Should DVC eliminate walking?

[Sandisw]

Plans do change, but not intentionally. There would be no reason to do so under the old system.

If it was the system today, I’d be booking many nights that I didn’t intend to use sol that I had time to make sure I had my plans set. Sometimes, I give myself a two or three week window to travel So, I’d book what I could and hold inights, especially if there were holes, until I got what I needed.

So, those that book knowing they can easily change we’re doing the same thing. Just in a different way.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Walkers have the same chance as all the other walkers now, and day by day had the same chance as alll the other day by day. back then,

In the old system, if you didn’t do day by day for hard to get rooms and waited until your real check out day, you could lose out,

In the new system, if you wait to the 11 month plus 7 day for your actual check in date you could lose out,

Both system has people who find a way around the guidelines. We will agree to disagree that the new system is a better one than the old

Not really the same because there is no limit how early you can start walking.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

If it was the system today, I’d be booking many nights that I didn’t intend to use sol that I had time to make sure I had my plans set. Sometimes, I give myself a two or three week window to travel So, I’d book what I could and hold inights, especially if there were holes, until I got what I needed.

So, those that book knowing they can easily change we’re doing the same thing. Just in a different way.

Well if you want to book extra nights there is nothing stopping you from doing that under any system, as long as you have enough points.

 

[zavandor]

Not really. Just like under the new system if you chose not to walk, you are counting on those days to be available for the days you need. A good assumption for most dates and room types.

Under the old system you could make the same assumption and wait until 11 months from your checkout day and book in reverse. Again, a feasible assumption of availability for most situations.
Day by day was never a requirement, but rather just an option for the hard to get reservations. Today’s system people walk. Old system people booked day by day. Difference is day by day everyone has an equal shot.

I am comparing what would happen with the old system for the hard to get reservations that require walking in the new system. Currently only maybe 0.1% of rooms may require walking. People who walk BWV garden view are just wasting their time, for example.
We do not care for easy to get rooms, booking by snail mail would work for those. Any system would be good.

We have to look only at hard to book rooms. Those that are currently walked and that with the old system would be booked day by day.
For those kind of rooms it would be a complete nightmare. In my example above I used 10:1 rate between owners and rooms, but even if just 15 people would like to book 10 rooms there is a high chance that no one would get the full reservation they want. A system like that would not work in the current times. And using the word fair is a stretch too, since a system that doesn't give anyone the reservation they want is not fair with anyone.
Demolishing all DVC resorts would eliminate walking too. Would you define it fair too?

 

[Chuck S]

Not really the same because there is no limit how early you can start walking.

Actually, there is, depending on your points and their respective use year. Remember, if you try to walk too early, and your use year hits, you would lose those points. Let's say you want a July travel date and have a June use year. It would be hard to walk that starting in May because you'd have to cancel dates within the timeframe you could not bank points, and you'd lose them.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I am comparing what would happen with the old system for the hard to get reservations that require walking in the new system. Currently only maybe 0.1% of rooms may require walking. People who walk BWV garden view are just wasting their time, for example.
We do not care for easy to get rooms, booking by snail mail would work for those. Any system would be good.

We have to look only at hard to book rooms. Those that are currently walked and that with the old system would be booked day by day.
For those kind of rooms it would be a complete nightmare. In my example above I used 10:1 rate between owners and rooms, but even if just 15 people would like to book 10 rooms there is a high chance that no one would get the full reservation they want. A system like that would not work in the current times. And using the word fair is a stretch too, since a system that doesn't give anyone the reservation they want is not fair with anyone.
Demolishing all DVC resorts would eliminate walking too. Would you define it fair too?

Well we will agree on this. Day by day under the old system was likely used when it didn’t need to be used. The same can probably be said about walking today.


The difference is day by day is not at the detriment of other members, while walking might be

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Actually, there is, depending on your points and their respective use year. Remember, if you try to walk too early, and your use year hits, you would lose those points. Let's say you want a July travel and have a June use year. It would be hard to walk that starting in may because you'd have to cancel dates within the timeframe you could not bank points, and you'd lose them.

I do understand your point, but that even makes walking more unfair. Now it depends on your use year if you can out-walk someone for a hard to get date.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I will say this... Even if DVC wanted to go back it would be impossible. The interface and transition could not work. Impossible to book backwards after folks already booked forwards.

 

[sethschroeder]

So walking would be okay as long as long as the reservation is not booked exactly at 11 months?

Guess what? Walkers will then just a book a stay a few days into the 11 month window to avoid the rule

I want Dec 1st to 8th. So, I start my walk on November 3rd, by booking Nov 1st to 8th...now I didn’t book at 11 months. I booked at 10 months and 29 days..And, now I move it so that the first day is always a fews days less than 11 months.

Problem solved and walking still happening!

ETA: I bring these situations up for only one reason,,,to show how many things would have to be decided by Disney to institute a change to the system.

So you now locked your points up 4x your week stay meaning you are not walking other rooms during that time.

If someone with 50000 points wants to walk a year that's fine they just locked up their points from being used elsewhere.

 

[Sandisw]

So you now locked your points up 4x your week stay meaning you are not walking other rooms during that time.

If someone with 50000 points wants to walk a year that's fine they just locked up their points from being used elsewhere.

Well, with 825 points..I could definitely book a room for a few weeks and still have points to book at times that don’t need to be walked.

That was my only point. Larger point owners have an advantage over someone with fewer points. Even if I only held a room for two weeks, and didn’t cancel until the cancel period, I would have held 14 nights, when I only need 4.

Now if I walk, I book 6 or 7 and then change every 5-6 days, which means instead of holding nights for long periods, I hold them for at most 6. And, to be honest, I usually change sooner so that those rooms are released and available for others!

 

[sethschroeder]

Well, with 825 points..I could definitely book a room for a few weeks and still have points to book at times that don’t need to be walked.

That was my only point. Larger point owners have an advantage over someone with fewer points. Even if I only held a room for two weeks, and didn’t cancel until the cancel period, I would have held 14 nights, when I only need 4.

Now if I walk, I book 6 or 7 and then change every 5-6 days, which means instead of holding nights for long periods, I hold them for at most 6. And, to be honest, I usually change sooner so that those rooms are released and available for others!

Except again if you want to leverage those points for covering 30 days to get to that 1 month modification time then go for it. It actually is a positive for a couple reasons.

• Other rooms would be open that you otherwise could be walking (4/5/6 rooms instead of just the 1 or 2)
• When you modify and drop 30 days all at once the person who entered in the wait list first can get their reservation filled for the full time (no needing to split your reservations and what not)

 

[Sandisw]

Except again if you want to leverage those points for covering 30 days to get to that 1 month modification time then go for it. It actually is a positive for a couple reasons.

• Other rooms would be open that you otherwise could be walking (4/5/6 rooms instead of just the 1 or 2)
• When you modify and drop 30 days all at once the person who entered in the wait list first can get their reservation filled for the full time (no needing to split your reservations and what not)

You think a better system would be to have large point holders hold rooms for a long time vs. walkers dropping rooms every few days? I guess I look at this as to whether or not changes to the system....and the more I read, the more I think there is no way to do it via the POS without making it apply to any and all reservations..makes sense to stop people from doing what they are doing.

The WL idea you came up with can be done now, so if someone goes on to book at the real 11 month window and its not there, they can put in a waitlist for all 7 nights...or how many they want. It would then fill when nights get dropped.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by less rooms...unless you mean because people with a low number of points can't walk, my holding nights for a long period is no big deal? For me, I wouldn't be holding more than one room...just would hold it longer if there was a penalty for canceling the first night booked prior to X amount of days.

I just can't imagine why anyone would want a system that has people holding rooms they don't want for longer periods. At least now, people do release rooms within a week, so all anyone has to do is wait a few days beyond 11 month window to get the room. If they are still not getting it, it means that the issue is more than walking....too many people wanting the same rooms.

But that is just me!

 

[bookwormde]

I do think that this needs fixed

My suggestion would be that if an 11 month preference reservation is cancelled within 10 days of the 11 month window opening that the points would have a special holding status for 15 days where they could not be used for a home resort preference reservation The coding to add this to the system would be relatively easy

 

[JETSDAD]

I do think that this needs fixed

My suggestion would be that if an 11 month preference reservation is cancelled within 10 days of the 11 month window opening that the points would have a special holding status for 15 days where they could not be used for a home resort preference reservation The coding to add this to the system would be relatively easy

Again you just benefit people with more points who can simply make and hold longer reservations.

 

[bookwormde]

Yes those with larger number of points have always had more flexibility, but this would cure 90% + of the issues, extending the hold period could pick up a few more.

DVC could also lock all points in an account but of course that would not stop those with multiple use years though to me that would be to invasive for the benefit

In the end demand adjustment by raising points on high demand reservations is the best solution, but DVD will not let DVC do that since low cost studios is how they "sell" DVC through comparison to hotel reservations cost

 

[JETSDAD]

Yes those with larger number of points have always had more flexibility, but this would cure 90% + of the issues, extending the hold period could pick up a few more.

DVC could also lock all points in an account but of course that would not stop those with multiple use years though to me that would be to invasive for the benefit

In the end demand adjustment by raising points on high demand reservations is the best solution, but DVD will not let DVC do that since low cost studios is how they "sell" DVC through comparison to hotel reservations cost

Right now, with the way booking is set, a person with the points to book 2 nights has the same ability to walk as anyone else. I don't have a lot of points but could still hold a few weeks of a value studio. I don't see how making a tiered system which favours larger point owners is an improvement.

 

[bookwormde]

Yes if you are willing to be on the DVC site right a 8am every day, and the increased chance of a miss.

I am not one to the the prefect get in the way of improvements

 

[zavandor]

Yes if you are willing to be on the DVC site right a 8am every day, and the increased chance of a miss.

I am not one to the the prefect get in the way of improvements

To walk just two nights you need to login once a day at any time, not necessarily right at 8am.

 

[Sandisw]

I do think that this needs fixed

My suggestion would be that if an 11 month preference reservation is cancelled within 10 days of the 11 month window opening that the points would have a special holding status for 15 days where they could not be used for a home resort preference reservation The coding to add this to the system would be relatively easy

It wouldn’t be about the system, but to the the rules as outlined in the POS that currently do not penalize unless you are less than 31 days.

So, any changes would have to be legally allowed and your suggestion is a big change to the way DVC was set up.

I definitely don’t think they can put in a rule that suspends the use of points from home resort as you suggest. If the reverted the original 2020 points charts with the pushback they got..which leads me to believe it was a shaky move...they’d definitely have a huge issue with this.

 

[bookwormde]

Since the ability to book multiple days ahead of the 11 month window was not in the POS at the time of sale, any restrictions that are a attached to that that "privilege" should be OK without impeding base POS rights, as long as they follow the FL statutory requirement that DVC be managed in the best interest of the majority of members.

If this was a base POS "right" if could not be infringed