pretty good test for whether it should be happening at all.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm not an OKW member, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I agree with the posters who say that it looks bad. I think that's the point of the people who feel offended. When a company markets a product, they don't want potential purchasers to get the impression that after they purchase the product, they will be treated worse than if they had rented the product. Irrespective of whether it actually causes a problem for DVC members (i.e., irrespective of the fact that most members might actually get the rooms they want anyway), it still looks bad. It stings even more for every member that has shelled out thousands of dollars in buy-in fees and annual dues only to find out that non-members get a preference.

Maybe there are great arguments for why Disney does it this way (I don't know enough about how CRO works to know whether that's true or not). I don't think the jilted members really care about those good arguments. They've gotten a negative impression from a policy that has affected them.

A guide wouldn't tell his suspects/prospects that this happens (assuming that it was happening at a resort the guide was selling at the time). I think that's a pretty good test for whether it should be happening at all.

I wouldn't use the "guide doesn't tell you" as a test for whether something "should" or "shouldn't" happen. Guides don't mention the fact that there are CRO rooms most of the time, even if there are no DVC rooms. How many times do we see new members complaining of no DVC availability, but there is CRO reservations available? Lots.

People had "negative impressions" from the previously mentioned CRO upgrades at SSR last year...even though it didn't affect them. Negative impression doesn't necessarily equal actual impact. "Looking Bad" and actually "Being Bad" are two different things.

While perception is important to marketing, the reality of any timeshare is what is in writing, be it Disney, Marriott, Hilton or Four Seasons.

 

[LIFERBABE]

I'm not an OKW member, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I agree with the posters who say that it looks bad. I think that's the point of the people who feel offended. When a company markets a product, they don't want potential purchasers to get the impression that after they purchase the product, they will be treated worse than if they had rented the product. Irrespective of whether it actually causes a problem for DVC members (i.e., irrespective of the fact that most members might actually get the rooms they want anyway), it still looks bad. It stings even more for every member that has shelled out thousands of dollars in buy-in fees and annual dues only to find out that non-members get a preference.

Maybe there are great arguments for why Disney does it this way (I don't know enough about how CRO works to know whether that's true or not). I don't think the jilted members really care about those good arguments. They've gotten a negative impression from a policy that has affected them.

A guide wouldn't tell his suspects/prospects that this happens (assuming that it was happening at a resort the guide was selling at the time). I think that's a pretty good test for whether it should be happening at all.

I agree and if owners are not able to book, then no one should be able to book!

 

[dianeschlicht]

So what the heck happened to the "HH is a seperate guaranteed booking catagory" idea? Does that mean guaranteed only for CRO??? If so, Jim Lewis owes us an explanation! Yep, I'm feeling a little "second class" right now!

 

[AKV707]

So what the heck happened to the "HH is a seperate guaranteed booking catagory" idea? Does that mean guaranteed only for CRO??? If so, Jim Lewis owes us an explanation! Yep, I'm feeling a little "second class" right now!

He did write that in the final edition of Vacation Magic. And as I posted earlier, MS had the designation on my last OKW stay.

 

[Quiksilvr]

I wouldn't use the "guide doesn't tell you" as a test for whether something "should" or "shouldn't" happen. Guides don't mention the fact that there are CRO rooms most of the time, even if there are no DVC rooms. How many times do we see new members complaining of no DVC availability, but there is CRO reservations available? Lots.

I think you just proved my point. A guide probably should mention the problems with DVC availability, especially given the amount of complaints. When I was on my tour all I heard was "when you want, where you want, how you want" and when I asked about availability all I got were smiles and anecdotes about great rooms my guide has gotten at peak times. I read my contract carefully and understood exactly what I was purchasing, but I figured that with so many resorts, I'd be able to find somewhere to stay when I wanted to travel (my wife and I don't usually travel at peak times). I got turned on to DIS from a couple I met down in Orlando, came home, started viewing the site, and heard about all of the availability problems folks have, even at random times.

I'm a... lets call it a "legal professional" . I understand that the contract governs. I spend 60 hours a week with contracts of various types. (incidentally one major reason I love going to Disney... to get away from that!) That's why I don't complain in this forum or anywhere about my own experience with availability or other perks not defined in the contracts.

I'm not trying to get in an argument, but I think you took my post a little differently than I intended. The point of my post was to say that this creates a bad impression. Call it a bad taste in the mouth, whatever. Marketers spend a lot of time trying to prevent these things. When I stated that things like this shouldn't happen, I didn't say anything about what Disney is contractually required to provide. Apples and oranges. If Disney did only what our contracts require, a lot of people wouldn't have bought in. We all understand certain things can go away at any time, but that doesn't mean that perks and such can't be factors in whether we retain ownership. Just because something doesn't have to be provided doesn't mean it shouldn't be provided if it makes good business (or moral, I guess) sense.

Bad impressions can be bad for business. I was going to launch into examples of that, but that's kind of pointless since it's a pretty obvious point. If it wasn't true, spin doctors would be out of business. Based on a lot of the negative posts I've seen recently, it would seem that bad impressions for DVC members have become a rather low priority to the powers that be. Personally, I see that as a problem, regardless of what Disney owes me contractually.

 

[Chuck S]

He did write that in the final edition of Vacation Magic. And as I posted earlier, MS had the designation on my last OKW stay.

That is one reason I'm not overly concerned about this current "glitch." The software used to handle the category and it was probably overlooked when an upgrade was written. As often as MS seems to have to upgrade their software, it will hopefully be included in the next update. We all know how great the MS computer system is by all the glitches on the member website. Give them time, they'll fix the booking category eventually.

We know they'll have to do upgrades for GCV and Hawaii, maybe even for Kidani.

 

[drusba]

This is one of those dumb questions from a long-time member (BWV and now AKV) who does not usually pay much attention to threads concerning the specifics of OKW but found this one to be of keen interest because giving priority to CRO for room categories does not sound proper:

Can someone tell me what "HH" means?